Category Archives: Fundamentalism

Two by Two, times Two.

Many of my friends and acquaintances on social media will note my reticence, up until this point, with regard to same sex union. I have always supported same sex union, according to the same theory that I use to support union of any two people for any deeply committed reasons. Unification, on principle, is a good thing, to me – at least, within the context of my capacity for human reasoning.

However, because of a childhood saturated and steeped in Christian Fundamentalism I have struggled for years with the cognitive dissonance that comes with that package; how do I maintain my relationship with devout, faithful, God-fearing family and friends, and publicly support something which I know to be in direct defiance of everything said sub-group of people would have me represent? Naturally, because there has never been an easy solution to that dilemma I have, typically, totally deferred by staying completely o.u.t. of the public conversation.

Today, the conversation has changed.

And, today, I am taken back to the time of Christ, and the subsequent period of years during which the Apostle Paul, subjecting himself to the Holy Spirit, solidified the Christian church.

The church vs. state debate, even among Christian groups, rages; marriage, believed to be ordained by God, is also a law of the state. As such, Christians are directed to give unto “Caesar” that which is his due, and to God, conversely? that which is the domain of Providence.

So, what say ye, when the law it be  a – changin’ ?

Are Christians to assimilate, or accommodate?

It has always seemed both fair and reasonable to me for any two or more people who want to commit to cohabitation to be allowed all the privileges of shared living: domain; insurance coverage; medical power of attorney, for themselves and each other; the works.

Now, the government declares marriage, as a binding law between agreeing parties, no longer discriminatory per gender. Divorce is still an option, under the same jurisdiction, yes? So, it seems that our government has decided to permit the survival of civil liberties, at least in the interests of preserving not love – which can never be controlled, thank you God – but, choice and, perhaps in the interests of social preservation, the survival of the household.

Why can’t everybody start by rallying around that, instead of the impasse of endless debate over belief systems, with their creeds, dogma, and other delineating confinements?

(I was going to touch on plural marriage in this piece, as well, but we all know that topic deserves its own template.)

At the very least this new law, while liberating an ever expanding percentage of the population, will provide a larger field of options – for both future children, and those currently in need – to enjoy stable, loving homes. I would hope that the most anal of alleged Christian apologists would see the good in that, and just shut up about the rest of it. Because the rest of it is really only the domain of the Almighty, anyway; you know, God being the only judge of human behavior, and all that.

Loving one another is all we are charged to do. My mother was fond of telling us all to “get busy”. Maybe we should.

I’d ask for an Amen, but I’ll be expecting an army of well-oiled resisters, instead. So be it. I’m backing off, now. God is more than ready.

.

p.s. and, for those fearless among us (although exclusively O.T. in its “thrust”), I suggest:  https://youtu.be/90_UlLSz6Nc

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo

6/26/15  All rights to every written word in this piece those of the author, whose name appears above this line. The video is from YouTube, author Matt Baume.

littlebarefeetblog.com

In Costume.

Last week, many of us watched as impending superhero arch-villain Ultron made his appearance at the Los Angeles premiere of the movie in which he would be so grandly introduced. Of course, the actor himself, the inimitable James Spader, was wearing yellow-tinted hornrims, an oversized charcoal grey suit jacket, and a white knotted tie with some red icons sprinkled across it. But, he described in characteristic detail his Ultron costume for the film: bands of velcroed techno-attachments, and a large, overhead pole bearing two antennae, at the ends of which were tiny cameras. The rest? For the viewers, computer-generated cloakery.

This is a particularly personal observation. I don’t expect anybody else to relate. Perhaps you’ll call it a purge. Just let me say it, and be done.

Not sure where human society got its penchant for entrenchment patterns. Don’t know why people with similar traits self-segregate. I just know it’s true because, from early childhood, I was watching. The Plymouth Brethren taught me how.

Borne in Dublin, Ireland, and then branching out to include the following led by John Nelson Darby, this self-generating Christian Fundamentalist sect was all about exclusive separatism. The objective being to establish the purety of “the Lord’s table” (meaning: the communion fellowship), the distorted belief held that, by raising the standard for selectivity, only those living lives of alleged sinless perfection would qualify.

Therefore, of its nature, and following the parallel of social patterns, those deemed most readily acceptable were first the ones whose carriage matched that of the determining few. Anglo-Saxon bearing, its physicality and mentality, were pre-eminent. Anthropologically speaking, ya hadda look the part and then ya hadda act it. And, best if you could imitate the Royals, albeit subconsciously.

Henry Sweet definitely fit. Short, broad shouldered, strong of profile and mind, he was invited by the panel of experts to join the local fellowship after migrating from the eastern end of the Commonwealth and appearing, in full form, as a street preacher. So also his wife, Mae, of saintly bearing and trusting countenance.

Mum was one of four sisters and, at least in all the photographs, the one with the purest face. Ironically, while she fit the picture, she dreamed of a life that burst the bubble and expanded the frame. Therefore, when Dad appeared, all handsome and dark and feisty and bold, she tore up the pattern into little bits and threw herself in his direction.

When their firstborn son came into the world, he was as princely as he could be. Miraculously, his gene expression had chosen to defer its more swarthy dominance; he had all the right colors – hazel eyes, sandy hair, small regular features, and intellectual precocity. And, he would grow to achieve a prominent place in the sectarian’s hierarchy.

Here’s where I come in.

From birth, I bore every insistent trait of my father: dark brown eyes and hair, olive skin, and the kind of active, expressive intelligence that knows no restraint. There simply wasn’t any other child in any of the rooms who looked anything like me. I was the gypsy, the starling, the odd one out.

You think me a tad preoccupied? You may. I will give you that.

But, on with the show.

Self-acceptance, they’ve been saying for a few decades now, is key to a successful social life and, probably, life in the workplace. One must celebrate one’s strengths, acknowledge and then improve on any weakness, and strive to accomplish, seeking solid relationships and worthy endeavor.

But, we are taught from birth to do exactly the opposite.

We have for our models those who teach us to select what is acceptable. We learn whether or not we fit from the time our ears are developed enough to hear “What a beautiful baby!” As soon as our eyes can see, we observe the directions people take, either toward or away from us. Our tactile sense picks up the accelerated heartbeat of fear and uncertainty, our chemistry the signals of alignment or incompatibility. And, we begin to mirror all these. We behave towards others as those closest to us behave toward us.

I’ve been wearing costumes as far back as I can remember. The one that attempted to match the family of Anglo Saxons, and their precise, daily ways. Later on, the one that more closely resembled what I saw in the mirror. Neither one was really the girl who wore the clothes.

Nakedness becomes some. There are bodies that bear such a natural aesthetic you’d almost weep at the sight of them. Mine is not one of those. Perhaps yours is. One thing is certain: I know how to recognize truth and beauty.

Somewhere, somehow, I got that part right. In fact, my comfort is found within, whenever I look out at the world around me. What I see in you brings both awe and inspiration, pleasure and wonder, to my eyes. So, if you feel me watching, just go about your business. Wear whatever costume you need. But, know that I am truly glad you’re in the room, because I see who you really are.

.

.

.

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo

4/21/15   All rights those of the author, whose name appears above this line.

littlebarefeetblog.com

EXTREMELY.

(first draft, published 1/13/15, edited 1/18/15)

************

What is “extremism”?

And, whence its children?

Society, it is said, is like a fabric. People weave themselves into place, grouping according to belief and cultural history. But, whether political or religious, once borders are defined and claimed, inevitable fringes form. Why? Is this simply evidence of a pattern that has not been cut on the bias?

I was raised in an exclusive, sectarian Christian fundamentalist fellowship, born in the mind of one John Nelson Darby, a defected Anglican priest. Known as the Plymouth Brethren, because Darby’s following was rooted in Plymouth, England, what was essentially a cult  – reaching American shores in the mid-1800s – defined every breath I took from birth until graduation from college at age 25.

Humorist, author, and radio personality Garrison Keillor was also raised in this sect, although his references to it are veiled and fleeting. The total membership, loosely-so-called, of the Plymouth Brethren world wide probably never numbered more than a few thousand at its height.

In spite of this relatively miniscule societal representation, its governing few would rise in the ranks of the scholarly to publish a sizable collection of Scriptural commentaries so deeply doctrinaire that much of this library would lay the groundwork for the teachable tenets of the General Association of Regular Baptists’ ever-expanding seminaries.

Of course, the bliss of being part of a subculture in childhood is that trust is at the heart of everything. Dogma which labels all on the inside as “safe” (or, “saved”, per their qualifying as true believers) renders all on the outside in quite stark, clarified terms: the “lost”; the “world”;  the “damned”; and, strongly suggests that, if one is saved, then one has been rescued from an environment which is hostile in every conceivable way.

Yet, when one comes of age, and takes that first, furtive step outside of the city walls, so to speak, should one discover anything sweet, warm, welcoming, or apparently “good”, one is quickly reminded that satan is the angel of light, the great deceiver, and that now would be the time to return “home” before it gets truly dark.

Thus, the cycle begins.

And, dramatic it is.

And, so, such a child learns that, above all else, life is about drama. Every choice is addressed earnestly, with a sober mind and obedient heart. Every experience is visceral. There is no grande ritual to keep reaction at arm’s length. There are no “small things”; at any point, one could be snatched by the most disarming subtlety and set adrift, anchorless, unmoored, completely carried away. Any and all notions of “freedom” in such a context strike nothing but acute fear into the heart.

Perhaps societies are simply the macrocosm of the human cell. Once completely mature, all its components in fully developed function, the cell becomes restless; a strong, mysterious pull, followed by movement toward the opposite edges of its inner membrane by those bits which drive the inevitable process, and the cell begins its fragmenting trek toward division. It behaves as if driven to make two of itself, which is exactly what it does.

In fact, the Plymouth Brethren, once defined by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica as a non-denominational religious group “characterized by schism “, became just such a living metaphor. Indeed, their essential “cell” was never stable for more than a decade or so and, if one were haplessly born in the middle of any such ten year period, one would live out at whatever distance one’s perspective afforded at least one, major division.

I was such a child. Born in 1957, I would grow to witness both a rare merger, a reconciliation and allegedly joyful reunion of two offshoots which had come to doctrinal resolution, and two more divisions yet again before reaching my critical point of exhaustion with the whole enterprise. But, what happened in the middle would come to describe my whole life experience, creating in me a world view which was as bewildering as it was destabilizing.

You see, I do not choose such dramatic language deliberately. Rather, everything which happened could only be characterized using the lexicon of the thespian. Every personality was subject to scrutiny; every word and deed a matter of ultimate discussion. Each countenance bespoke its inner life. Each costume was carefully prepared to reflect prescribed notions of what was considered becoming to a living saint. If there were any levity, each episode would be either comparatively brief or permitted only after arduous hours at the altar of worship, ministry, and self-sacrifice. And, lest this scenario seem other-worldly in its harsh depiction, keep in mind that this was how my inner life translated what was happening around me. Remember: things are rarely what they seem, and this was never more true than amongst the closed assemblies of the Plymouth Brethren.

So much detail. Such analysis. Layer upon layer of behavior, always subject to an unspoken, never formally acknowledged, austere leadership. If a heirarchy formed, the term was whispered about by its women, who were otherwise kept strictly silent. God would forbid such assumption of any power; yet, power there was, in abundance, and held as close to the vest as an armor plate by the one or two who managed to persuade the entire collective to take a single step in any direction.

Hence, my emotional and psychological growth, as imperceptible now to me in retrospect as it was then, was utterly subsumed by this system of spiritual governance. I had the “double whammy” of being born a girl, placed in a brother sandwich, and raised to become some version of a woman living in a body and mind that was not my own.

So, when I observe the behavior of those labeled “extremist” in present-day culture, I experience a form of recognition. I see the zealots; I hear the cries. I feel the passion, emboldening the anonymous with meaning. I know their drives, their panic, their crazed determinations. Theirs is a duality, of powerlessness and barbarism, embodying rage and delusion. Belief drives them, and reason cannot. They are the mobilized discarded. Their weapon is terror, the quickest way to be seen and heard, because they look inside themselves and find nothing. In living paradox, they annihilate their bodies in an attempt to claim an ultimate identity.

So, what is a lucid, responsible global citizenry to do?

As an American society, we must protect our vulnerable, those we call our “own”, from all monsters. We should know by now that changing the structure of a society will not change its mentality. But, mutations are occurring all over the sphere. Cells are both forming, and dividing, all around us with the rapid replication of a torrid malignancy. If we do not take the necessary steps to neutralize them, the tumors will overtake us. And, we need some preventive medicine, to save our children.

.

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo 1/13/15 all rights reserved. Thanks.

About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here.