There was beer in the refrigerator. Beer. A six-pack to be exact. I stared, aghast, at the contraband. How could there be beer in our refrigerator? My parents never kept alcohol in the house. Yet, on this particular hot summer day, after working outside, my dad decided he wanted a nice cool Budweiser. I was appalled! Even though I was only nine years old, I knew quite well good Christians do not drink beer. I don’t recall the sermon that informed me of the wiles of alcohol, just like I don’t remember anyone telling me Catholics and charismatics aren’t real Christians. I simply knew. It was the way things were.
Growing up in fundamentalism, I learned God wanted things “just so.” God was particular, and I had better get his likes and dislikes figured out. For example, I knew God didn’t like homosexuals or women who had abortions. The Christian newsletters that came in the mail warned me of God’s coming wrath on these wicked people. We had to fight “the enemies” or our country was doomed. “I hope God rains down judgment on those gays” I once quipped to a friend. If God was angry, I was going to be angry too—a sentiment that would haunt me years later when, to my horror, I looked in the mirror to see a tax collector staring back at me.
The term “fundamentalist” is tossed around loosely these days, even carelessly. It is virtually a slang term to describe any group we think is extreme and contrary to our own views, whether terrorists, dogmatic atheists or ultra-orthodox Christians. At one time “Christian fundamentalist” was not a dirty word. It merely referred to “the fundamentals”—the five core beliefs held by many Christians. I am not so ignorant as to believe every fundamentalist is an angry, self-righteous person. This is not the case. Many people who fall into the sociological category of “Christian fundamentalist” are kindhearted individuals. I only describe my personal experience in the larger culture of fundamentalism. The legalism so prevalent in the Christian world of my upbringing sent me on a desperate journey to earn God’s love. I longed for God to see me and be pleased with me, but nothing I did was ever good enough.
If you have ever wondered why some fundamentalists are so judgmental it is because they don’t realize God loves them. When a person believes God is hard to please and nothing short of perfection gains his approval, then she naturally uses others as the measuring rod for her own performance. Judging others makes her feel superior, less sinful, and therefore worthy of God’s love. Jesus said, “The one who is forgiven much, loves much.” If we do not understand God’s mercy toward ourselves, we are unable to give it to others.
On the other side are those who react to fundamentalism. Some of the most influential voices speaking against Christianity today are those who grew up in fundamentalism. In response to the pain of those years, these individuals have swung to the opposite extreme, rejecting the Bible as primitive and embracing alternative spiritualities. Reactors to fundamentalism, having wearied of condemning rhetoric, simply toss sin out as an archaic notion or illusion. But, the one who does not realize he needs to be forgiven by God falls into the same trap as the fundamentalist. We cannot know the beauty of mercy without having received it and mercy presumes there is something for which we must be forgiven.
Lost in the shuffle on both sides is the most profound truth ever revealed: God’s unconditional love for humanity. What fundamentalists and reactors to fundamentalists miss is the essence of Christianity. One of the primary misunderstandings of Jesus’ teaching is that sin makes us unlovable. We think our sin prevents God from loving us. As a result, fundamentalists resort to perfectionism while reactors dismiss the significance of sin all together. Both extremes fail to recognize that sin does not tarnish our inherent worth or God’s love for us.
Authentic Christianity allows us to freely admit our failures because God loves us irrespective of what we do or don’t do. The result is humility to acknowledge our mistakes, transparency with others and a deeper, more profound understanding of love. For what kind of love is it if God only likes us when we are good, or if God only likes us because we have no serious flaws? Love is meaningful precisely because it sees us as we are—the good and the ugly.
The reality is God purposely chose to tell us he loved us when we were at our worst. Scripture states, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time, the Messiah died for the ungodly . . . God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, the Messiah died for us” (Romans 5:6-8). The Greek word for “right time” refers to a strategic moment. God deliberately said “I love you” at the very moment of our failure.**
I used to think God could only tolerate me with Jesus as a “smoke screen,” blocking out too close a view of my wretched self. The truth is God loves us even in the dark places. He does not love us because of Jesus, but rather He sent Jesus to us as an expression of his pre-existing love—a love that was there before we ever got “cleaned-up.” It is this love that frees us from legalistic compulsions, and it is this love that gives us the courage to admit we need a Savior.
To view a chart on distinctions between legalistic Christianity, reactions to legalism and authentic Christianity see: fundieschart.doc
A book I found very helpful in recovering from fundamentalism: VanVonderen, Jeff. Tired of Trying to Measure Up.
**I am grateful to Dr. David Eckman, prof. at Western Seminary, for pointing out this wonderful truth in Romans 5.
16 Comments
July 13, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I admit that I don’t quite see the distinction between so-called “Authentic” Christianity and Fundamentalism. As I understand it, Christian Fundamentalism was originally in response to liberal/modern Christianity. The very definition of Christian Fundamentalist was defined as adherence to the five fundamental doctrines:
1. the inerrancy of the Bible,
2. the Virgin birth,
3. physical resurrection,
4. atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and
5. the Second Coming.
Doesn’t “Authentic” Christianity uphold these five basic doctrines too? If so, isn’t “Authentic” Christianity merely the ‘compassionate conservative’ or ‘politically correct’ version of Fundamentalism?
I’ve always found it frustrating that those who have a fundamentalist faith don’t want to admit that they’re fundamentalists. If you believe your religion is the only the true religion, then you’re a fundamentalist, right? Consumer-oriented churches tend to downplay their fundamentalist doctrines in favor of feel-good theology and self-help psychobabble. “Authentic” Christianity sounds like the glossier, friendlier re-packaging of Fundamentalism.
July 14, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Norm– you bring up some very good points. What my post was speaking to was more fundamentalist culture as opposed to doctrine (though there are doctrinal differences too). For one who grows up in the fundamentalist culture, there is actually a huge difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical–though outsiders usually don’t realize this. Kind of like some gringos might lump a person from Guatamala with a person from Costa Rica because they both happen to speak Spanish. I would consider myself an evangelical, but not a fundamentalist. Part of the confusion is that the media will often refer to fundamentalists as evangelicals and vice versa. Also, there are some evangelicals that refer to themselves as such that better fit under the title fundamentalist. I am actually getting to a place now where I am almost uncomfortable referring to myself as evangelical because that term getting more convoluted and misunderstood these days.
In answer to your basic question–no, “authentic” Christianity as I was describing it is not the same as fundamentalism. Actually, there are many evangelicals who do not hold to the first fundamental–inerrancy of Scripture, at least in the same way that fundamentalists do. The difference would be something like perhaps a Bob Jones University, as opposed to Fuller Theological Seminary (if you have any familiarity with either). I don’t hold to the fundamentalist view of inerrancy. I believe the Bible is infallible, but not inerrant. A significant difference.
Also, one of the key distinctions in belief system that I was trying to point out between fundamentalism and “authentic” Christianity is that in fundamentalism you will often find perfectionism–a legalism–people trying to measure up by their own self-effort (followed by judgemental attitudes). Thus, a very different understanding and practice of grace than what the Bible teaches. Also, a fundamentalist is more likely to ascribe to a hyper-Calvinistic view of the depravity of man–that humans are utterly “dirty rags” and worthless. Thus, a fundamentalist might say that a non-Christian is incapable of doing anything truly good–because without Christ, human beings are incapable of even a drop of goodness. This is not what Scripture teaches and not what many evangelicals believe. Many, like myself, realize that while we have sin, we are still made in the image of God and are beautiful creations, capable of much good despite our sin.
Additionally, fundamentalism tends to send a message that we are loved by God because Jesus’ blood lathers us beyond recognition (God sees Jesus, not me, and thereby accepts me), rather than understanding that God loved us already and Jesus was a result, manifestation of that love. I could also go on and on about fundamentalism’s end times “hysteria.” Many evangelicals do not ascribe to the same end-time theology as fundamentalists. There are many other nuances of theology/doctrine that could be discussed here. But, suffice it to say that differences are quite significant between what I was describing as “authentic” Christianity vs. fundamentalism.
The fundamentalist culture tends to have a separatist mentality or “fortress” mentality. That is, hiding behind the church walls from the big, bad, evil world out there. Lots of talk about fighting “enemies” etc. This is contrary to biblical Christianity, where Jesus was very much out in the world (though not of it) and reaching out to the sinners. I would describe the culture of fundamentalism as that of the Pharisees. So, the difference would be between the Pharisees (who didn’t get what Jesus was teaching) and “authentic” Christianity–those who understood God’s grace/mercy demonstrated in Jesus.
As for the actual 5 fundamentals beliefs that fundamentalist highlighted– aside from the first one–the remaining 4 are held by most Christians (including Catholics), except Progressive Christians, and have been held throughout history by much of Christendom. So these beliefs are not “owned” by the fundamentalists. They are not unique to fundamentalists. Fundamentalism as a movement only arose in recent history–while those “fundamentals” have been around for 2,000 years (excluding the first one–inerrancy which, while assumed by many (most?), didn’t really become part of the theological discussion until the Enlightment when the inspiration of Scripture was suddenly challenged. In what I consider a very poor move, the apologists of the time tried to use the idea of inerrancy as an argument to support the idea inspiration–inerrancy and inspiration are actually two very different things that have unfortunately gotten tangled up).
July 14, 2007 at 6:22 pm
PS– I don’t want to infer that a fundamentalist cannot be an “authentic” Christian. Of course they can be. *Please do not misunderstand me–I am not trying to say who is a “real” Christian and who is not.* I leave that to God. Using the term “authentic” was not the best choice of words. I was merely trying to distinguish between some erroneous views often held by fundamentalism, as it pertains to the issue of grace and God’s love toward us–erroneous beliefs that often lead to an unbiblical culture of legalism.
July 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Hi Karen,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Please forgive me if I bring my own theological baggage into this discussion. I attended both my grandmother’s fundamentalist/Calvinist church and my mother’s evangelical churches while growing-up. So, I think I understand your distinction between cultural fundamentalism and theological fundamentalism. I think “legalism” is the major distinction; however, I suspect cultural fundamentalists would not describe themselves as legalists — certainly I’ve never heard anyone proudly describe their beliefs as legalistic.
I suppose from my current perspective from liberal/progressive Christianity, I don’t see much difference. Although I do like the positive spiritual message of evangelism compared to the humiliating message of Calvinism. Now, though, it seems like merely different brands of the same religious fundamentalism. The difference seems to be which part of the fundamentalism is emphasized. For instance, an ‘old-school’ fundamentalist would not hesitate to tell a non-fundamentalist their damned and worthy of hell. Whereas a saavy, evangelical would hold the same damnation doctrine, but emphasize the spiritual positives and not mention hell.
In dealing with the “gay issue”, my grandmother’s theology stance was that I merely needed to pray for my fallenness, adhere to the Bible’s sexual prohitions and abstain. While the evangelical churches referred me to ex-gay therapy, find some psycho-theological cause, seek Christian counseling, and ultimately change my sexual orientation.
Also, could you explain the difference Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility? Inerrant and infallible are nearly synomynous from the definitions I’ve looked up. Is the difference in whether the Biblical writers’ writings are considered devine in themselves or merely devinely-inspired?
Thanks,
Norm!
July 17, 2007 at 8:58 am
Hi Norm,
I can see how from your vantage point of Progressive Christianity that fundamentalism and evangelicalism look similar. Its true that there is shared theology–but then there is also shared theology with Catholics or Amish too. I can’t speak for your experience, but from my own, fundamentalism and evangelicalism are like night and day. They are worlds apart. For me fundamentalism was the only world I knew–it didn’t involve just going to church–it was the world in which I lived. My parents, my siblings, my aunt and uncle, cousins, grand parents, all of our friends we were all a part of this world and everyone abided by its cultural codes. It was a part of my life from birth, through childhood, through high school and into college. It involved not only church but the newsletters and magazines and books that were read, camps, youth rallies, teen mission trips and Bible college. There were, of course, many good things that came out of this world. It wasn’t all negative by any means. But the things that affected me most adversely were the legalism and male chauvenism. I am still recovering from wounds in regards to growing up female in fundamentalism.
So, for me, the world I am now a part of is very, very different than what I used to be a part of–so I can’t quite relate to how you see fundamentalism and evangelicalism as mostly the same–since that is not my experience. However, I can understand why it would seem that way from a person adhering to Progressive Christianity. One thing to consider is that the range within evangelicalism is quite broad from folks like Jim Wallis (of “God’s Politics: How the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left doesn’t Get it) to folks like Ted Haggard. Jim and Ted are rather different, but both are considered evangelical.
In regards to inerrancy and infallibility–the definitions for these come from a theological perspective as opposed to a Webster’s dictionary. There are books and books on this subject and you will find people who define layers/levels within inerrancy. But, to put it all simply–inerrancy is tied to the idea of “verbal plenary inspiration”– the idea that each and every word in the Bible was selected by God. Every word. Thus, there is a lot of mental gymnastics that can go on to try to defend inerrancy–when for example Luke cleans up some of Mark’s poor Greek grammar when borrowing from Mark. Or, the writer of the text misremembers a date and is one year off from when the event actually happened, etc.
Infallibility does not have to include the idea of inerrancy and word for word inspiration. It has more of a sense that the Bible is completely reliable in its concepts. That God inspired the message/story of Scripture and it is trustworthy. This does not mean all the technical aspects of every jot and tittle are perfect. But that through all the cultural aspects, all the coming together of the canon, and all the human elements that are in the Bible–that God still speaks through it and thus the Bible can be completely trusted.
Both those who hold to the idea of inerrancy and those who hold to infallibility believe in inspiration. Inerrancy is a different subject from the idea of inspiration–though they often get convoluted together. One does not need to believe in inerrancy to believe the Bible is divinely inspired. It is also possible to believe in a mixed view of both verbal inspiration and conceptual inspiration.
There is a good quote I just read from the book “Walking the Bible” by Jewish journalist Bruce Feiler. In interviewing a Bible and archeology scholar in Israel, the interviewee, Gabi, states: “I don’t care whether this or that detail is correct in the Bible. It doesn’t change my attitude toward the Bible, toward religion, toward God. Or, toward myself. But in America there was an idea that the Bible is a kind of machine; if you prove that two of the screws really existed, then the whole machine existed, and if you take out two of the screws the whole thing collapses. But the Bible is not a machine. It doesn’t have screws” (p.106).
In the same way, the fact that there are human elements and minor mistakes in the Bible doesn’t threaten me at all because its reliability is not based on just “two screws” so to speak. There is something profound about the Bible that transcends these human elements to speak to us in a supernatural way. Its message is consistent throughout in a very remarkable way despite dozens of different authors and hundreds of years that spanned the writing of it. The more I study the Bible in-depth, the more I am amazed by it.
So, Norm–I would be interested in hearing more of your views on Progressive Christianity. I have some familiarity with it. Can you tell me about your beliefs and why you hold to them? For you, what does it mean to be a progressive or liberal Christian and how did you arrive at that?
July 17, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Karen,
Thanks for clarifying infallibility. While I believe the Bible contains some profound truths and observations, I don’t relate to the notion that God somehow endorsed what is a very human set of writings. It’s still seems a little arbitrary in how one would differentiate between Biblical inerrancy and infallibility, but I’m sure there are numerous scholars debating this distinction.
I should be careful how I identify as a progressive/liberal Christian. I mainly use that self-description to broadly distinguish myself as not a fundamentalist Christian. Similar to your distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical Christian, I have heard arguments explaining the difference between progressive and liberal Christianity. I honestly don’t know where I stand in that argument.
My ex-gay experience unintentionally led me toward progressive/liberal Christianity. Having been raised into fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity, I went into the ex-gay movement believing that it was consistent with the beliefs I was raised into. However, as I became more disillusioned and disappointed with ex-gay theology, I realized that I was really taking many fundamentalist/evangelical doctrines for granted without consciously evaluating whether they really made sense to my mind and heart.
Eventually I left the ex-gay movement and fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity and researched what I really believed. John Shelby Spong’s Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, Peter Gomes’ The Good Book, Bruce Bawer’s Stealing Jesus, and other writings helped me to understand more about the faith I was raised into.
In terms of my beliefs now, I believe humanity is a unique creation equipped to by intellect and faith to act beyond instinctive self interest. I believe at their best spirituality, religion, and philosophy empower us to live to our potential and to ultimately act in love to ourselves, others, and creation. As a Christian, I believe the Bible contains many of these truths. I do want to believe many of the Biblical stories are true — especially regarding Jesus life — but I also admit to having some doubts about some of the historical accuracy and subsequent interpretation. I relate to what I’ve heard a pastor advise Sunday school children before telling a Bible story: ‘I don’t know if this really happened or not, but I know it is true in my heart.’
July 19, 2007 at 9:13 am
Hi Norm,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One of the things that facing issues of sexuality does for us is makes us very honest about what we believe. It makes us have to re-examine God and we can no longer take for granted beliefs we have simply accepted without questioning. One of the best things my struggle with homosexuality did for me was to force me to really look at what I believe and why. I couldn’t just go through the motions of being a “Christian” and playing church. So I can really relate to your process of re-examining things.
It is interesting how different people can arrive at different conclusions, as you and I have. After all my studies and soul-searching, I simply could not let go of Jesus or rather he could not let go of me. I had a life-changing spiritual awakening in 1999 where I finally grasped in my heart God’s grace and love towards me. After that the Bible came alive for me. Even though I had read it many many times before, it was like I had never read it before. There was a spiritual dimension to the text that opened up to me. The Bible can be just a book for some people, but for me there is a spiritual vitality to it and God does speak through it in a supernatural way. The Bible, while God worked through human beings to make it, is not solely human. The fingerprints of God are all over it.
I have read the three books that you mentioned. They are certainly interesting. I found John Shelby Spong to be a bit extreme and he often made unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, his views on God are so different from Christianity, it’s odd to me that he still tries to present himself as a Christian. For example he speaks of non-theism, yet Christianity, like the Judiasim it is derived from, is a theistic religion. He borrows from eastern concepts like Buddhism. He’s rather pluralistic– a blending of religious thoughts that go beyond any historical Christianity.
As for Gomes, I thought there were many good things about that book. His is much more sensible than Spong. Though, while I appreciated it, I ultimately was not persuaded by all his views on how we should treat the Bible. As for Stealing Jesus–its been awhile since I read that one. It seems to me that I related to some of what Bauer was saying in regards to fundamentalism, but I also definitely felt his writing was very reactive. I find that when people are still angry and still in a reactive state it keeps them from being as objective in their assertions.
Do you, as Spong does, believe in a non-theistic concept of “God”– an “it” energy that runs through us all that is impersonal? Also, who do you believe Jesus was? And, what led you to decide that Spong or Gomes’ views are more reality than someone else’s writings? Are Spong and Gomes your “Bible” so to speak? That is, where do you find your foundation for what reality is? The experiential or?
July 19, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Hi Karen,
It is interesting how reconciling sexuality and spirituality can lead to unexpected outcomes. I “confessed” my sexuality in an attempt to make more of my life transparent to God — not necessarily because I wanted to seek out progressive/liberal theology. As I tried to apply my conservative Christian faith in my life — I really tried to increase my understanding of God’s calling in my life (hence, my ex-gay attempt). However, I began to have doubts about some the conservative Christian doctrines I was raised. I also didn’t really “see” the connections ex-gay leaders were making in ex-gay theory and Biblical interpretation. Conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical theology seemed to be more complicated, complex and precarious to hold together. As I said before, eventually I became so confused as to what I felt I should believe versus what I really believed.
I have wondered if I didn’t have to deal with the gay issue, would I really be motivated to re-consider the faith I was raised into. I suppose those facing other religiously controversial life decisions, such as premarital sex, divorce, abortion/pregnancy, could be similarly motivated. However, those are one-time life decisions whereas acknowledging same-sex attractions is a lifelong issue.
To be honest, I haven’t read these three books in several years either, so I can’t say that I necessarily agree with all of these authors’ specific conclusions. Yes, Spong has some extreme ideas that shocked and even scared me when I first read them from a conservative Christian perspective. I can see how Bauer’s book could be considered reactive, but I definitely witnessed his description of American Christianity. Gomes’ book helped salvage Christianity for me when I was seriously considering no longer identifying as Christian.
As for what I believe. No, I don’t see God as an impersonal energy. I do believe in an intelligent creator; however, I have doubts that s/he audibly or telepathically communicates with people (as least I’ve never experienced such communication).
I do believe there was an historical Jesus and I want to believe he is the son of God and was resurrected, but I honestly have doubts whether the supernatural aspects of his story occurred. Ultimately, I think his message is more important than arguments about whether he was divine or acted supernaturally. It’s like arguing whether Santa Claus is real — ultimately, we’re called on to do the same things regardless.
I can’t say anyone led me to Spong. Instead, I clumsily found Spong’s book on the bookshelf at Powell’s bookstore one day. The dust jacket seemed to address some of the questions I had and his writings made sense to me. I can’t say I hold Spong or Gomes above other writers, but that I relate more to their writings and they seemed to address the issues I was dealing with. While I respect, relate, and value many of their views, I don’t consider their works my Bible.
I don’t think I have a Bible — assuming we’re talking about a book that holds my beliefs specifically. I do value the Bible itself and strive to understand its authors’ messages, but I can’t say I’m a “Bible believer” (my grandmother would be shocked) or Bible worshipper. I suppose my foundation is related to my and others’ experiences. I suppose that makes me sound like a wishy-washy liberal, but I can’t say I have a specific theology identity.
July 20, 2007 at 10:34 am
Norm,
Ah, Powell’s bookstore! That lept off the page when I read it in your post. One of my favorite old haunts. I love Powell’s!
Anyway, I really appreciate your openness in sharing and your honest process to search out what you believe.
You mentioned that you believe in an intelligent creator, but have not experienced any audible or telepathic communication. I have never heard God audibly either–though I know some people who have. I don’t think audible communication is that common. I do hear God speak to my spirit though. Sometimes it is in impressions to act on something or to change my attitude about something. There have been a few times, where I sensed an actual sentence–God saying something very deliberate to my spirit where there were clear words–not audible, but spoken to my spirit. On a couple of occassions I have had a dream–where there was a very clear sentence. One example is that I woke up with this Scripture reference. It was odd. I never dream scripture references. But it was very clear–an exact scripture reference. I thought that was interesting and then got up to turn on my computer and there on my computer was an e-mail from a friend that included the exact verse that I had just dreamt.
One of my friend’s mom felt the spirit urging her and pressing her to go visit this one friend. The urging became so strong she started to get anxious and immediately went to this friend’s house. As it turns out, this friend (who is elderly and lives alone) had fallen down and was stuck lying on the floor for several hours, praying and asking God to send someone to help.
God moves in supernatural ways. Though in America we are so rationalistic that we don’t see it as much as in other countries where they are very aware of the spiritual realm–both good and bad. About a year ago, I witnessed an actual miracle. I have never witnessed a miracle like that before–it was a healing. A friend who had rapidly progressing terminal lung cancer. She was unable to undergo chemotherapy and was expected to die in a matter of months. People prayed and her cancer mysteriously disappeared. Today she is cancer free.
Do you feel that God has ever spoken to you? If there is a intelligent creator, what is his relationship to you? What does he think about you, and what do you think about him? If he created you, would it not be possible that he wants to speak to you?
I can understand your doubts about Jesus and whether he was ever really resurrected. It certainly is a leap of faith. It means believing in what is supernatural. Paul the Apostle said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead then Christians are to be pitied more than anyone else on the planet–because our hope is in vain. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then none of us ever have any hope of rising from the dead either. But, if Jesus was resurrected, then we know that same power can resurrect us from death and give us the chance to live forever with bodies that never die. Jesus’ message was not just about being good people–it was even more than that–it was transformation of character, plus the eradication of all disease and death. It was the promise of both spiritual resurrection (character) and physical resurrection (freedom from death and disease).
You mention reading Spong, Gomes, etc. Have you read some of the other literature like:
“The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright
“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” by Richard Bauckham
“Fabricating Jesus” by Craig Evans
“Is the New Testament Reliable?” by Paul Barnett
“On the Reliability of the Old Testament” by K.A. Kitchen
“The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” by F.F. Bruce
I have found that those coming from a conservative background who embrace liberal/progressive Christianity assume they already know the position regarding orthodox Christianity, so they don’t actually research both sides. I had one friend say to me, “I don’t need to read Jerry Falwell!” To which I replied, well I don’t read Jerry Falwell either and don’t have any plans to. The Church does not actually teach scholarship from the pulpit most of the time. So, many are not aware of the orthodox research that discusses the reliability of scripture etc etc.
True research and true searching requires studying scholarship on both sides. For me that meant reading pro-gay theology and books like Gomes etc–people I might not think I would agree with. But to be honest in my search, I needed to read all sides, and I have learned a lot that way. I would encourage you to do the same if you haven’t already.
As for a foundation, I think a lot of people do rely on the experiential as a foundation. I do, at some level as well. Though, because experience can be deceiving, I balance my foundation with more than that. Our feelings are not always a reliable gauge of reality.
August 17, 2007 at 8:38 pm
As long as there is the doctrine of eternal torment, the will be fundamentalism. You think you are separate somehow from “Pharisees” and “legalists,” but as long as you teach that there is eternal punishment for not measuring up (whether by actions or belief) you are no different from them.
Stop fooling yourselves.
August 21, 2007 at 10:54 pm
The topic of hell is a difficult one. I have spent countless hours wrestling and weeping over it. Looking into a crowd of people, all I can think of is how precious each person is.
I have difficulty with the concept of hell, but I also have to acknowledge that Jesus spoke on the topic of hell more than anyone else in the New Testament. If Jesus thought it was important to address, I cannot simply ignore it– as much as I want to.
The interesting thing about God’s sense of justice in Scripture is that it is flavored with mercy. That is, God sees it as just to bestow mercy on those who do not deserve it. Scripture also speaks of God’s judgment as allowing human beings to drink the cup of their own making–that is people reaping the consequences of their own actions. People’s sins fall back upon themselves and this is a form of judgment. It would be hard to fault God for allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own actions.
The other thing I keep in mind is that it would not be just if God did not vindicate the innocent. We would be appalled in our own society if a rapist or white-collar embezzeler could pillage all they want without any consequence. Our justice system takes action because justice demands it. So, also, what kind of God would he be if he just stood by and did not put things to right at some point. In the end he will put things aright. He will enact justice for the oppressed and helpless at the end of the age.
We all like to excuse ourselves thinking we do not need God’s mercy. We don’t like to admit our own self-centeredness and the ways we hurt others with our words and actions. Yet, even despite our hard heartedness, God offers mercy to everyone. No one goes to hell (whatever that ends up being) except by their own choice. God doesn’t force people to accept him and his mercy.
We human beings are quite capable of creating and willingly walking into the hells of our own making.
In the end, I just have to trust that God is more loving and kind than I can possibly imagine and he will do what is just.
August 21, 2007 at 11:07 pm
One thing that helped me to deal with hell (if that is the topic here) was studying what the Seventh Day Adventists teach. (And no, I am not one, and generally do not click with their other ideas.)
But, I did my own study of the Scriptures they were referring to and can see some real basis for hell being a consuming, not eternal fire.
Each person will have to sort this out for him/herself, but I personally found the Scriptures compelling, and this has truly put hell in the perspective which brings me more peace. (Any Adventist website will likely have topical indexes on this.)
And, BTW, it is not just this denominational group — a well known theologian — F.F. Bruce — Church of Christ — wrote a book, “The Fire That Consumes”.
I belong to neither denomination but feel there is no reason to avoid really studying Scripture for oneself — whether it is about this topic or the gay “issue”.
Just wanted to chime in…
March 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been hurt by fundamentalists in the past, and this really helped a lot. Thanks.
March 6, 2008 at 9:07 am
Reading this post put my heart at ease. I currently work for a big mega church whose views tend to be on the fundamental side. Lately I’ve felt like I just simply cannot measure up, and it wasn’t until I saw your fundies chart that I realized that by working here (I am only a receptionist and assistant) I have lost view of what being an authentic Christian is all about. Thank you for reminding me. I find all your posts enlightening and interesting and though there are some entries I heartily disagree with, it’s refreshing to see your points of view.
I’m not sure if your familiar with Rob Bell but he’s one of my favorite Christian authors and he explains Christianity as a “trampoline”….a journey that we all need to jump on and that keeps changing as we keep discussing and keep learning. He describes the fundamentalist view of Christianity as a “brick wall” with no discussion, ending the journey completely.
Good entry!
March 6, 2008 at 10:15 am
Travis–Thanks so much for stopping by! I find a sense of comraderie with those who have shared some similar experiences. Perhaps, we can all help each other to heal, eh?
Alex–Thanks for your comment! I am glad you found the chart helpful. Its just like Enemy to make us forget the amazing grace of God. I often remind myself that its not about measuring up (thank God for that!).
As for Rob Bell– I have heard of him and have been wanting to read some of his work, but as yet have not done so. I need to pick up one of his books.
March 7, 2008 at 8:08 am
Karen, I’d recommend Rob Bell’s book “Sex God.” It’s not what you think it will be about and it’s really interesting.