Christian Fundamentalism

What bothers me the most about Christian fundamentalism isn't that it doesn't match up with New Testament teachings; what bothers me the most is that it doesn't resemble Jesus.

It is ironic to me that fundamentalism started as a unity movement within the Christian church. While the earliest days of fundamentalism were intended to promote Christian unity, it evolved into something much different. Christian fundamentalism, in short, is a strict cohesion to a set of basic doctrines or principles as a reaction to the perceived "worldly, perverse" doctrinal compromises in the modern world. In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church published their Five Fundamentals at their annual Niagra Bible Conference. The Five Fundamentals are:

1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and inerrancy of Scripture as a result. 2. The virgin birth of Christ. 3 The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin. 4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. 5. The historical realities of Christ's miracles.

The General Assembly released other publications as well such as the "Niagra Creed" which contained 14 points or statements that were foundational for "true Christianity". Statements (or creeds) such as these exist to say, "If you want to be part of us, this is what you must believe". Influenced by my Anabaptist heritage, I don't believe a statement of beliefs (or your belief in them) assures one's salvation. Anabaptists believe that the Holy Spirit works among God's people in each generation to interpret our understanding of Scripture and the context in which we live it out.

These "fundamental statements" were used to separate those "not genuinely Christian" from those who profess the "true" faith. While fundamentalists would view these statements the foundations of true religion, I believe that the Sermon on the Mount and teachings of Jesus deserve our attention. How Scripture is understood, interpreted, and contextualized is very different from a fundamentalist view point and, lets say, an Anabaptist view point. Even the word "context" or "contextualization" could invoke charges of apostasy, heresy, and perverted worldliness from the fundamental viewpoint (although, I would charge, they have entirely contextualized their fundamental lifestyles to align with certain periods or thought in American history).

The trinity of fundamentalist thought is textual inerrancy, textual infallibility, and textual literalism. This seems to be true of any religious form of fundamentalism and their approach to sacred texts (whether they be Islamic, Jewish, Christian, or even Buddhist fundamentalists). Although biblical literalism is a relatively modern invention, you would think by listening to them that Jesus and Paul were literalists as well. In such fundamentalist thought, there is a belief that they alone hold to the truest form of their religion and that they hold the monopoly on truth. Everyone else is unfaithful and worldly. Islamic fundamentalists call us "infidels"; Christian fundamentalists call us "pagans".

In Christian fundamentalism, there is a strong emphasis on the strict adherance to doctrine based on a literal interpretation of Scripture. However, since fundamentalism is a reaction against the "corrupt", it became much more than a movement based on biblical literalism. Fundamentalists began to see themselves as keepers of the true Christian heritage of the first century and the heirs of the American, puritan, protestant empire of the USA. Their "battle" was a continuation of the paramount struggle of good and evil, between God and Satan, fighting against all who would corrupt the Christian religion (and America, I might add). In 1920, Curtis Lee Laws, a British journalist for the Watchman-Examiner, described the fundamentalist intent as "doing battle royal for the fundamentals". Anyone who didn't hold to the fundamentalist agenda for Christianity (or for America) was considered an enemy. Their list of enemies is long, and it continues to grow.

Fundamentalists began to court politics in the 1970's, evolved into the Moral Majority of the 1980's, and became the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council of the 1990's. I stopped listening to such groups as Focus on the Family in the mid-90's as they continued to adopt more and more of a political and cultural agenda (even though I may have agreed with some of their politics). I don't believe faith and politics make good bedfellows.

In short, here are some of the problems I have with Christian fundamentalism:

1) Fundamentalism takes it upon itself to decide who's in and who's out and justifies judgment of individuals and society as a whole, often choosing to condemn and criticize rather than serve in love. Their belief that they are "right" gives them the confidence not only to speak from God but to speak as though they were God. This fundamentalist ideology dismisses those they deem as outcasts, and many of these Christian people treat "sinners" with contempt and possess a spirit that is opposite of Christ. Judgment is an affront to Christ, and from a New Testament point of view, there can be no denying that!

2) By and large, there is a rejection of Social Justice among fundamentalists. I have been around many believers who treat those called to Social Justice as liberal, worldly, and ungodly. How can someone who claims to "believe the bible" deny that caring for the poor, serving the homeless, helping the sick, ending discrimination, and fathering the fatherless is wrong and a misallocation of church resources? For 2000 years, the Christian church has been carrying out God's work by founding hospitals, schools, and orphanages and working to abolish slavery, pursue civil rights, and terminate segregation (often in direct opposition to fundamentalists). I seriously question the sincerity of those who claim to "believe the bible" and yet criticize the cause of justice. There is more than one way to preach the Gospel!

3) Fundamentalism requires conformity to established dogmas and doctrines. With major issues resolved, all that is required by followers is conformity...and there is little tolerance for diversity. However, as views get narrower and narrower, the church continues to splinter into smaller and smaller sects, shattering the unity of the church and giving rise to potentially manipulative and controlling environments. Any sect that does not tolerate debate and questioning is obsessed with control. I do not believe coercion or manipulation have any place in the Christian faith because it is opposite to the spirit of Christ. I do not believe that God is threatened by those who poke and prod, search and seek. I do, however, think it is dangerous and irresponsible when we fail to ask questions and seek for truth.

4) Fundamentalism, all too easily, makes enemies of men -- despite the prohibition of it in Scripture and the example of Jesus. Michael Graeme said, "The fundamental flaw of fundamentalism, be it religious or scientific, is that it has a nasty habit of riding roughshod over the humanity it claims to serve." In the name of "true religion", many fundamentalists have declared open season on anyone they have labeled as a scourge on the land. In the name of God, they afflict pain and suffering of a different kind, leaving a shattered humanity in their path. The damage done to people cannot be justified by someone claiming to follow Christ! This kind of religion is perhaps religion in its ugliest form. It all too closely resembles the Pharisees of the New Testament in its tactics and treatment of "sinners". With utter defiance of the teachings of Jesus, they place the law above love and choose repeatedly to cast the first stone.

For the fundamentalists, salvation is found in the correctness of their beliefs and conformity to their expectations. While I do not disagree with any of the Five Fundamentals as individual statements of Scriptural truth, I profoundly disagree with fundamentalism. I cannot identify with nor support they way they live among our neighbors. I cannot reconcile in my heart that their way is Christ's Way.

I just cannot.

While fundamentalism may appeal to our narcissism (we are God's chosen) and to fear (salvation must be this way), it misses the mark when it comes to Jesus. We cannot say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" and ignore the Sermon on the Mount, the Greatest Commandments, the Parable of the Sheep and Goats and so many other great and wonderful teachings of Jesus! If we ignore Jesus, then what are we?

Legalism (or even moralism) cannot usurp the teachings of Christ. Jesus, I believe, is God's revelation of Himself. When we see Jesus, we see God! To see Jesus is much more than just understanding the facts that surround his life (virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection). To see Jesus is to allow him to read our life, our motives, and our heart and to be transformed into people who live as He did, carrying the Good News on our lives and on our lips -- and we cannot have one without the other!