What is a Christian fundamentalist? (And why I prefer another path)

Recently an Asphalt Jesus group wrote with a series of questions, one of which was: “What is your definition of fundamentalism?”  I’ll try to address the other questions in future posts, but here’s my take on what fundamentalism is.  Feel free to add a comment with your own definition!

My definition really isn’t mine at all, but was articulated in the early 1900s, partly as a result of something called the Niagara Bible Conference which sought to define the beliefs thought to be non-negotiable or “fundamental” to Christian faith (which led to the term “fundamentalism”).  These beliefs were distilled into a “top five” of sorts. Ironically these five principles were first formally articulated within the Presbyterian Church soon which split into two very different denominations as a result of conflict over how “fundamental” these principles actually are:

(1)    The inerrancy of Scripture.
(2)    The virgin birth of Christ.
(3)    The belief in the atonement of sins through Christ’s death.
(4)    The bodily resurrection of Christ.
(5)    The historical reality of all of Christ’s miracles.

Of course, quite a number of people of more moderate faith would affirm some of the above beliefs.  In actuality, just two of the beliefs above serve as significant separators between fundamentalism and other forms of Christian belief: (1) belief in the literal inerrancy of Scripture and (2) belief that Christ saves (only) believers from eternal damnation through atonement on the cross.

I want to make it perfectly clear here, though, that to distinguish between Christian fundamentalism and other forms of Christian faith such as Christian liberal or progressivism is not to distinguish in any way between who is a “good” Christian (or human being) and who is not.
You may recall that Jesus himself said that he came not to serve the “healthy” but the “sick” (Luke 7).  By definition, therefore, ALL who claim to follow Jesus should identify themselves with “the sick” regardless of how liberal or conservative their beliefs.  We all stand in “fundamental” need of God and have “fundamental” problems turning our will (and with it, our lives) over to God’s power and guidance.

Personally, while I find myself frequently at odds with fundamentalist Christian belief (and really, fundamentalist belief of any sort), I would trade the community of a hundred liberal/progressives who saw themselves as completely healthy and in little need for God in their lives for the community of ten fundamentalists who had truly understood themselves to rely on the grace, love and guidance of God.

The reason why, though, I find a more liberal/progressive faith system (and community) to a more fundamentalist/conservative one is because, having tried both systems, I have found that a more liberal/progressive faith helps ME accept and acknowledge the realization that I am sick and am in need of God in my life.  What does this look like concretely in my life?  It looks like this:

Regarding the salvation thing.

Because I have become convinced, through scripture, through Christians who have come before me, and through life experience, that I and all people are loved unconditionally, beyond our wildest imagination, I feel far freer than I did in my distant and brief “fundamentalist” phase to admit that I don’t have all of life’s answers wrapped up in a nice, neat package.  I feel no need to prove to God or others that I have perfect faith, or that my faith has “made me whole” (and therefore no longer in need of God?).

Being assured of God’s unconditional love has given me the freedom to take a more critical look at my life and realize just how strongly I must rely on a higher power to move beyond my shortcomings and truly live on a higher level.  It has also given me a sense of deep acceptance of others, shortcomings and all,  in ways that I did not have before.  If someone is driving me crazy, I firmly believe that when all is said and done (in this life or beyond), we will be united with each other in God’s grace and love.  This gives me a sense of patience with people that I personally would not have if I believed that God was just waiting to punish the person (forever!) for failure to agree with me (after all, my views and God’s are the same, right? Not!).

Regarding the scripture thing.

My belief that the scriptures are NOT inerrant radically increases my joy in studying the scriptures, and with it, my ability to learn from our ancient sisters and brothers of faith.  Since I do not feel compelled to blindly accept that which runs contrary to love of God, neighbor, and self in scripture, I can enter into a deeper, more honest relationship with the texts before me.  (Incidentally, sometimes that “love of self” principle includes love of the part of myself that has an intellect and therefore does not confuse story and parable with scientific fact.  And that “love of neighbor” part convinces me that an adulterer is not to be stoned to death as the scriptures advocate).  I have become convinced that taking the scriptures “seriously but not literally” enables me to better “hear” what the ancients were trying to tell us in the first place about their authentic experiences of God.  Those who wrote scripture weren’t literalists!  And they certainly did not think that what they were writing was inerrant (The only that claims to be the pure words of God is Revelation – the most historically controversial book of the whole Bible!).  When I stop looking for scientific fact and start listening for what the scriptures are trying (imperfectly) to tell us about love of and by God, and love of neighbor and self, the scriptures frequently point me to where I can find these loves potentially at work in my life that I haven’t noticed before.

I could go on and on, but will finish with this final point about what my liberal/progressive faith does for me: It fills me with bewilderment over why more liberal/progressive Christians frequently find it so hard to love their enemies, acknowledge their own shortcomings, devote themselves to seeking God’s guidance on a daily basis, and study the scriptures on a deeper level.  Life gets so darn good when we do these things consistently, and our theology is such an incredibly powerful support in doing so!

But just when I get worked up about how others fail in this regard, I start looking at myself again and realize how far ALL of us have yet to go down this path.  And, it’s also about the time I find yet another example of how perfectly God works through imperfect people like us.  I guess that’s why God loves grace so much.  God isn’t dependent upon our perfection to expand or deepen God’s Realm on earth or to take us into (wonderful) places we wouldn’t necessarily go ourselves!

Christianity and Other Faiths – Part 1

For the next couple weeks, we’ll be exploring Affirmation 1 of the Phoenix Affirmations in worship and small groups (Asphalt Jesus groups, Chapter 4: Jesus First Baptist Church).  Affirmation 1 reads: “Christian love of God includes walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths that God may provide for humanity.”

Here are some thoughts to help spur reflection on the relationship between Christianity and other faiths.  They’re based on a section that was cut from the original draft of my book on the Phoenix Affirmations.

Imagine the following scene:  A steel gray, state-of-the-art Iranian-made military helicopter hovers menacingly above a New England style white-steepled Christian church.  Smoke billows from a burned out car nearby as Iranian militia repel from the helicopter toward the roof ready to attack the church.

Does this scene raise your heart rate any?  Now suppose you were to learn this scene was depicted in a prominent Iranian government and policy journal in an advertisement for a new military helicopter.  In front of the church sits a sign reading, “Jesus Church,” removing all doubt about the nature of the building being attacked. Below the scene you find a caption reading, “It descends from the heavens. Ironically it unleashes hell.”  A further caption states that the craft “delivers Special Forces to insertion points never thought possible.”

How do you feel now?  What are your feelings toward the people who created the ad?  Even though the ad’s purpose is to sell helicopters, what does it suggest about prevailing attitudes toward Christianity or Christians themselves on the part of the ad’s creators and the journal’s readership? 

There is good news and bad news behind this mental exercise.  The good news is that such an ad has never appeared in an Iranian journal.  The bad news is that a similar ad, only depicting an American-made V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and American military personnel rappelling onto the roof of an Islamic mosque has, in fact, appeared.  A sign in front of the building read in Arabic, “Muhammad Mosque,” and the same disturbing captions appeared in the ad. The ad was not published in the Arab world as a piece of anti-American propaganda, but in America.  It appeared in the National Journal, a prominent Washington government and policy magazine, on September 24, 2005. 

You can view the ad by clicking this link: mosqueattackad

To the credit of the aircraft’s creators, Boeing and Bell Helicopters, as well as the National Journal itself, the ad was pulled immediately after a protest was filed from the Council for American-Islamic Relations.  Public apologies were issued.  The companies cited “clerical error” as the culprit behind the ad and spoke of the need for “evaluating creative processes.”

I cite this example not to suggest that the ad represents the attitudes of all Americans toward either Islam or Islamic countries.  Indeed, America has a long and impressive record of tolerance and welcome toward people of other faiths.  This not only includes American Christians’ attitudes toward non-Christians, but American Muslims’ stance toward non-Muslims, American Hindus’ toward non-Hindus, and so on.  Indeed, while there have always been distinct and highly regrettable exceptions in our historical record, America’s record of tolerance may favorably be compared to that of any other country on earth.

Whether it was the often brutal treatment of Native Americans by settlers and the U.S. government itself two centuries ago or the inhumane and demoralizing treatment of Chinese immigrants by San Franciscans around the beginning of the last century, there has been a shadowy subtext to many of these sad stories: The perpetrators have frequently been Christians who believed fervently that Christianity is the only legitimate path to God and that all others will burn in hell for eternity if they are not “saved” for Jesus.

Of course, not every Christian believes this way.  According to a recent major study, in fact, 7 in 10 Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life, including 6 in every 10 evangelicals, 8 in 10 mainliners and Catholics – despite the fact that the “official” doctrinal stances of of evangelicals and Catholics would suggest otherwise.  Incidentally, you can see a graphical depiction of the results of that poll by clicking on Question 9 after clicking here.

Further, of those who do believe non-Christians will go to hell, relatively few will ever become violent or inhumane toward them.  In fact, what few people recognize is the level of compassion many of these believers have toward non-Christians.  Think about it: If you honestly believed (and perhaps you do believe) that those who do not “believe in their heart and confess with their tongue” that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior will be tortured in the fires of hell for eternity, would you not do everything in your power to save non-believers?  How much love and compassion could you say you really have if you do not make every effort to convert non-Christians before they die, by hook or by crook? 

Christian liberals often don’t like to admit it, but such beliefs have fueled the fires of some of the most energetic efforts to better the condition of the downtrodden in our country.  Just visit an inner-city homeless shelter run by Christians or a prison ministry and you’ll often find sincere, very conservative people of faith doing their best to reach out to those whom society has rejected.  Of course, a strong motivation for their being there is to “save souls for Jesus.”  Yet, even if one may disagree with their theology and may disagree as well with some of their tactics, it is hard to deny the sincerity and compassion of many of these rugged souls.  While many people sit on the sidelines and critique a homeless ministry, for instance, for requiring their clientele to sit through a sermon before being offered a bed for the night, they ignore the fact that many of these preachers, soup kitchen workers and counselors have made tremendous personal sacrifices and endured all kinds of abuse both by those they’re serving and those who sit on the sidelines in order to do what they do.

However, just as many Christian liberals tend to overlook the sincerity and compassion behind their more conservative brothers and sisters, so also do many Christian conservatives tend to overlook the shadow side of their beliefs, quite apart from arguments for or against the beliefs themselves.

When a person of any faith believes fervently that non-believers will suffer for eternity after they die for their lack of belief, it not only has a tendency to lead a person toward compassion toward unbelievers, but also to disdain the religions that keep people from “true” belief.  If you are convinced, for instance, that Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism – the three other largest world religions – are directly responsible for the suffering of billions of people for eternity in hell, just how much respect are you likely to have for these faith traditions?  And, as much as you may wish to think otherwise, how much respect are you likely to have for the leaders of these other faiths?  If you dare allow a sliver of respect or admiration in your heart for these faiths or faith leaders, does it not sometimes occur to you that this could be a trick of the devil trying to turn your heart from saving souls?  Just how much incentive do you have to consider other Christian stances toward those of other faiths, like that represented by Affirmation 1?

To believe that other paths may lead to God is not at all to deny one’s faith in Jesus Christ.  Personally, Christ is my only “way, truth, and life.”  I am “joyfully and unapologetically” Christian.  I have no desire to follow other religious figures or faiths.  Christianity is my path and I’m very happy about it.  However, to claim that Christianity is my path, or even to claim that Christianity is the best path (for me), is not to say Christianity is the only path.  God is far greater than I can possibly imagine.  And I trust that, since so many humble, religious folks on the planet are not Christian, God has created other paths beyond the one I claim as my own.

But I get ahead of myself.  We’ll deal directly with the relationship between Christianity and other faiths in our May 31st worship service.  There, we’ll specifically look at Jesus words that he is the “way, the truth, and the life” and that “no one comes to the Father except through me.”  Believe it or not, one can faithfully affirm these words and hold to the view that God creates other paths.  Jesus himself says so. But again, I get ahead of myself …

Can you be angry and loving at the same time?

Here’s another question from the Waterstraat group (The second of two. I responded to the first in the last post):

Many of us seem to have personal stories of frustrations with other, more “conservative” organized religions or individual churches who, to us, seem(ed) to preach a message of fear and exclusion. Many of us fled these other churches and were initially drawn to Countryside by the simple message stamped in the walkway before the front door — “All Are Welcome.” Many of us also seem to have close friends or family members in our lives who believe deeply that their specific brand of Christianity is the “only way,” and who openly tell us that they grieve for us and pray for us hoping that we won’t be “burned in Hell forever.” We find ourselves torn. On one hand we seem to agree that just as we parent our different children in different ways, as individuals, many of us need our “Father” to parent us in different ways — some of us need to be told what to do, and some of us need more leash. We lean on C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and rejoice that our friends are “in the house,” and we don’t want to fight with them over which room they choose to hang out in. On the other hand, we also agree that Christians who preach a message based on fear and exclusivity to us seem to have completely missed who Jesus really was/is. We want to be angry and loving at the same time, and we’re not sure how to walk this dual path.

Your well-stated desire to be “angry and loving at the same time” is shared with a great many Christians around the country who are concerned with unloving and fear-based manifestations of Christian faith (often due to personal experience of it).  It is clear that you do not wish to manifest the same fear and hate only from a different perspective in making a response – a commendable desire!

Later in Asphalt Jesus I talk about “Good Friday” energy that has seized Christians on both sides of the theological divide.  “Good Friday” energy is the energy of anger, which essentially says, “Someone has crucified the Jesus of my understanding.  I think I know who did it.  So now let’s go get the crucifiers and crucify them!”

In the Seven Deadly Sins series we spoke of Anger being like salt.  A little salt can be a wonderful thing, helping to define and intensify the many and varied flavors of a dish.  Yet if you keep pouring salt, it can turn a great tasting dish into something that’s inedible.  If you pour still more, salt will actually turn a dish into poison.  The key with anger is: can you let go of it?  If you can, great.  If you can’t, then likely anger is poisoning you, as well as those who may be objects of your anger.

In this regard, the late William Sloan-Coffin, senior minister of Riverside Church in New York City, once helpfully observed: “True, we have to hate evil; else we’re sentimental.  But if we hate evil more than we love the good, we become damn good haters, and of those the world already has too many.  However, deep, our anger like that of Christ, must always and only measure our love.”

I think Sloan-Coffin hits the nail on the head.  And notice that he brings Jesus into his equation.  Read through any of the gospels and you find that Jesus could get angry – very angry – at those who were distorting the love of God, neighbor, and/or self.  The self-righteous were particular objects of his anger, as well as religious leaders (often one and the same people).  Jesus could call them a “brood of vipers,” and accuse them of making converts “twice the sons of hell [Gehenna = garbage dump] as you are.”

Thus, if anyone wonders whether it’s possible to criticize fellow believers – even severely – and remain faithful to the Christian Path, one need only turn to the one we claim to follow for confirmation.  Yes, there is an appropriate place for “calling out” those who, in our view, are turning the Path of Love into the Path of Fear and Hatred.  However, we need to do it like Jesus did it.  I believe there’s plenty of evidence in the gospels to suggest that Jesus’ criticisms arose out of a deep conviction regarding the value and worth of those he was criticizing.  His criticisms often have a ring to them like, “I know you’re BETTER THAN THAT!  I know you’re CAPABLE OF SO MUCH MORE!  When will you ever start using the high gifts and graces with which you’ve been entrusted rather than throwing them all away?”

In other words, Jesus engaged the self-righteous, the religious leaders, and so forth, out of deep respect for them.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t have bothered to give them the time of day.   Jesus saw clearly that the objects of his fury were loved beyond their wildest imagination and essentially was screaming, “When are you ever going to start ACTING like it?  When are you going to wake up and hear the music of God’s grace and love wafting through the air? “

When it comes down to it, what shows a person with whom you disagree more respect: criticizing them to their face, or remaining silent and letting them continue their destructive path without challenge (perhaps even criticizing them behind their backs, or writing them off as “hopeless’)?

Personally, if someone has a strong disagreement with me, I’d much prefer that person to come out and state it rather than keeping to her/himself – even if the message came with some degree of anger.  For, in “daring” to be critical, that person also honors me implicitly by (a) believing that I might actually clear my ego aside long enough to listen to what she/he has to say; (b) believing that I have the capacity to weigh this person’s argument and potentially change my ways as a result; (c) believing that I won’t be childish and lash out at the person for bruising my ego; (d) showing that the person, by conversing with me, may actually be willing to hear and respond to my point-of-view after stating hers/his.

Thus, criticism is as much a sign of interest and belief in someone as it is disagreement.  So be angry.  Just make sure to you can let go of it, in which case your anger will likely “add flavor to the dish” rather than poisoning it.  And the best way to ensure that you can let go of your anger (besides praying, which I highly recommend!), is to make sure that love for God, your neighbor, and yourself is not taking a back seat.

Torture and Christian Faith

I just posted a response to Diana Butler-Bass’ new blog article on the recent Pew poll indicating that Christians who actively attend church are more likely to approve of torture than those who do not attend church.  Diana looks a bit closer at the polling results than most commentators have, finding that there is a significant difference between evangelical and mainline Christians with respect to torture (mainliners are less approving) and offering an interesting and provocative theological explanation for it.

I found Diana’s post helpful even as I felt that more could be said on the subject (surprise, surprise!).  You can read her article by clicking here. My response may be found by scrolling down a few responses.