A Convert to the Church attempts to put his convoluted thoughts down on paper Er, ink...whatever...
How God loves everyone, even those with no clue...
Published on April 27, 2004 By Jiggles In Religion

Now, I know how everyone loves to bash Christian Fundamentalists for various reasons and, quite frankly, I get sick of it. There are a few reasons why I am sick of it, although it is debateable whether I will get into them in this article.

First and foremost, I am not a Fundamentalist. Although (I use that word a lot) the term "Fundamentalist" is used for every religion and is hardly used in a positive way, I wish that society could separate the emotionally-laden term for a more objective, neutral term. It can be an effective rhetorical tool though (I like that word too). I am guilty of accusing people of being "Fundamentalist" too, and for that, I need to be more careful in the future, for the Church can defend herself through reason.

In this article, I wish to discuss the (uniquely?) American brand of Protestant, Christian Fundamentalism. Now, as Christianity Today recently claimed, Evangelicals (of whom Fundamentalists are usually classified as) are more favourable towards His Holiness than either Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson. If this is true, the media needs to pick up on this. Of course, with the wide-spread and growing movement of Evangelicals, any point of commonality and respect should be fostered. Though I have some severe reservations about the whole movement (let alone their third world "flock stealing") they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have no problems with them as persons. In fact, I am a member of a broadly Protestant (with strong Evangelical leanings) young adult group that attempts to live the Gospel more fully. May God bless their hearts (and mine as well). Love can do amazing things...

Yet, this paper is more about what annoys me about Fundamentalists (forever now known as FD's because I am sick of typing it out). The term needs further definition. First, they stick to the "fundamentals" in two aspects, they believe that the Bible is the inerrent word of God, that it speaks about every aspect of life, and that salvation only comes from professing Jesus as Saviour. I may also include the phrase "asking Jesus into your heart," although I do not know what that means specifically. So, with these two broad definitions about what I mean by FDs, let us move onto what I disagree with them.

One, I think that they are addicted to not defining what they mean by "inerrent." I also believe that the Bible is the "Word of God," although I tend to be more cautious in making personal, individual claims about what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible, like people, is a very complex book. It was written from a certain perspective, by a certain people, with an intended meaning, at a particular time. I think that it is the habitiual nature of biblical interpretation of people to put on blinders that annoys me. When I read the Bible, I do the exact same thing, so I do not fault others for doing it. What I can fault is what I percieve to be spiritual pride in singular person's interpretation of Scripture. I firmly believe that the Bible, like the American Constitution, or any written word, is a "living" document. We should not interprete it literally all the time, for two reasons. First, not everythin in the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally, and I know of no one who claims that everything is literal. For example, the book of Revelation and many of the prophetic books. Second, we tend to impose our own concerns on to the text. Sodom and Gamorah is commonly cited as opposing homosexual unions, but from what I have read, there was probably more going on there than what is usually attributed. It was not only homosexualty. Another issue is the (common) interpretation that the Anti-Christ opposes America, or that America is the "good guy" in Revelations. Poppycock. American history is filled with horrid abuses and I do not see the tend stopping suddenly even though we have a "God-fearing" man in office. If anything, I cannot help but admit a small amount of America supporting whole-heartedly the anti-Christian regime that may be in place, although how or if it will happen is a mystery to me.

Two, the mixture of equating politics with religion is unfaithful to the Gospels. True, Jesus' message will necessarily transmit into politics because He came to set all things new, His Kingdom is "not of this world." As I am reading "Witness to Hope", the biography of JPII, I am coming to realize that there is another way to combat evil in this world. It is not the reactionary use of the sword, but the revolutionary way of the Cross. Only through personal conversion and redemption can society be changed. That is the goal of both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical movement, and may God unite the Church again. Yet, I digress. The doggish determination that Christians can only vote "Republican" frustrates me. Frankly, I want neither Bush nor Kerry in office. I am a economic leftist (for the most part) and a social conservative (for the most part). Talk about confusing the issue there Jiggles...

Three, I refuse to believe that people who cannot proclaim Christ as God in this life are necessarily damned. I cannot comment on the soul of Ghandi or the Dali Lama, I can only trust that they may be saved with the Church Suffering. I can only live by my convictions that Christ is God, I cannot make people see the truth of that statement. I can only hope that unbeliever's be saved and that we both will cry before God, "I am not worthy to be called Your son, forgive me Father, a Sinner." That is not to say that I am an inclusivist or that every religion leads to God, far from it. I am just admitting my agnosticism about certain individuals.

In conclusion, for all that is wrong with FD's, my prayer is that I may love them more fully; that I may be made humble and to recognize my own brokenness. As Christ said, to pluck my own log out before I remove their speck.

Comments
on Apr 28, 2004
One of the things that makes it hard to understand Christian fundamentalists is that most people aren't aware of where the name, the doctrines and belief system of Fundamentalism came from. The Fundamentals These are a series of pamplets written in the early twentieth century in reaction to the liberal interpretation of the Bible, evolution and the social gospel. In addition they contain some prophesy of the future. Once written, they were given to every pastor at the time. That is why they had such an impact.

Very few people know about this articles, so I suggest that you read them and find out exactly what they have to say. Then you will be able to refute their positions more accurately and will be able to sort out what is true to their doctrines and what some ignorant followers attribute to fundamentalism.
on Apr 28, 2004
Thank you very much for the link to "The Fundamentals." I was aware of its existence, although I had never had the oppurtinity to read them. I will say that I am dissatisfied with the Reformers themselves, therefore, I can apply my critique of the foundations of Protestant theology to Fundamentalists.

I doubt most Fundamentalists have read those pamphlets though, and I do not care enough at this time to spend the time to read tham. I am tempted to begin reading some of the Papal Encyclicals soon, plus I was asked by a local Catholic youth group to discuss the Virgin, with me coming from a Pentecostal background and all...

Anyways, thanks for the info. I hope you will continue to visit and comment on my blog. Christ be with you.
on Apr 28, 2004
The Reformers dealt with different issues altogether. The reformers disliked the corruption and the emphasis on works in the Catholic Church, they also disagreed with the medieval view of the eucharist. Ironically, they created their own works mentality in the Protestant ethic. The Fundamentalists disliked the liberal criticism of the bible, evolution and the social gospel. So you really are dealing with two different movements. The only thing the two have in common is their high regard for scripture. The reformers through out tradition, an important loss. The fundamentalists by arguing with the enlightenment philosophical foundations of liberalism, put reason above the Holy Spirit, experience and tradition. (The Methodist Qualilineal.) The problem with most Protestants is that they assume that Christianity stopped developing with the writings of the New Testament. They don't realize how the church has continually needed to address the issues of the secular world.
on Apr 28, 2004
I find it interesting that you claim that Fundamentalists put reason above the HS, experiance and tradition, because most people accuse Fund. of not having reason. Perhaps you could develop this idea further?

I generally agree with you here though, especially your last two sentences. I do see the continual need for Christian responses to modern problems, and I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is dealing with "modernism." I do not agree with the complete removal of Christians from society though, as some may argue. One person who I think has some interesting ideas about religion and culture is Chuck Colson. He seems to be an "insider" as they say. He knows how the upper tiers of society works, having worked with Nixon.

I thank you for your responses Sherye.
on Apr 28, 2004
Stepping outside of actual definitions, I would have to say that in this day and age, when most people speak of "Christian Fundamentalists" they are actually speaking of those Christians who stick to the biblical teachings instead of adapting themselves to the social moralism of the general society.

I belong to no denomination and would consider myself a "Fundamentalist" in that:

1. I believe the bible to be the inerrant Word of God. This, by definition,means that being the Word of God the bible is without error of concept, idea, or content and is just as applicable today as it was when originally written. This also means that it is just as applicable today as it was then.

2. I follow what the bible teaches, including that salvation is accomplished through the sacrifice of Christ and the believing thereof.

Now, as to those people who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ, I have no good answer for that because the bible doesn't directly address the subject. (although there are some hints about it). I would like to believe that ours is a perfectly just and fair God who would not condemn a person because they never had the chance to accept or reject the Word. He must have some other plan for these people. This is where I may differ from the "Fundamentalists" you are referring to in your article.

After reading my comments to this point, I'm not entirely sure that I haven't somehow drifted off topic or even missed your point entirely. If so, I apologize. Just my reactions to what you wrote.

Good article.
on Apr 28, 2004
You know what, I have no problem if people go off point. Sometimes the point is not obvious until we walk the crooked path.

I agree with your first point Mason, in that the Bible is still relevant today. I find the Psalms and NT to be especially prevailiant. What I object to is the lack of definition of "inerrency" or "without error." If people do not define what they mean by those two phrases, they are either likely to be misunderstood or ridiculed. I want to foster people to think about what they mean by the words and definitions that they use. You have done an admirable job in your opening paragraph, probably a better one than I did, about what irks society about Fundamentalists. It is their refusal to bow down to the culture gods and submit. It is certainly something I admire about Fundamentalists.

If I remember correctly, all I am asking is for Fundamentalists to use caution, especially regarding Scripture. Now, a common trait among Foundamentalists (you may disagree with this part, but that is what makes you, you) is the unbelief in evolution. What I think many people (even outside Fundamentalism) fail to recognize is the philosophical underpinnings in the popular theory of evolution. That is what interests me more than the actual modern theory. Frankly, I am not a scientist, and I have no head for either biology, chemistry, or math, ergo, my knowledge of the subject is rather limited.

Another thing that popped into my head is the philology of specialization. To a scientist, "chance" in evolution has a different meaning than the popular usuage. Maybe it is all a grave misunderstanding on both sides?

I suppose I lament the apparant anti-intellectualism that Fundamentalism seems to embody.
on Apr 29, 2004
I think I follow what you are saying. Yes, the lack of intelligent thought and even a stronge anti-science sentiment does exist among a group of Christians that I find to be very disturbing.

As to the idea of evolution, I suppose I would have to ask what you mean by that term. If are mean that somehow life started entirely by accident and through some process species somehow evolved into entirely different species (macro evolution) I would have to say that I find that extremely hard to swallow for a number of reasons. If you mean the ability of species to adapt themselves to the changes in their surroundings (micro evolution) I would have to say that not only do I believe that to be the case but that it shows the creativity and genious of the Creator.

To some, "Evolution" (capital E intended) has become a religion. For these people reason and evidence are useless. If it contradicts the idea of macro evolution it must either be wrong, or it simply doesn't exist in their minds. No exceptions and no study allowed. This is just as absurd a mind-set as the creationists who refuse to study the ideas behind evolutionary theory. Actually if many did not only would they find it quite fascinating but it may lead them to a better understanding of the genious of creation.

Science, as in the methodical study of our universe is not the enemy. It teaches us a great deal and should be persued by all thinking people. Science, as the be-all-end-all religion that it has become for some people is fraught with problems and narrows the mind to the point that any evidence that does not support the theories or ideas of "accepted science" are ignored and rejected. For true science to take place, all evidence and data must be studied and, if needed, the theories and ideas adjusted or rejected. Sadly, many so-called scientists today fail to follow this basic precept of good science.

Now, I know for certain that I have wandered far off topic and politely shut up now.
on Apr 30, 2004
Since I claim to only have little to no science background (okay, grade 11 biology) I cannot comment intelligently on evolution. Although there seems to be what C.S. Lewis called "Scientism" within broader society. I do firmly believe that scientism dehumanizes people and is the cause of much of the world's misery.
on Apr 30, 2004
The Bible isn't inerrant in the modern sense. The numbers in many cases are symbolic. Ancient peoples did not understand math the way we do today. They didn't have the same respect for accurate counts. The story of creation was not refuting evolution but idolatry. The names for sun, moon and stars were replace with lights. The names for sun moon and stars are the names of gods. God was the creator. He didn't create other gods, but he created objects, animals and people. Most of the other objections of the fundamentalists are to the way that the modernists examined the Bible. By addressing this issue head on they made the debate between secularism and Christianity to be all about beliefs. Doctrine is important, but Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the authority of scripture are more important.

The fundamentalists are anti-intellectual, but they used reason rather than any other supports to argue their cause. The proofs for Christianity are the changed lives of Christians, the endurance of the saints, and authority of scripture. Our weapons need to be prayer and love, not arguments.
on Apr 30, 2004
Well as a preacher I must say the observations are interesting especially from those whp have never attended church. Thats like asking a custodian to give us an essay on brain surgery and then perform the operation. It will never work my friends. There is both "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge." Head knowledge is very intellectual but serves no purpose but heart knowledge come from having Jesus Christ become your saviour. When the spirit of Christ controls you the bible is easy to understand that a 4 yr old can receive Christ.

As for what a fundamentalist is, they simply believe in the whole bible and not just what feels good to the flesh. I hope this is of value.
on May 01, 2004
Except that I whole-heartedly disagree with the separation of "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge." If someone promotes an untruth or falsehood because of their heart, they are wrong. Now, I do not know about the church attendence of other people on this board, but I attend Mass once a week and a young adult group once a week. Basically, I attend twice a week. I think that is pretty good for someone who doesn't attend church at all.

And I do not think that Funamentalists believe in the whole Bible, let alone the parts that they are uncomfortable with, because they are humans. I rather thought I was being ecumenical and courteous towards Fundamentalists in my original article too. Evidently, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Kent Hovind are immensely wealthy, far moreso than I am. Heck, the pastor at the local Pentecostal church makes 80-90K a year, hardly a pauper. Yet, Jesus tells the rich man to sell his riches to enter the Kingdom.

Basically, you're assertion that Fundamentalists follow the whole of the Bible is cliched, tired, and blatantly untrue.