HS103 blog entry 8 (Response to 'Globalized Identity')

Christian fundamentalism is a movement that opposes liberal interpretation and practice of Biblical doctrine, and encourages a return to strict and literal interpretations of doctrine. It is a movement that has no clear central leadership or themes; some Christian fundamentalists keep their strict way of life within their own society or individually, whereas others engage actively in politics and some even openly criticize and oppose people of other faiths. Despite their differences, what Christian fundamentalists seem to have in common is the promise of a return to ‘better times’, where society was supposedly more stable and cohesive, and people were more ‘moral’ as opposed to the lawlessness and deviance that they associate with the dominance of extreme liberalism. My question today is whether or not this is indeed true. Has Christian fundamentalism led to greater social cohesion? I wish to examine divorce rates in these states.

There is an often used adage in Christian circles that ‘families that pray together, stay together.’ However, the Barna report, a study on divorce rates interviewing 3,854 adults in 48 states, concluded that divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than those of non-Christians, especially Atheists and Agnostics (Report on U.S. divorce rates, Jan 2008). Non-denominational churches and Baptist churches with fundamentalist theologies experienced rates of divorce at 34% and 29% respectively, whereas the Lutheran and the Catholic churches experienced only a 21% rate of divorce among the participants surveyed. The Lutheran church is an example of a mainstream church that espouses values significantly less conservative than those of fundamentalist churches. The Catholic churches may not be such a good comparison as many churches do not actually give formal recognition to divorce.

The bible states in both the Old and New Testaments that divorce is not to occur unless the grounds are those of adultery. If indeed, fundamentalist churches follow such interpretations strictly, why should the divorce rates of this group be so much higher than those of other, more liberal religious groups? My belief is that a return to fundamentalist interpretations can no longer facilitate a return to a time when rates of divorce were lower, and that in fact such rates are not an indicator of healthy cohesion in family units; they are instead indicative of the repression of women by consensus on religious doctrine. For instance, a strict, literal interpretation of the bible means that women must tread quietly in church and not make a ‘nuisance’ of themselves. Furthermore, the elements of patriarchy inherent in Biblical texts would become emphasized to an extreme if given a legalistic interpretation. Such edicts find themselves at odds with both modern values of equality and modern realities of women who are gaining equal ground next to men as opposed to the restrictive lifestyles of traditional women. Fundamentalist approaches no longer have any logical appeal in the face of arguments for gender equality, and their insistence on traditional views of subservient women only aggravate domestic situations rather than supporting them.

In conclusion, I believe that a return to traditional and fundamentalist approaches to religion do not necessarily yield the benefits that are promised. The clashes with modern views about marriage, relationships, and equality in fact deepen conflicts in family units.

Reference list

B.A. Robinson. (2008) U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups, and geographical areas. Retrieved on 6 October from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm