A discussion of the risks of extreme Fundamentalism, particularly in regard to persons patterned by childhood abuse to respond to authoritarian domination.

Receintly I've noticed that I've been irritated by the very idea of Fundamentalism, which is somewhat odd as I've often described myself as a Fundamentalist Christian. My problem, I've realized after a good deal of thought, is a question of definitions.

A Definition of Terms Fundamentalism is a name that was attached to the viewpoint of those who, shortly after the turn of the [19th-20th] century, resisted all liberal attempts to modify orthodox Protestant belief or to question the infallibility of the Bible in any respect. The name is derived from a series of tracts published between 1912-14, entitled The Fundamentals that aimed at defining and defending the essentials of Protestant doctrine. The most important of the fundamental doctrines were (1) theinspiration and infallibility of the Bible, (2) the doctrine of the Trinity, (3) the virgin birth and deity of Christ, (4) the substitutionary theory of the atonement, (5) the bodily resurrection, ascension and second coming of Christ (parousia). Since most of these beliefs have been a part of Christian orthodoxy [for fifteen centuries], historians have seen the uniqueness of fundamentalism to consist in its violent opposition to all beliefs that seem opposed to some teaching of the Bible. In the twenties and thirties, this opposition was focused particularly on any theory of man's [sic] origins, especially evolution, that seemed incompatible with the account in Genesis. Consequently, fundamentalism tended to be identified with blind opposition to all critical inquiry. Because of this identification, certain conservative theologians who share the above-described beliefs but who think they can be defended in a rational manner have tended to shirk the name "fundamentalist" and call themselves "evangelical conservatives." They generally oppose the spirit of ecumenism and any theology, including neo-Reformed theology, which does not regard the Bible as the absolute and infallible rule of faith and practice. A Handbook of Theological Terms, by Van A. Harvey (MacMillan, NY, 1964)

To me, and many others I sincerely hope, the essential nature of fundamentalism is that all doctrine must be directly and solidly tied to explicit Biblical teachings to have any Christian validity. To me, that view is utterly sensible. The core of Christianity is the Bible. So, to me, basing doctrine on tradition or the opinion of dead theologians is nonsense. Christianity is an essentially a simple faith; there is no need to mystify or complicate it.

The difference I have with the more visibly flat-headed sorts of fundamentalism is that, while Christianity is essentially simple, it is not simplistic.

Contemporary Fundamentalism seems to me to be in great degree to be a quest for simple answers in the face of an increasingly complex and confusing world. And while it's desirable to have some source of reassurance, a firm anchor for a moral compass; to do so at the expense of replacing a flexible and tolerant faith with a rigid, moralistic hierarchy of rules seems to me to be a cure far worse than any possible disease.

One particular difficulty I have is the common insistence on the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. This is because it often flies in the face of common sense and requires mental and doctrinal gymnastics that are not required if the same passage is read as it reads. For example:

1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2: Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

4: God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5: God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
[King James Version] Courtesy of the WWW Bible Gateway

This text is quite reasonable and straightforward. It says God created the Earth (Well, the whole universe, actually) and did it in a six-step process, followed by a seventh period of rest. Like all Biblical language - and it is deliberately poetic; perhaps even more so in the original Hebrew - it compresses a great deal of meaning into as few words as possible. This approach makes a great deal of sense if you wish it to be remembered, and it makes even more sense if you have to copy every word by hand, breaking your pen and taking a ritual bath every time you write the Name of God.

But if we view this absolutely literally, God created the world in seven literal 24-hour days. And if we do this, we fall into a never-never land of logical contradiction; how can there be a 24 hour day a day before God creates the sun or the earth?

In taking this approach - requiring that the world was created in exactly seven 24-hour days; teeth, toenails and geological record - we must discard all of science's understanding of cosmology, all of our vague understanding of the succession of species and the bulk of geology, which tells us that the earth alone took many billions of days to form. I balk at evolutionary theory as it stands as much of an explanation of anything, although I suppose if God tells protoplasm to evolve it will, pausing only to ask "how far?"

But the point is, in an effort to supply simple, concrete answers to complex questions, the result has been to complicate things even more if you look at the implications of the statements. From my exposure to this sort of Fundamentalism, that isn't seen as a problem, because one is not supposed to question these statements. One simply accepts these "truths" as Gospel - and not wonder about the implications at all.

The fact that such obvious credulity separates the fundamentalist flock from the mainstream of religious thought is, from the viewpoint of Fundamentalist leaders, only to the good. It minimizes exposure to "questionable ideas."

But, you know, Genesis doesn't say how long the day was. Why? Well, the simple answer would be, "because a day is 24 hours long." But another equally simple answer would be, "because it doesn't matter." The point to Genesis is that God created the Universe. If the procedure had mattered, I'm sure He would have provided greater detail.

Interestingly enough, Hebrew doesn't have a convenient way to say "a distinct period of time," any more than English does. "And that was the end of the first distinct period of time" is discordant and awkward. "Day" is comprehensible and communicates nicely. And it communicates another truth of the creation - the first act of creation brought Time itself into being - a point that is reinforced by Big Bang cosmology.

Genesis doesn't give any recipes for the creation of life, either. We are assured that God did it and that it was - in His Humble Opinion - good. So whether he conjured it out of the primal chaos or started a biological domino chain, we know the important thing - that He was pleased with the result.

This is a reasonable reading of the passage. A literalist interpretation actually complicates creation theology beyond measure while discarding any real-world tests and possible reinforcements of such a theological stand. Literal fundamentalism creates hundreds of such logical contradictions which I view as a serious challenge to the fundamental simplicity of the Christian faith.

Another feature of Jewish religious writings and Christian writings coming out of that tradition is that many things are freighted with multiple meanings. A statement will have a straightforward, literal specific meaning and it will also have a larger, more general application. There may also be cultural allusions, echoes or parallels of earlier religious texts, etc. So to view a passage as having one and only one meaning is to impoverish the text.

For example; Christ's admonition about the payment of taxes; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's" is pretty obvious. Even so, some have said that, since there are no more Ceasars, Christians don't have to pay taxes. But that's not literalism, that's pretzilism.

What it is saying, plainly, is that Christians have to pay their taxes.

In a larger sense, it says that Christians are not exempted from the civic responsibilities that all citizens have; that there is a realm in which earthly authorities have primacy and areas in which God has primacy. Jesus doesn't say here what one must do when the two come into conflict, as they often do. Why?

Well, first, nobody brought it up at the time. And second - what one does is a matter of conscience, free will and, of course, the ability to make a meaningful choice. That is a complex equation that does not lend itself to a simple, decisive answer.

But in this quest for simple essentials, let us not loose sight of the entire point to the exercise.

Christ tells us the simple truth of his teachings: that "No one comes unto the Father save by Me" and "That whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now, these are utterly unqualified statements. Without qualification, the path to salvation is through Christ, and likewise, that path is clearly marked and open to everyone. There is no particular belief, other than belief in Christ himself, the Personification of redemption, there is no formula to recite, there is no need for any particular doctrinal structure. The whole essence of Christianity can be boiled down to an 8-page leaflet.

Zondervan Press, I believe, puts out one such; I think it's called The Seven Spiritual Truths and it outlines how anyone can become saved by their own effort in three minutes or less in the privacy of their own home.

But that doesn't leave much room for churches and priests and pastors to operate. And since the beginning of recorded history, religion has been the opiate that controlled the masses. Christianity is only the latest religion to be pressed into the service of kings and countries, to enforce social order, to regulate public and private behavior and - most importantly - concentrate power into the hands of priests and kings.

Now, if people really read and understood the Bible, they wouldn't put up with that. But most people are uncomfortable with the whole idea of reading the Bible prayerfully in order to find answers to questions that concern them - especially if they suspect the answers may be at odds with those their neighbors ascribe to. This is why they rely on people to tell them what the answers ought to be. They want simple answers to immediate questions and they want those answers to carry a stamp of community approval.

"May I steal?" "No. It's a sin and you will go to hell." This is the traditional answer - which just happens to be utterly wrong. Stealing is a sin (Hebrew = mistake) and no doubt you will pay the consequences for it - for all mistakes have consequences - but whether you sin or not, unless you absolutely never sin at all, ever in thought, word or deed, you will go to hell unless you are saved. If you are saved, you will go to heaven no matter what your burden of sin.

I expect to be profoundly surprised to find who is in heaven and who is not. I suspect that my ability to comprehend such things is far more limited than God's forgiveness.

So we are cast back on our own consciences by Christ's most profound sacrifice. We may sin, or not, as we choose. Ultimately, if we are saved, it makes little difference to our final destination. There are of course profound differences here and now! Those who act sinfully generally pay the price for it in misery and lost opportunity. The adulterer loses the trust and respect of loved ones; the thief the trust and respect of those who deal with them; those who covet generally either get what they want or don't, but either way the simple joy of having or the simple joy of anticipation are poisoned by their greedy desire.

Eastern religions would call this "karma." I call it common sense and human nature and a sure response to those who feel that morality is for suckers.

So why the fascination with hosts of rules and hierarchies of sins and obsessions? Well, it has very little to do with Christianity and it has everything to do with power and control. There is an old Hindu proverb which I will paraphrase: "God created faith, and then the Devil came along and offered to organize it. Everyone agreed to call the result `Religion'."

Now, this is not what you would call an original observation. A number of insights - some of them

Walk Away A Resource for ex-fundamentalists.

extremely bitter and jaundiced, some of them more introspective- may be found in the next sidebar. One particular theme that seems to run through it is that fundamentalist religions tend to get in the way of simple faith.

The difficulty seems to revolve around the substitution of specific rules and prohibitions for generalized individual moral and ethical behavior. The reason for this is basically simple; if behavior is left up to individual moral discretion and conscience, the results will vary. And the results that are desired are not ones of spiritual development, but conformity, obedience and unquestioning acceptance of authoritarian dictates.

The Bible emphasizes, over and over again, the importance of maintaining an prayerful, individual moral compass that, while it may be advised in fellowship with other Christians, is supreme in authority. The Bible stresses that there is no thing that is unclean to a Christian, unless there is a weakness in faith to make it so. So in my view, the substitution of rules and regulations that are supposedly intended to minimize temptation and improper behavior are a hindrance to the development of true spiritual maturity.

While restrictive Christian communities may be of value to Christians who's faith is weak, it is much in the same sense as prison is of value to those who's ethical systems are weak. The benefit is not primarily to the individual, but to the group which is spared behavior they consider disruptive.

But authoritarian structures are very comforting to people who were raised in authoritarian ways. Those who were trained from an early age to submit their will to those who hold greater authority or power will find many (not all) fundamentalist sects to be comfortable. This is not because of any greater spiritual benefit as compared to, say, a moderate Protestant church, but because they are accustomed to a pattern of authority abuse. And even when the authority is not particularly abusive - and we hope that in general it is not - they are comforted by the fact that they authority exists at all; removing from them the responsibility of personally exploring their own spirituality and their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

One area where church authority is often exercised is in the area of personal appearance, which, from a spiritual perspective, is utterly nonsensical, particularly when it bans long hair and beards on men. After all, Jesus Himself had long hair and a beard so it would seem that if anything, long hair and beards would be required! But to the contrary, many churches have dress and appearance codes as or more rigid than the military or IBM.

And these codes exist for much the same reason; uniformity creates conformity which produces predictability. A conformist flock is one that will follow direction reliably and act, think, and vote in predictable and politically valuable ways.

One only has to look at the success of the Christian Right to see the value of this approach, even though the Bible can as easily be used to support extreme left-wing views as extreme right-wing ones.

I am by no means objecting to a fundamentalist view of Christianity, as a spiritual path. While I personally find it to be a barren and uninteresting one, it is valid and has it's own strengths. My particular concern - and a concern that is not limited to fundamental groups, by the way - is in the way this spiritual path is expressed in the form of churches and organizations.

"By their fruits you shall know them," we are instructed. When I see churches that preach intolerance and bigotry, when I see churches that are content to obey dictates blindly without trying to understand why the dictates were made, I see spiritual poverty and a willingness on the part of congregants to participate in the worst sort of mob rule.

There is much made in these churches about sexual immorality, for example. In my mind, they concentrate far too much on forbidding particular acts while paying little or no attention to the larger and far more important issue of expressing one's sexuality in a moral way. There are fundamentalist churches out there that condemn a loving, committed homosexual relationship but will in the same breath say that a husband has a right to rape his wife if she doesn't "fulfill her conjugal duties."

To me, sexual immorality is about behaving immorally towards a person in a sexual way and has very little about what exactly one is doing or who one is doing it with.

Or another thing that makes my blood boil; to rejoice at the carnage in the middle east because it is the fulfillment of prophecy, rather than praying and working towards some sort of peaceful resolution!

The key is that the goals of a chuch, it's moral compass, must not conflict with the ethical norms of society. It may be more stringant, call for a higher standard than that expected of people not of the church, but it's precepts must not, cannot conflict with the general ethical standards of Western culture, which are, after all, based on Biblical precepts.

What does this mean in practice? It means that the Church should stay out of bedrooms, beer parlours and most of all, out of government! Not for any airy-fairy constitutional arguements, but because it conflicts most greviously with the very core of Christianity.

Christianity is a choice. Faith is a choice. Morality is a choice. If those choices are forced, if people are Christians because they never were allowed not to be, if they believe because they were brainwashed into it in school, if they act morally only from fear of prosecution, these choices are not choices and have no spiritual validity. Far from saving souls - for souls are saved by these choices - we have damned souls by taking the choice away.¹

If there is no choice, one cannot choose God.

Modern "fundamentalists" wish to remove all such choices and make the world "safe" for "Good Christian Folk." But God did not create a "safe" world. Yes, he created the Garden. He also created the Serpent - knowing full well what the serpant would do. This world is not safe because God wants there to be tests and temptations, for without the possiblity of failure there can be no success.

If you wish to be a Fundamentalist, go back to the fundamentals. Read your bible for yourself, prayerfully. Don't take any one person's word for what it says; read it for yourself. Study it. Find out what people who undertstand the cultural backgrounds of the writers have to say about what nuances this brings to the Word. Be dilligent in your study and your faith and by no means accept any teaching as being superior to your own informed concience.

That is fundamental Christianty.

Created: Thursday, February 27, 1997, 08:09 PM Last Updated: Friday, September 19, 1997

---

Bob King: firewheel@oocities.com

This page hosted by:

Get your own Free Home Page!

Copyright 1996, 1997

Bob King