fundamentalism: a foreign (?), but surprisingly relevant concept in Finland?

[cimorene]

Today in class, the lecturer made this speech:

"In first grade my daughter was taught that the universe started with the Big Bang and everything, but then in second grade religion class she was taught that God said 'Let there be light' and all, and she was like, 'I don't really get how these two things go together.'"

She elaborated that that is the typical age at which children are taught Genesis at public school, provided that they (like the vast majority of Finns) are members of the state Lutheran church (despite the fact that Finland is a vastly areligious and non-churchgoing country, mind)¹.

Shocked, I asked wasn't it true that Lutherans were taught that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally? The teacher just looked at me blankly. Because they're not actually fundamentalists, and it's fundamentalists who take it literally? I said. She still seemed confused, and could only offer that there are different people who interpret it with different amounts of literalness. Naturally, but I was taught that the whole POINT (like, salient feature) of fundamentalism was taking as literally true things that according to the doctrines of older classical Christian denominations... weren't considered to be (such as creating the universe in exactly one week, and the world being 6000 years old, and pi being 3 exactly). So I was kind of in a state of culture shock.

I was determinedly inattentive to Christian mythology as an Atheist, half-Jew child; but I have vague theoretical knowledge of these different sects, mostly historical, that encompasses their basic Thing, like Catholicism = the Pope and the Trinity and the saints damn near verging on the polytheistic at times; and Episcopalian = Henry VIII's divorces; and Martin Luther = transubstantiation, the Lutheran work ethic, the Bible in German (?); and Presbyterianism = hardcore predestination, etc. I don't care super much about such differences, but it passed before my eyes in European history a couple of different times and was occasionally interesting. And I really thought that your typical Christian denomination has an official doctrine, comparable to the Vatican's but usually not as determinedly stupid and backward, and wouldn't that lay out how literally or not the Bible is to be taken? Because it's not like that doesn't make a difference.

Then she capped it all off with this:

"Whatever it's called--Fundamentalism--I don't know what that might be, if that's what you call it."

-_- So now I'm like, okay, can ANYTHING she says about religion be trusted? Or is the question of whether you take the mythology literally or not really that foreign to the Finnish notion of religion? Or is she simply so unfamiliar with the concept of fundamentalism (or indeed crazy USA-style Christians by any other name) that she was thinking I meant that Lutherans don't literally believe Jesus to be the son of God or something, instead of that they perhaps don't literally believe that it took God exactly six days to create the universe?

Although it wasn't as gobsmacking as the time at ÅA a few years ago in Folkloristics when we were supposed to be having a lecture on (yes, really, no lie) anthropological methodology and the lecturer didn't know who Jane Goodall was...

1. She also remarked that she didn't know how parents could respond to such a tough question, and I am also puzzled by that. How the teacher could respond, yes, that's something that you could legit agonize over, not that I would, but a parent? Simply telling the child which one the parent believes is probably perfectly adequate, though not as good as a complete basic explanation of the issue, which also isn't that hard to do. By grade 2 most children are well able to handle the concepts of 'fictional story', 'true story', and 'belief', even if their understanding isn't complete.

Comments

[laughingrat]

That seems so bizarre, but then again I live in the US, where there are right-wing fundies behind every corner (not behind every tree; they've cut them all down) and where, even if you can't or won't talk about Christian fundamentalists, the news media obligingly spews scaremongering about Muslim fundamentalists. Do they not talk about terrorism in Finland?

[cimorene]

You'd think the news would provide a good concept of 'fundamentalist' but I'm thinking from my knowledge of the local media that perhaps, thinking that concept wouldn't make sense, they simply translate it as 'extremist'.

What the US media calls 'Islamic fundamentalists' aren't taking the writings of Mohammed literally anyway; they're typically going on pre-Islamic cultural mores and also exaggerating them in a crazy way.

[laughingrat]

Yyyyyeah, that is true, I mean, but there's plenty of crap they twist from canon scripture to back themselves up. I mean, they think of themselves as fundamentalists. Kinda like Westboro Baptist, if you can call what they do "thinking."

[pineapplechild]

I am making a face of "I should expect this from people by now, but for some reason I don't."

It's an elaborate face that involves a lot of furious eyebrow manipulation. By which I mean, I roll my eyes.

I know I've had a tonne more Church history then most do, but I feel that there are some gaping logic holes in that all on its own.

[bluesbell]

The trouble is, you can't take the concept of fundamentalism and find exactly the same phenomenon to apply it to when it comes to Christian extremism in Finland. Different terms mean different things in Finland and the US when referring to religious groups. The Christian fundamentalists here aren't a neat group you could point at and say "Ok, those guys are the fundies while over there we have the non-literal Lutherans". Many of the fundamentalist groupings and traditions are affiliated with/exist within the main Lutheran church, so there's a huge range of beliefs and views there. This is what your teacher meant by different amounts of literalness.

[damned_colonial]

Worth noting that this also occurs in the Church of England (and the various other churches in the Anglican communion incl. Episcopalian churches in the US, Anglican Church of Australia, etc.) -- the division is called "Low Church" vs "High Church" with the former tending Calvinist and the latter tending Roman Catholic in matters of liturgy, church architecture and decoration, vestments, and various other practices (eg genuflection, saints, etc). But it's all referred to as one denomination.

[cimorene]

Ah, perhaps her knowledge of American fundamentalism is vague enough, or the question surprising enough, that she simply wasn't able to phrase that clearly.

[ria]

Speaking as a way lapsed Catholic here, admittedly, but I agree that the concept of fundamentalism may be slightly different outside the US. While the Irish State and Church haven't been separated for even a century yet, the amount of influence the Church has in politics has dropped drastically (apart from issues like gay marriage where they obviously make their opinions heard loudly).*

Our Christian right in politics, for example, wouldn't be as immediately recognisable because (even though they do exist) the majority of the country comes from a similar religious upbringing. I distinctly remember reading children's science books about evolution and the Big Bang while being taught Genesis and other excerpts from the bible in school. I think I accepted religion as something I was expected to listen to, but if you asked me where we came from, I would say we were descended from apes. It was a very strange balancing act.


* Granted, I think the Church's influence is still prevalent in my parents' generation, since we have recent laws like being fined if someone overhears your blasphemy and reports you for it. Then I tend to headdesk and despair for the future. Only in Ireland.

[daegaer]

Back in primary school I distinctly remember having a science workbook that discussed evolution and other scientific theories - that would have been in either 1973 or 74 (can't remember if it was the 3rd or 4th class book). Despite being from a keen-on-Bible-reading denomination, I never, ever came across a Biblical literalist till I was in my teens (this was of course after confirmation), and no one could take her seriously. This was in a young person's Bible study group, by the way. Not even the minister could take the literalism seriously. In secondary school there were a couple of RE teachers (in sequence, not at the same time) who seemed kind of fundie. They didn't last. No, they didn't last long at all.

[ria]

Oh, I didn't come across a literalist until I was twenty, when I learned one of the Americans I lived with then was a Creationist. Apart from my immediate "bwah?" reaction (we'd been drinking), we wisely didn't start discussing it. But I remember being utterly shocked because I'd never met anyone who took the bible so literally before. Her mother was a hard-core Lutheran, but my housemate was very liberal about many other things, and then putting that and her religious beliefs together--even though I obviously respected them--made my head hurt.

I was taught religion (and, oddly enough, Junior Cert French--and almost failed it) by nuns in secondary school, but it was when we had our first lay person for Leaving Cert religion that we started having decent discussions. We were using books several decades out of date, of course, so I had an Angry Moment when we came to the homosexuality section. Thankfully, she was all, "Yes, this is several years out of date, the Church says the gays must deny their feelings, but that's wrong."(I'm paraphrasing slightly.) I remember thinking, Oh good, I won't have to unintentionally out myself by expressing outrage.

Don't know how that class would have gone if a nun had taught it.

[mecurtin]

I just learned that the Big Bang theory was first developed by a Jesuit priest. He was always careful to be strictly a-theistic in his physics, but obviously strong religious beliefs were no barrier to thinking.

[aethel]

I don't know. I'm just boggling at religion class.

[cimorene]

Typical for countries with a state church of course. Non-members attend an unreligious life philosophy class instead. The minimum required number of a minority denomination in a grade level to get their own class is 3, according to the lecturer (Finland contains a sizeable minority of Orthodox and crazy right-wingers called Word of Life as well as tiny minorities of immigrant Muslims).

The reason she brought it up was that the Minister of Education is pushing to drastically decrease the amount of time spent on it in favor of more time on the arts and other non-academic, pre-technical school subjects/electives. Actually, I don't think learning about world religions would be wasted time at all, considering how ethnically homogenous and geographically insulated we are in Finland, since they usually fail to get any remotely appropriate amount of knowledge about OTHER religions even equivalent to what I learned in public school in Alabama, the second-worst state for public school in the country, simply in World History without even a religion class. I do think that any time learning about their own religion is pretty wasted since they have to go to a special, outside-of-school class for confirmation anyway, and if they don't wish to be confirmed they can certainly learn as much as they need to about the religion by osmosis. Obviously, the conservatives are heavily against this idea, and we were forced to read a letter to the editor last night that made my blood boil so much that I covered the paper with angry hand-written "WTF" and scribbled rebuttals.

[daegaer]

RE is also found in countries without a state church, like Ireland. In primary school, anyone at all can be excused (and it was mainly learning Christmas carols and having Bible stories read to us, from what I remember). In secondary school it was much the same, with a secular "guidance" class as well. Now Religious Studies has become a subject on the state exams, and is a comparative religions and world religions course, with a very, very broad syllabus (Irish humanities subjects for secondary school have immensely broad curricula, that no school could ever cover in their entirety. The idea is that schools and individual teachers can cover the compulsory parts and then tailor the rest of the course to the needs/abilities and resources of the pupils and teachers).

[cimorene]

That's what I wish they would do here.

[ria]

I was on a tram into work last December and overheard three girls cramming for what I presumed was their Christmas Religion exam. Listening to their questions and answers, it was kind of crushing to realise that religion class had finally become interesting after going off to university. XD

[aethel]

It's true that a world religion class in elementary school would have forestalled a lot of confusion on my part. Apparently Christians are really into Jesus? But they're also monotheists??

[cimorene]

Lots of Baptists and the like claim that Catholics aren't real Christians because they worship Mary. Many's the time I have explained to a Southerner that yes, Catholics really are Christians.

[ria]

Wow, that's... I didn't actually realise that!

[cimorene]

Although it's not in the doctrine, to be fair, historically there has been some question of goddess-Mary in Catholicism (to say nothing of the treatment of the saints in some varieties)! I still remember when my mom did a really cool research project on mediæval Black Madonnas when she was in grad school.

[morningfine]

You asked about a point over which Lutherans are divided. There is no official doctrine, as far as I know: historically, Lutherans read the Bible literally but these days whether that should be done is contested. Personally I've known people with a wide range of degrees of literalness, all within one congregation--like Bell said, the people with fundamentalist views aren't separate from the main church. There are some groups that have made national news that have orthodox views, mostly about ordaining women, but I have the impression their reasoning isn't often reported on so whether the average non-religious person gets that they're religious fundamentalists is anyone's guess. (Which maybe doesn't apply to your teacher, I don't know.)

[cimorene]

She did mention them but seemed uncertain as to whether they were fundamentalists.

So, okay, I was totally taught wrong, or rather what I was taught about Lutheranism in the US doesn't apply to the independent Lutheran churches of Finland and wherever, but I still think it doesn't really make sense. That means they barely even have a doctrine, aside from "O HAY GUISE, READ THESE" with a list of certain approved books of the Bible! I suppose it makes historical sense for them to expand to include all the varieties of denominational differences that would exist as separate churches elsewhere, if they historically didn't even allow any other churches.

But it still doesn't make sense for them to teach Genesis in primary school without explicitly explaining the difference between science and religion and the fact that the latter is generally presumed by the vast majority of Finnish/European Christendom/the country/the scientific community to not be taken literally. In fact, it's shockingly irresponsible from my point of view.

[daegaer]

It could be that things are just different - I know I was rather surprised (to be diplomatic) at the extreme levels of batshittery about literalism in my American ex's family. There we were, all of allegedly the same denomination, more or less, and they were pretty much ranting about my evil atheism over dinner. I had to believe such-and-such and so-and-so! Meanwhile I, who had considered myself to be mainstream, was discovering that apparently using a brain to think with was a sin - which went against things my great-grandfather had been taught in his youth in church in Scotland. In the 19th century.

Also, as a Presbyterian, I was never, ever taught anything about predestination. The most that was ever said about it, to my knowledge, was one particular minister (and this guy was more of a biblical literalist than most of the ministers my church had) who suggested that predestination was God's knowledge of how one would exercise free will, not being saved or damned from the first moment on. And that was all that was ever said.

[cimorene]

When we learned that about predestination in world history it was in the context of the central issues at the time that its founder, whoever it was, split off and started his own denomination. It makes sense that that is the thing we focus on when learning about the founding of new churches as a series of historical events. However, I've discussed predestination with several Presbyterian friends raised in the US and it certainly did enter into what they were taught.

[daegaer]

Oh, yes - it was made perfectly clear to me by my ex's parents that I was damned. However, like you, I'd only ever come across predestination in history classes, as one aspect defining Calvinist churches from others during the Reformation. In the practice of my actual Calvinist religion, nothing.