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.

Christian Fundamentalism And Culture

In a very short article on the Gospel Coalition blog about evangelical history, the contributors to the article contend that Christian Fundamentalists have consistently engaged with culture rather than have withdrawn from it (click here for the blogpost). They quote from a book by Matthew Avery Sutton to make their point. And for as long as they don't try to pin a percentage of those Fundamentalists who are trying to shape culture, the statement is correct. The results of their efforts, however, are mixed.

A recent Washington Post article (click here) claimed that conservative Evangelicals, which certainly includes at least some, if not all, Christian Fundamentalists, are proving the criticisms of their opponents to be correct. What are those criticisms? That conservative Evangelicals want a theocracy in America. One piece of proof of their criticisms is found in the support of Trump by many of these same conservative Evangelicals. Though the article really overstates the reality there, support for Trump is a cultural engagement. In my view, it isn't an welcomed one.

And yet, if we believe in Democracy, we shouldn't wish that the voice of any group to be silenced. So while the support for Trump of some, certainly not all, Christian Fundamentalists is reprehensible, their participation in culture via their political participation is necessary in a functioning Democracy. 

At the same time, every group that participates in a functioning Democracy must ask itself this question: How are we going to share society with others? The right answer to the question is "as equals." Unfortunately, values from our economic system which put a premium on competition oppose that answer. In fact, many Christian Fundamentalists also disagree with that answer but for a different reason. And because many, but not all, Christian Fundamentalists are not working to share society with others as equals, their participation in culture is becoming more and more an object of scorn. At the same time, Christian Fundamentalists can rightly charge members of other groups of being guilty of making the same mistake.

The Post Modernism reaction to the attempts at controlling culture made by Christian Fundamentalists is to deny what Christian Fundamentalists believe about God. Why? Because Post Modernism employs an outcome-based truth system where if people who hold to a belief or system of beliefs do something that is clearly wrong or disapproved of, then their beliefs must also be wrong. Thus, because of how religion in general has contributed to the starting and continuing of wars and the marginalization of others, Post Modernism says that religion can't be true. What follows is the dread of the participation in culture, especially in politics. of many who hold to religions beliefs, such as Christian Fundamentalists, by those who have been significantly influenced by Post Modernism.

And so such is our dilemma. On the one hand we oppose how certain groups want to influence culture, especially how they push for certain political positions, while we must be enthusiastic supporters of their participation in the system if we believe in Democracy on the other.



 

ONIM For June 20, 2016

Christian News

• Charleston Church Marks A Year Since Devastating Shooting -- Christian Today (UK)
• Project Religious Fear: Why We Should Stand Up For Muslim Freedoms -- Christian Today (UK)
• We Persevere (Round UP 2) -- Reformed African American Network
• Christian Pastor Celebrates The Deaths Of Those Who Perished In Orlando -- The Intellectualist
• The 4 Phases Of Protestant Fundamentalism In America -- The Gospel Coalition
• God Did Not Create All Fundamentalists The Same -- The Gospel Coalition
• Southern Baptists Address Orlando Massacre -- Denny Burk's Blog
• The Confederate Flag Battle And Southern Baptists -- Denny Burk's Blog
• Evangelical Leader Sees Donald Trump As The Lesser Evil -- Yahoo News
• Enough Is Enough, Pope Francis Should Resign -- Fox News
• Pope Francis Is Under Fire For Calling A "Great Majority" Of Today's Catholic Marriages Invalid -- Business Insider
• Franklin Graham Calls On Pastors To Get Involved Into Politics 'Before It's Too Late' -- Newsmax
• Pastor Harrassed Over Sign Supporting Muslims -- USA Today
• How Egyptian Muslims Are Persecuting Coptic Christians -- Newsweek

World News

• Germany: Thousands Surround US Air Base To Protest The Use Of Drones -- Common Dreams
• France Plagued By Strikes As Euro 2016 Begins -- Anadolu Agency
• Shell's Second Spill In Two Weeks: Why Are We Silent? -- The Odyssey Online
• State Department Reveals Hillary Receives $500K Worth Of Jewelry From Saudi King --  New York Daily News
• Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque -- YouTube
• Nevada GOP Congressman: My Kids 'Will Not be A Drain On Society' Like Disabled Children -- Raw Story
• Qatar Convicts Dutch Tourist Who Says She Was Raped -- Yahoo News
• Was The Democratic Primary Just Mainipulated, Or Was it Stolen -- Truthout
• The Orlando Shooter's Father Raised A Key Question About The Night Of The Massacre -- Yahoo News
• $40 Billion Aid Package To Israel Is 'Largest Ever' To Any Country, Says Susan Rice -- UPI
• Public Health Issues Still Rising To The Surface 6 Years After BP Oil Disaster -- Green Peace
• Money's Reach -- ZNet
• How A Chicago Reporter 'Explodes Stereotypes' With Unexpected Stories About The City -- Columbia Journalism Review
• The Fundamental Dilemma Of Covering The Orlando Shooting -- Columbia Journalism Review
• Plain Speaking About Complex Things -- The Austin Chronicle
• Anti-Israeli Occupation Group Struggles To Reconcile Movement Building And Allyship -- Waging Nonviolence
• Gov. Cuomo's Executive Order Against BDS May Strengthen The Movement -- Waging Nonviolence
• The Right To Boycott: And It's Right To Boycott -- Huffington Post
• Creator Of Israel's Most Famous Artwork Calls For Removal -- Observer
• Distorting Fascism To Sanitize Capitalism -- CounterPunch
• Walmart Hiers See $11 Billion Disappear In A Day As Shares Tank -- U.S. Uncut
• The Unexpected Side Effect Of Hillary 2016: How She Transformed Democrats Into "New" Republicans -- Salon
• Rio State Delcares Financial Emergency, Requests Funding For Olympics -- Yahoo News
• Palestinians Say They Are Negotiating Sea Border With Egypt -- FoxNews
• Family Of Boy Killed By Alligator At Diney Speaks Out -- Yahoo News
• Earth Has Captured A Second Moon, Says NASA -- Mother Nature Network
• Get Ready For A Showdown On Israel At The Democratic Convention -- The Hill
• Moderate Republican Offers Compromise On Gun Control -- The Hill
• Oklahoma's Use Of Card Readers To Freeze, Seize Funds Comes Under Fire -- Fox News
• Hillary Clinton Vows To End "Carried Interest" Loophole--Even If Congress Won't --  Vox
• Lawmakers Push Laws To End "Scourge Of Gun Violence On Our Streets" -- Democracy Now
• Latest CIA Torture Docs Show "Evidence Of War Crimes" & Level Of Brutality That Even Shocked Bush -- Democracy Now
• Western Hostility Is Forcing Israel To Make Strange New Friends -- New York Post
• Rights Groups Silent As Clinton Foundation Takes Millions From Countries That Imprison Gays -- Fox News
• Food Activists Are Ruining Costco -- New York Post
• Clinton Email Scandal: Imminent Document Leak Enough To Indict Her -- Investor's Business Daily
• Orlando Shooting Survivor Harassed By Online Conspiracy Kooks -- Raw Story
• Tough Israeli Measures Crack Down During Hamas' 'Month Of Jihad -- CNS News
• House Erupts In Chaos After LGBT Vote -- Politico
• McDonald's Can Really Offshore Jobs In The Face Of Rising Wages -- Forbes
• U.S. Hypocrisy And Chinese Cash Strengthen Beijing's Hand In South China Sea -- The Washington Post
• What I Wish I'd Known Before Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery -- Newsweek
• Police Lock Down Chinese Village To Ward off Protests -- The Washington Post
• Egyptian Court Sentences 2 Aljazeera Employees To Death -- Yahoo News
• Israel Approves $18M Extra Funding For West Bank Settlements -- ABC News
• Massive Protest On Okinawa Opposes US Military After Killing -- AP

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• John Oliver: LGBT Discrimination -- YouTube
• Why President Obama Won't Uses The Term 'Radical Islam' -- ABC News
• Victims Of The Orlando Pulse Nightclub Shooting -- Yahoo News
• NC Passes Fracking Law, Seeks Taxpayer Subsidies For Industry -- The Institute For Southern Studies
• Israel Cuts Water Supplies To West Bank During Ramadan -- Antiwar.com
• Yes, Native Americans Were The Victims Of Genocide -- ZNet
• Immigrant Share Of Population Jumps In Some European Countries -- Pew Research Center
• Clinton's Nomination A Victory For The Women's Movement, Not Women -- Waging Nonviolence
• Protesting 'Shameful' Refugee Policies, Doctors Without Borders Rejects EU Funds -- Common Dreams
• Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department -- International Business Times
• Human Rights Watch And Amnesty International Have A Problem With Israel -- Observer
• Going Inside America's Secret Prisons With Will Porter -- Ozy.com
• U.S. Sets Stage For Libya-Like Regime Change In Eritrea, "Africa's Cuba" -- Global Research
• Cuba: Strengthen Strategies To Confront Imperialist Intervention -- Global Research
• Minimum Wage Laws Are Racist -- PJ Media
• How A Heroic Marine's Military Training Helped Him Save Dozens From Orlando Gunman -- The Washington Post
• As Syrians And Other Refugees Arive In St. Louis, Volunteers Prepare The Way -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Psychiatric Diagnosess And Comorbidities In A Diverse Multicity Cohort Of Young Transgender Women -- NIH

Why Must Fundamentalists Be So Literal

Perhaps one the most charming and endearing traits that unbelievers find in us Fundamentalists is that we take things very literally, perhaps too literally. And never does this occur more often than when we are talking about the Bible. To us, taking the Bible literally is second nature. It is sometimes inconceivable to read the Bible any other way. And yet, not all Fundamentalists apply the same degree of literalness when interpreting the Bible.

Sometimes taking things literally so often is just part of one's personality. It is a part of mine. Though I can sometimes joke with people, I often do not initially understand jokes from others because I tend to take things literally. Thus, their jokes often go over my head. In addition, those who prefer simplicity also prefer literalness. And people who prefer control, like simplicity. Once we allow for non-literal interpretations of any part of the Bible, we allow for ambiguity, complexity, and diversity. And once we allow these things, we have less control and uniformity.

There are two theological reasons why Fundamentalists read the Bible so literally. The first reason is what we believe about God's Word says about itself. For the Bible describes itself as being inspired, literally God-breathed, and thus every word must be true. Other parts of the Bible give a similar message. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus tells us that not one "jot or tittle" will pass away from God's word. Realize that Jesus is saying that not the smallest letter or part of a letter will be done away.

Different from what many unbelievers would expect, these Scriptures do not cause all Fundamentalists to apply the same degree of literalness to the whole Bible. Why? Because some Fundamentalists believe that some translations, like the King James version, to be inspired while others understand that inspiration applies to the original autographs, what was literally written by God's prophets and apostles, only. Those from the former group will tend to read more of the Bible literally than the latter group.

For those who believe that only the original autographs are inspired, there are two different working definitions of the inspiration. Some believe that inspiration implies that God dictated most, if not all, of the Bible to his prophets and apostles. Such a belief in inspiration tends to cause people to read the Scriptures literally without regard for context.

Other Fundamentalists understand the inspiration of God's Word in a different way. To them, rather than being dictated, the contents of the Bible were the product of God's Sovereignty as God moved different people to write. The result here is that we can see God using different styles of speech to express His Word and yet, in the end, He controlled what was written. Thus, we must be aware of the style of speech as well as other contexts to understand what God is saying. So the fact that parts of the Bible were written in other than a series of declarative statements or historical narrative could tell us that we might not want to take what is written there so literally as we would take other parts of the Bible.

The second reason why we can read the Bible so literally depends on the role we ascribe to the Bible as having in our lives. There are some who look at the Bible as being a user's manual telling us how to restore, at least partially, the paradise that was lost in the Garden of Eden. Those who see the Bible fulfilling such a role will tend to be more literal than those who see the Bible has playing a different role.

Why? Those who see the role of the Bible as telling us how to restore paradise simply need more specifics for governing every area of life. They will need specifics in terms of what kind of economic and political systems should be used to run the country and community, what kind of social mores should be acceptable to society, what rules should be used to run every area of our individual lives, and so forth. Such people look for specific laws and principles that would govern everything because, if paradise is to be restored, every fault must be corrected. After all, it took only one bite of the apple to cause God to kick man out of the Garden.

The result is not just an embracing of literalness, it is a clutching to a legalism that Jesus challenged the Pharisees on. This legalism leads to a sense of entitlement, to receive what one has earned. So what is camouflaged by an insistence on being literal and meeting the requirements of the user's manual is selfishness. Those who seek to restore paradise are those who seek their own heaven on earth. It is this selfishness, not the tendency to take too many things literally, that is the root for all of the nastiness and intolerance that we see in Fundamentalism today. Along with this selfishness is a tendency to revel in self-exaltation because if one charged with doing things God's way to find paradise, then one is likely to assume that one's own group are doing things right. Thus arrogance, and then intolerance, become byproducts of selfishness combined with a utopian philosophy.

An alternative, and I think more Biblical, view of the Bible is to look at it as a guide for navigating the wilderness. Here, even in the best of places, the Christian is in a foreign land because God's rule is not followed. Here, we are not looking to sanctify our earthly homes and treasures, we are looking to stay faithful in a land full of distractions and siren singers. Here, we are looking to bear our cross rather than wear it around our necks as a fashionable decoration. And finally, though the general principles are there to guide us through this wilderness, there are fewer specifics when there is no paradise to restore.

In the end, there is no bearing of the cross when one is looking to restore paradise because one is working to earn a heaven on earth. In contrast, there is no gloating or living in self-exaltation when one is trying to remain faithful while one is homesick. Rather, there is a constant awareness that though we may enjoy some of the things that are here, we cannot afford to become too attached to them for attachments can lead to the dark side of putting down our cross.

Seeking to restore paradise seems to be an odd pursuit of those whose leader humbled Himself to wash the feet of other and to die on the cross and who charged His followers to do the same. Seeking to restore paradise seems to be at odds with Jesus' command to not store up earthly treasures. And the seeking to establish one's own earthly paradise has no known precedent in the New Testament--that is literally speaking.

Is The Conservative Church Disturbing The Peace?

The answer to the question is both yes and no and in the wrong way each time. The Left's most often made criticism about the Church is that it serves as an institution of indoctrination. The purpose of the indoctrination is to teach compliance to the dictates of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, the Conservative Church as met the Left's expectations admirably.

But first, who am I referring to when I mention the Conservative Church? It consists of the majority of American Christian Fundamentalist Churches. Fundamentalist Churches are those that adhere to specific tenets of the Christian faith of the inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, that Jesus died for the sins of believers, Jesus' resurrection and His second coming. But as I write about the Conservative Church,  I am sad that I must write about friends and brothers and sisters in the faith.

How does the Conservative Church exceed the Left's expectations? It does so by how it keeps the peace. It does so by what it says to those who are under the whip of the rich and powerful as well as what it refrains from saying to those who use this whip. The Conservative Church has two messages for those who live under this whip for it speaks to two distinct groups: the minions and the victims. To the minions, the Conservative Church says this, "well done thou good and faithful servants, enjoy now the prosperity that has been promised to you." However, unlike the heavenly reward that true believers will receive, this reward consists of an abundant life here to which every good minion feels entitled. After all, the good minion has faithfully followed the orders of the proper authority figures and has thus earned a reward. And living faithfully and being rewarded provides the best witness to others on how to have it all in life in a sanctified way.

Who are these minions? Minions are those who are comfortable with the way things are. They are content because they have a decent income from either investments and/or employment. And since they themselves have benefitted from the system, they see no need to change it. Therefore these minions either work to continue the reign of the rich and powerful or they remain silent. They do not even consider the most minimal efforts one can take to change things, like voting for third party candidates. Their vision is severely myopic and this has blinded them to the suffering of others as well as made their hearts cold and their minds dull.

Minions may also include those in law enforcement and the military who blindly follow orders because, they feel, it is not their place to step back and look at the big picture. Thus, they enforce the rule of the rich and powerful. Law enforcement agencies do this on a domestic level while the military expands the rule of its rich and powerful sponsors over new turf. This criticism is difficult to make because of the kinds of risks that those in both law enforcement and the military face when doing jobs that are necessary. They deserve appreciation and respect for that. But any group that offers near blind allegiance pretends that use of their services is never abused.

To those receiving the whip, such as those who have received the brunt of today's economic distress, the Conservative Church offers an interesting message of support. Here, the Conservative Church offers to teach these abuse victims how to become Spiritual Spartans. And one becomes a Spiritual Spartan by first believing the Gospel and then by learning to be content in all things, that is to suck it up or take a lap, and finally by yielding unquestioning obedience to the authorities, that is be good little children so one is not spanked. The goal of the Christian Church here is to get Spiritual Spartans to behave like the minions despite the wealth disparity.

The Conservative Church goes on to explain that being a Spiritual Spartan is the precedent set by leaders in the early Church, particularly Paul. Paul neither resisted the injustice visited up him by the Roman authorities nor did he teach others to do so. Paul is the apostle who told all to be submissive to the governing authorities, he told wives to be submissive to their husbands and children to be submissive to their parents, and he told slaves to cheerfully serve their owners and not to seek their own freedom. And, the Conservative Church reasons that if it was good enough for Paul, it must be good enough for the rest of us. In addition, the victims should never forget the heavenly reward that awaits them should they remain faithful Spiritual Spartans. And this focus on heavenly rewards is designed to make these Spiritual Spartans as myopic as the minions have become.

And though there is some truth in what the Conservative Church preaches to its flock, whether they be minions or Spiritual Spartans, not only do they leave out the context from their Biblical teachings, it keeps a disturbing silence when relating to wealth and power. This is where the Conservative Church refrains from disturbing the peace in the wrong way. It refrains from preaching a Gospel of Repentance to their benefactors--benefactors because the Conservative Church lives on the donations that come from the rich and powerful and their minions.

But by faithfully maintaining the status quo, the Conservative Church also becomes complicit in the sins and the violence being practiced. And by enabling the rich and powerful's oppression of others, the Conservative Church is disturbing the peace in the wrong way. The Conservative Church refrains from challenging America's use of wars and proxy leaders and by so doing it shows a reluctance to learn from the past. Certainly, it is aware of some past abuses, such as America's past support for leaders like Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, or Pinochet; but it steadfastly prefers to maintain a disconnect in contrast to experiencing a shameful but healing sense of regret. So in the name of the minigod Patriotism, it supports troops and the havoc they cause.

Likewise, the Conservative Church supports violence on local dissenters and others. An extreme example of this support could be seen in the words one conservative church goer told me as I told him of a protest I participated in in D.C. He said that just as Jesus used violence to expel the moneychangers, he would have used a baseball bat on protesters like myself. But such an example does not characterize the Conservative Church. Rather, they lend explicit or implicit approval of whatever tactics are used by law enforcement on dissenters. In fact, it supports even harsh law enforcement on all others than themselves. In short, we could say that when the Conservative Church disturbs the peace, it does so through surrogates who wear uniforms.

The answer to the question of whether the Conservative Church is disturbing the peace depends on whose peace. For, as of late, the Conservative Church refuses to disturb the peace of the rich and powerful regardless of their sins. But by offering unconditional support to the same group, the Conservative Church vicariously disturbs the peace of all others. So for all its complaining about today's godless world and state of affairs, the Conservative Church seems to be content since it does not muster the courage required to change things.

The Fundamentalists' Faux-Pas: Pro-Life = Anti-Abortion

While talking with a fellow fundamentalist, pro-lifer, and friend, something was said that clarified today's  Pro-Life dilemma. My friend was bemoaning Obama's "nanny" state and  his "cradle to grave" care. Such comments are intended to shame anybody who has even the smallest sense of self-reliance and independence so as to make any welfare state, even Obama's, repulsive. In response I asked if one places an unconditional value on human life, wouldn't one want to welcome a "cradle to grave" provision. Then my friend shared his deepest fear. That fear was that he would have to pay for loafers, for those who refused to work.

Never once did he express a concern for the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, or those who have limited to no opportunities to support themselves. Rather, his primary worry was that welfare cheats would become parasites and attach themselves to his paycheck.

This is when it hit me about the current Pro-Life movement and the liberal portrayal of it. Their narrative claims that Pro-Lifers are only concerned with the unborn. This is wrong. Rather, conservative Pro-Lifers, at least the ones I am familiar with, are more concerned with who's footing the bill and who is paying for whom than who needs what to live.

The term Pro-Life indicates being for life, for the right to live. And like the statement in the Declaration of Independence about all men, should be all people, having the right to life, the implications are underestimated. For it is a cruel joke to tell people that they have the right to life but make what is necessary for life, such as housing, food, a healthy environment, affordable healthcare, and education, inaccessible. A broader view of Pro-Life was put forth by Ron Sider during the 1970s. But while conservative Pro-Lifers rightfully oppose elective abortions, they are too concerned with their own prosperity to embrace his definition. In addition, many conservative Pro-Life advocates are far too eager to support our military interventions in the name of patriotism even though what could be more pro-death than unnecessary wars. At the same time, we have Pro-Choice advocates who have enthusiastically adopted some of Ron Sider's definition of Pro-Life.

Conservative Pro-Lifers cry foul here. They say that there are no guarantees, life is tough and so everybody has to make of it what they can. But, if life is tough and we have placed an unconditional value on human life as Pro-Lifers do on human life in the womb, shouldn't we be more willing to share than be resentful for having given?

Anyway, we have Pro-Lifers who proudly beat their chest and claim to be the defenders of the defenseless who also feel robbed and violated when their money is used to support life preserving social and environmental programs and are oblivious to the death and destruction caused by the wars their taxes fund. The result here is that the Pro-Life attempts to shelter the unborn are too easily discredited by hypocrisy and self-centeredness.

We who care about the rights of the unborn must make a decision here, we must decide on a new name for ourselves. This is because we have others who are defending life in other ways, including some of the ways Ron Sider specified,  who also deserve the Pro-Life monicker despite their views on abortion. We must therefore expand the Pro-Life tent to include them.  And then we must be able to distinguish Pro-Lifers who oppose elective abortion from those who do not.

At the same time, we must recognize the one obstacle that stands in everybody's way from becoming more consistently Pro-Life. That hurdle is individualism. For conservative Pro-Lifers, their denial of life's interdependencies in order to justify the maximizing of personal profits stands in the way of welcoming the necessary sharing a consistent Pro-Life ethic calls us to. For those Pro-Lifers who defend abortion rights, reproductive and individual freedoms keep some from recognizing the humanity of the unborn.  Perhaps, this is why such Pro-Lifers currently frame the question of what is in the womb as whether it is a human person than a human life. The implication here is that an unborn child could not become a person until those outside the womb interact with him or her. Regardless of when we assign "personhood" to the unborn, each unborn child is a living human.

In Jesus' parable of the prayers of the pharisee and the tax collector, one person bragged about his own righteousness and condemned the other while the other could only see his sin and need for mercy. If we were to rewrite that parable to reflect today's Pro-Life debate, we would more often than not describe two groups of pharisees praying rather than tell of a groveling tax collector who found forgiveness. This is tragic because, in the end, none of us are in the mood to listen to our own shortcomings that are inconsistent with the Pro-Life name.

Fundamentalists bear the brunt of the responsibility here, and thus guilt, because of the Pro-Life name with which we have cloaked ourselves. We are the ones who have exclusively bound the term with the abortion issue. And in so doing, we have both excused ourselves from other Pro-Life responsibilities and covered up our own sins. If we are to prove our critics wrong, we are the ones who need to expand our definition of Pro-Life according to what its name implies and then find a way to distinguish the two groups of Pro-Life advocates.

The Christian Attitude That Speaks Louder Than Words

If you ask conservative Christians what their biggest obstacle is when sharing the Gospel, they might say it is the non-Christian or today's anti-Christian culture. But if you ask a non-Christian the same question, he or she might point to the messenger. So the question for us conservative Christians becomes, what is our biggest problem in evangelizing.

 The difference between these two perceptions for Christians is that one is a threat and the other a weakness. A threat occurs when the source of our headaches exists outside of us; here it exists with the audience, the Gospel itself, our culture, and perhaps with laws designed to prevent us from witnessing--though the last reason does not apply to those witnessing in America. 

If the problem is with the audience's reaction to the Gospel is the Gospel itself, then there is nothing we can do. For if we change the message, we lose. The Gospel must remain a constant in our sharing regardless of how people react to it. If our problem is with neither the Gospel nor the messenger, then we can make adjustments to how we share.

But if a big problem people have in hearing the Gospel is with the messenger, then we must identify our weaknesses. Here, we are not talking about the personal flaws of any individual Christian. What we are talking about are common traits or beliefs that us Christians hold on to that are inconsistent with our faith.

In last week's post (When Squeezed, Is The Church "Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy"), we talked about 3 beliefs that American conservative Christians might insert into their faith, and thus their message. This can cause them to compromise the message of Christ. Here, we will isolate one of those convictions and show how it also hurts the listener.

Conservative Christians who are capitalists or patriotic do not offend others especially as long as they are willing to listen. But once they too easily brush aside the views of others, then their beliefs in capitalism and/or patriotism, though very apparent, are not the issue. What is the issue is the refusal to listen and reason.

This brings us to authoritarianism. Christians have a more complex relationship with authoritarianism than what first appears. What is most visible is the fact that so many of our relationships involve living under or exercising authority to various degrees. These relationships include the God-believer relationship, the husband-wife relationship, the parent-child relationship, the believer-church relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and the government-citizen relationship. In each of these relationships, the Bible includes the authority of one party over another.

The Christian's problem becomes how to turn off that authoritarian relationship switch when it is not called for. Since the Bible stresses authority in so many of our relationships, it is easy for many of us Christians to believe that it is called for in every relationship. Thus we can have problems when we interact in a democratic society. Here, many of our relationships are between equals, not superiors and subordinates. And this equality is not a problem until we find ourselves with fellow citizens who have different values.

When we find ourselves in serious disagreement with non-Christian equals over morals, we look for that authoritarian security blanket to save the day. At this point, it is a short trip for the conservative Christian to assume a state of moral superiority, because his or her values have been enlightened by God's Word, and this ends any exchange between peers. Now, in the eyes of the believer, one person has everything to teach while the other has everything to learn.

This last phrase should sound familiar to those who are well versed on Martin Luther King for he stated something identical regarding the West and why they were in Vietnam. In a speech in which he criticized the American war in Vietnam, King said the following:

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

Having everything to teach and nothing to learn is how the authoritarian conservative Christian can come across to the unbeliever. And the conservative Christian has a parental type defense for being heavy-handed; it is for the unbeliever's own good. This pertains to when conservative Christians try to control the morals of the nonChristian--we are referring to personal morals that that do not infringe on the rights of others. Here, the conservative Christian is trying to parent the nonChristian in spite of the nonChristian's ingratitude. Kids!

We should not be surprised by this authoritarianism with a parental concern being displayed by American conservative Christians especially if such Christians also value patriotism and capitalism. This Paternalism is what drove European, including American, colonialism during the past few centuries. In America, assuming the superiority of one's own culture helped carry out Manifest Destiny. The self-image of settlers who took land from America's indigenous peoples framed the theft as an attempt to bring civilization to the land. Of course, Europeans with their history of peace were the ideal candidates to bring enlightenment. So, what those who conquered thought of themselves differed from what those who were conquered thought. A similar line of thought was the reason given for why we colonized other lands such as the Philippines and Guam.

There is another way in which authoritarianism hurts conservative Christians in how they share the Gospel with others. Here, we are talking about how conservatives learn and determine truth, scientific and otherwise. Those who are authoritarian focus more on the credentials of the speaker/writer than on the fact and logic of an argument. 

The heavy use of credentials by the conservative Christian in learning and determining truth becomes a very exacting filter. Those who have "bad" credentials are almost always automatically discarded while what is said by those with good credentials is often uncritically accepted. Here, the conservative Christian unknowingly participates in a virtual book burning for his religiously amish-like community. He or she does not have to exercise much critical thought when listening to or reading speaker or writer on the good list but he or she can ignore those who are on the naughty list which, in turn, prevents those on that list from earning their credibility wings.

Again, such authoritarianism kills the message of the Gospel in the ears of many unbelievers. The same attitude of having everything to teach and nothing to learn will rightfully offend the nonChristian but is taken for granted by the Christian. And the tragedy here is that such authoritarianism is not just unnecessary, it is wrong. 

Not knowing when to turn off the authoritarian switch is killing a significant part of the Christian witness in America. It can come from misreading the plethora of authoritarian relationships outlined in the Scriptures into all of our relationships. But I believe it is more than that. The desire to control, whether it is our of ambition or out of fear, is also a driving force here. It makes the Gospel something not just to be ridiculed, but to be resented as well. This is something American conservative Christians must address before they share the Gospel in these turbulent times.

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage?

What appears to be a simple question, see the title, with a slam dunk answer is full of nuance. And it is an important question in the light of President Obama's recent statements on the subject. But more than that, this is one of the most emotionally charged questions that many Fundamentalists try to answer.

Whether Christians should support gay marriage  depends on location, location,  location. Location here, does not refer to a geographical place but to a sphere. So we need to clarify the question and ask whether Christians are being asked to support gay marriage in the church, in society, or in both.

Those who adhere to the whole Bible must firmly and gently say no to gay marriage in the church. Though Jesus never mentioned the subject, some of his predecessors and followers did and did so unambiguously. The basic gist of the Biblical objections to gay marriage is that it is contrary to  God's creation. Here, we are talking about His creation before the fall. He created men and women to be in physical union with one another other rather than with those of the same sex. That doesn't mean that we should not celebrate the love any 2 people have for each other since there is simply not enough love in the world to do that. But, if we are to remain faithful to all of God's Word, we cannot agree with any love that includes the physical union of two people of the same gender.

Because God's Word tells us that homosexual relations are wrong, and since God's Word should be the rule for the church, it is logical to say that Christians should not support gay marriages in the Church. Christians should challenge the practice of some denominations that support gay marriages in the church or recognize gay church officers. But they should only do so after they have first learned why those denominations lend such support for gays. Denominations that support gay marriages and ordain gay officers often do so to stand in solidarity with those who are being oppressed and for equality. Certainly such churches are going too far in their standing with others; but they are Biblically correct in standing in solidarity with gays who are not treated as equals.

But what about supporting gay marriage in society? Should Christians do so? Here, the question must be clarified. Does support here mean encouraging or does it mean defending the right to do so? Though the church should not encourage what goes against the God's Word, the church must defend the right of gays to marry in society and have equal rights.

Many of my fellow fundamentalist Christians struggle with making such a distinction. According to them, right is right and wrong is wrong and you cannot defend the practice of doing what is wrong. However, if we use that same logic for all other practices including our faith, we would end up merging Biblical law with civil law and every personal sin could be punished by both the state and the church. For example, having a different faith would make one a criminal and thus eligible for a prison sentence. Also, history, more than strongly, suggests that such a merging is extremely tragic for both the church and its victims.

The real question for the Church regarding gay marriage is whether or not the church will take a legal or evangelical approach to addressing it. If we take the former approach, we move towards making God's law the law of the land. Here, not only will we go beyond what the New Testament prescribes, but we will reveal something disturbing about ourselves. We will unveil a deep desire to control those who are different. To justify this control, some of us will overstate our case and even demonize homosexuals. And in so doing, we have forgotten that Romans 2:1 follows Romans 1:26-27--the verses that condemn homosexuality. For Romans 2:1 tells us that those who judge are as guilty as those whom they judge because all sin. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals in that they all sin.

Those who wish to control others have cut the words equal and equality out of both their dictionaries and, if they are fundamentalist, Bibles. Those who desire to rule over others must make the case, and that will almost always be both overstated and unsubstantiated, that they are superior to those they wish to rule over. And, such people are either unaware of or apathetic to the past atrocities committed by the church as previously hinted to.

Those who rely on evangelism alone trust in the Gospel and respect the listener. When a disagreement remains, they part as equals and one cannot part as equals while not defending the rights of the other. This is not enough for those who want to control. For they want both guaranteed results, and to look down on others.

I can't join my fellow fundamentalists who choose to rely on control rather than evangelism. I cannot join them for Biblical reasons. And I cannot follow them because I have gay friends some of whom have made very important contributions to my life. And despite the fact that I cannot agree with these friends on homosexuality, I know that each of them has strengths that I don't have and I have weaknesses that they don't have.  I am not the only fundamentalist who can say this. And despite our disagreements, I believe they must have all of the rights heterosexuals have. I can't condone using the law to control their behavior.

I'm also afraid for many of my fellow fundamentalists. That is because while Obama's latest statements on same sex marriage will inspire them to reacquire homosexuality and gay marriage as targets, pride and hatred will fly under their radar to conduct their insidious attacks. For pride is described as being the antithesis to faith (Romans 3:27) and one cannot both love God and hate those made in the image of God (James 3:9ff; I John 4:20).

And though I applaud how the liberal churches stand in solidarity with gays who have been ostracized and abused and how they defend their rights, I cannot join them in saying that involvement in gay relations is acceptable before God.

The above points to a common error committed by both conservative and liberal Christians regarding sensitive issues like gay rights. The error is the belief that agreement and support go hand in hand. Conservative Christians find it difficult to support equal rights for gays because they cannot agree with their behaviors and lifestyles. Liberal Christians struggle with expressing disagreement with gay relations because they realize the moral imperative of standing in solidarity with gays when they are not treated as equals. However, just as Jesus' real test for love was when it was for someone who did not belong to one's own group, the real test for belief in equality is found in whether we defend the rights of those with whom we disagree.

All of this points to the need of making careful statements and well-thoughtout distinctions regarding issues like gay rights. It is important to be precise as to where we agree and disagree with others. It is also vital to understand how we could sin against those with whom we disagree particularly when we call our desire to control and rule over them "concern" or "love." This desire to control, whether it is out of ambition or fear, is a major cause for much of the suffering and violence we see today.