![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.comOur previous discussion on the pervasiveness of the medieval mindset in the modern world brought up an interesting attitude that could be characterized as either a willful ignorance of medieval thinking or a naive assumption that medieval thinking simply no longer exists. Perhaps some further consideration of the topic would help. For example, pseudo-modernist John Meier's perspective on fundamentalism makes the assumption that fundamentalists approach sacred literature from a modern perspective and misinterpret it due to a lack of contextual information. What he fails to see is that modern scholars do a better job of putting sacred literature into context than he does because his ultimate mission is to discredit modernism in favor of medieval thinking.
Fundamentalists cannot be considered modern because they have yet to make the transition to modernity. Their rejection of advances in understanding such as evolutionary theory and set theory point to a profound antipathy with modernity that could be characterized as medieval zealotry. Their inability to put sacred literature into a historic context does not reflect modern naivety. Instead it reflects a zealous rejection of any ancient literature other than sacred texts. This rejection is the same as the orthodox rejection of Pagan culture at the dawn of medieval Christianity.
The same kind of rejection can be seen in Meier's rejection of scholarship based on a deep understanding of Pagan culture. Meier even goes so far as to deny the possibility (or probability) that Jesus spent time in Sepphoris, a city quite close to Nazareth thought to have a significant degree of cosmopolitan influence. It seems that his rejection of the idea of Jesus spending time in Sepphoris is based on an urge to isolate Jesus from Pagan influence. This disagreement with modern speculation puts Meier in a medievalist camp much closer to the fundamentalists he criticizes.
For another example, the papacy is itself a medieval institution. One of the key distinctions between modernists and medievalists is the rejection of papal authority by the former, although fundamentalists could be considered medievalists who also reject papal authority much the way that Eastern Orthodoxy rejected it. As long as people revere papal authority and idolize sacred literature, medieval thinking will persist. The former could be considered a Western medievalism while the latter could be considered an Eastern medievalism.
The political implications of persistent medievalism cannot be understated. German National Socialism is the most prominent back-lash against modernism that we know of. The bullying of homosexual youth in American society can also be debited to medievalism. The tendency to use brutal interrogation and punitive methods also marks the persistence of the medieval mindset.
Are you willing to rethink your position on medieval thinking?
Links: Reza Aslan on modern speculation about the life of Jesus. John Meier criticizing modern speculation and fundamentalist limitations.
Fundamentalists cannot be considered modern because they have yet to make the transition to modernity. Their rejection of advances in understanding such as evolutionary theory and set theory point to a profound antipathy with modernity that could be characterized as medieval zealotry. Their inability to put sacred literature into a historic context does not reflect modern naivety. Instead it reflects a zealous rejection of any ancient literature other than sacred texts. This rejection is the same as the orthodox rejection of Pagan culture at the dawn of medieval Christianity.
The same kind of rejection can be seen in Meier's rejection of scholarship based on a deep understanding of Pagan culture. Meier even goes so far as to deny the possibility (or probability) that Jesus spent time in Sepphoris, a city quite close to Nazareth thought to have a significant degree of cosmopolitan influence. It seems that his rejection of the idea of Jesus spending time in Sepphoris is based on an urge to isolate Jesus from Pagan influence. This disagreement with modern speculation puts Meier in a medievalist camp much closer to the fundamentalists he criticizes.
For another example, the papacy is itself a medieval institution. One of the key distinctions between modernists and medievalists is the rejection of papal authority by the former, although fundamentalists could be considered medievalists who also reject papal authority much the way that Eastern Orthodoxy rejected it. As long as people revere papal authority and idolize sacred literature, medieval thinking will persist. The former could be considered a Western medievalism while the latter could be considered an Eastern medievalism.
The political implications of persistent medievalism cannot be understated. German National Socialism is the most prominent back-lash against modernism that we know of. The bullying of homosexual youth in American society can also be debited to medievalism. The tendency to use brutal interrogation and punitive methods also marks the persistence of the medieval mindset.
Are you willing to rethink your position on medieval thinking?
Links: Reza Aslan on modern speculation about the life of Jesus. John Meier criticizing modern speculation and fundamentalist limitations.
