Is All Fundamentalism Bad?

Christian Fundamentalism has been taking a lot of public criticism. In fact, fundamentalism of many, if not all, stripes is being looked down on for a inflexibility that has been causing much personal harm and injustice. And so fundamentalism is seen as a negative trait.

There is much anecdotal evidence that supports the negative reaction that fundamentalism receives. And so the label itself allows people to automatically dismiss or reject what a person or group might say if they are called fundamentalists. That automatic dismissal means that the actual fundamentals that a group adheres to are automatically ignored because of the label.

But instead of reflexively rejecting what a person or group is saying because they are fundamentalists, shouldn't fairness and intellectual integrity cause us to ask any fundamentalist what are the specific fundamentals they believe in before disagreeing with them? One would think so. For example, take the 3 core tenets of the French Revolution. They are liberty, equality, and fraternity. Nevermind the inconsistent employment of those tenets by those leading that revolution, if those tenets are one's fundamentals, then should one be looked down on for being a fundamentalist?

And so let's look at the fundamentalism I follow: Christian Fundamentalism. We should immediately note here that Christian Fundamentalists are not, as might be expected, a monolithic group. Way back in 2005, ZNet, the name of the site has been slightly modified since then, posted a letter of mine defending Christian Fundamentalism as an article (click here for the article). It is the only article of mine that they posted. I made the case that the fundamentals of the Christian faith do not imply support for any social injustice. Those fundamentals include what is involved in the recognition of Jesus Christ as being fully God and fully man, His mission on earth, His return, and the errancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures. The latter referring to the original documents containing the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the book of Revelation along with the books of the Old Testament. That that inerrancy included neither copies of manuscripts nor translations of any of the manuscripts into other languages. The logic supported this belief in inerrancy is to teach that what we can know about God's redemptive revelation about Himself must be revealed by God alone rather than discovered by man. It should be noted that these tenets form the original definition of Christian Fundamentalism and were used, and still work, to distinguish Christian Fundamentalism from Liberal Theology.

However, despite the fact that this fundamental tenet on inerrancy does not imply support for any social injustice, the belief in inerrancy seems to have caused support for practicing some social injustices such as those supported by Christian Zionism. And so injustices have been performed because of the belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures. And so, what gives? Why the disparity between the claim that the fundamental tenet on inerrancy does not imply support for social injustices and what we see in the world around us?

What gives is how the belief in the inerrancy of the original transcripts is applied by many of my fellow believers in Christ. To many of my fellow believers, to accept this tenet means that we must literally interpret the Scriptures as often as possible. In essence, this is an all-or-nothing approach to  interpreting the belief in the errancy of the original manuscripts. The good news here is that that approach has little, if any, support in Church history. The bad news is that many literal interpretations are valid. So how do we tell the difference when to accept a part of the Bible as being literally true and when to apply a more allegorical interpretation.

To illustrate one approach that helps us to tell the difference, I will refer to my current state of health, I am old. And I do not consider my olden years to be my golden years. Because of a conglomeration of events, I now need a cane to walk. I am hoping to see the day when I can, but not necessarily will, throw away the cane. I refer to that future day as: The Cane Mutiny. Anyway, the question becomes is whether or not my cane is a crutch. The literalist will always answer that it can never be a crutch because it is a cane. But those who would first consider the context of my health at the time will say 'yes' if I am using it when I no longer need to.

And so it is with certain parts of the Scriptures. Context can determine whether we should take a scripture passage literally. Take Genesis 17:9-13 which includes part of the covenant that God made with Abraham for example. That passage says (click here for the source):

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, including a slave who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A slave who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall certainly be circumcised; so My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. 14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Now compare verses 10-13 with what Paul says in Galatians regarding who is a descendant of Abraham according to this covenant:

Galations 3:6-9 (click here for the source)

6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer

And Galatians 5:1-6 (click here for the source)

1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

When Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, he was addressing a problem caused by some Jewish Christians who were in what was called the Circumcision Party. Because of what was written in Genesis 17:10-13, those in the Circumcision Party claimed if Christian believers were going to be counted as the descendants of Abraham, then Christians had to be circumcised according to the Abrahamic Covenant. In other words, these Jews were the literalists of their day when it came to interpreting the Abrahamic Covenant. So why wasn't Paul being a literalist? It was because the context had drastically changed from when the Abrahamic Covenant was made to the time after which Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. And because the context had changed, the meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant was applied differently and its true intent revealed. For the Abrahamic Covenant wasn't about the physical descendants of Abraham, it was about the children of the promise vs those of the flesh. In Romans 9:6-8, Paul also talks about these two sets of children. That convenant was about Christ and what made us become the children of the promise, the descendants of Abraham, rather than the children of the flesh. 

Now there are some fellow believers who, because of their insistence on literally interpreting the above part of Genesis say that there are now two groups of people who are people of God. But what Peter wrote in his 1st letter contradicts that claim. Peter wrote in I Peter 2:4-11 (click here for the source):

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,

And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A stone which the builders rejected,

This became the chief cornerstone,”

8 and,

“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;

for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this they were also appointed.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy

Note how, according to Peter, it those who believe in Christ who are counted as a 'holy nation' and a 'royal priesthood.' Those were descriptions God gave to Israel in Exodus 19. Then consider how Peter calls fellow believers 'the people of God.' Note that those who don't believe are not those things regardless of their ethnicity. And so here, 2 points should be made. First, we see a mix in the above passages of parts that are meant too be literally interpreted for today and those that are not. And second, though some might be offended by the exclusiveness of who is considered to be the people of God, it does not imply any support for practicing social injustices. That is because later on in the same chapter of I Peter, Peter instructs Christians to suffer persecution silently in the same way Christ endured his trial and crucifixion. And in another part of the letter he tells Christians not to dominate others. And so whether what is written above about taking Genesis 17 literally in New Testament times, which helps debunk Christian Zionism, or the call to suffer persecution as Christ did, which helps debunk Christians ruling over society, we see that the belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures does not imply support for or the practice of social injustices such as what we see in Christian Zionism or what we might see in a Christian ethnocracy such as Christian Nationalism.

Those fellow believers who, IMO, literally interpret the Scriptures when they shouldn't are often driven to do so by either their eschatology (study of the end times), their inability to fully see the correct relationship between the Old and New Testaments, or by a need to compensate for how liberal theologians interpreted most of the Scriptures allegorically or morally because those theologians did not believe in the diety of Christ and the supernatural realm described in the Bible. In terms of what is the correct relationship between the Old and New Testaments, the Old Testament was primarily about a veiled foretelling of Jesus Christ and his coming into the world while the New Testament tells us the story of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, a partial story of the Apostles, how to interpret His life, death, and resurrection in the Epistles, and an overall picture of the last days in Revelation. 

We also find that there are a variety of writing styles used in both Testaments. Those styles of writing can also indicate to us what parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally and what parts are not. But it is the inability to distinguish when to interpret the Scriptures literally from when not to that has, for the most part, made the label 'Christian Fundamentalism' a bad name because of how it has been used by some to support Christian Zionism or a Christian ethnocracy such as Christian Nationalism. What the New Testament instead calls us to is the reliance on both serving others and evangelism evangelism to spread the Gospel.

And so, again, as mentioned in the article cited above. there is nothing in the original definition of Christian Fundamentalism that supports or promotes practicing social injustices. I say that though appearances can be quite deceiving considering how many of us Christian Fundamentalists have often concluded that it is our duty to do otherwise.