Are all Christians Fundamentalists?

Isaiah 43:10

You are my witnesses, says the Lord,
    and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
    and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
    nor shall there be any after me.

Deuteronomy 30:12-14

It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” ¹³ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” ¹⁴ No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

Sermon:

          This morning we’re going to talk a little bit more about what kind of issues or questions we might face as we try to build relationships with people who are unchurched. Part of this means addressing objections or prejudices they might have about Christianity.

          We, like many other religions, are perceived in a variety of ways. One of the questions that we might encounter, is that Christianity is intrinsically a fundamentalist religion. This can sometimes accompany the belief that all religions are inherently fundamentalist, or perhaps that Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity are.

          But that raises a question, “what does a word like ‘fundamentalist’ mean?” or “what might we imagine it means to different people?” Does it make you think of terrorists or backwoods hillbillies, like the ones who chased Burt Reynolds in the 1972 movie Deliverance? Or do you have a more positive impression of the word?

Ask the congregation what it means to them…

          I suspect that many of us have encountered two fairly different conceptions of the word. For some of us, we’ve probably encountered people who take a bit of pride is the word and use it as a label that identifies the things they prioritize. For others, the word is as horrifying as ISIS. The way we and others use words matters. The 20^th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote that, “[T]he meaning of a word is its use in the language.”[1] That basically means that it really matters how we use words both within our own groups and among people who might be coming from a completely different worldview. If we describe ourselves with a word that the unchurched associate with violence, bigotry, or close-mindedness we are likely to be categorized as those things in those people’s minds if we place ourselves there through the use of words that inspire those ideas.

          To be balanced it’s worth noting, as well, that the word fundamentalist did not always have such a negative connotation connected to it. The term largely originates with The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of 1910, wherein they listed what they considered to be the “five fundamentals” of the faith:

1.     The verbal inspiration (and inerrancy) of Scripture

2.     The divinity of Jesus Christ

3.     The virgin birth of Christ

4.     Substitutionary atonement by Jesus

5.     The bodily resurrection and future return of Jesus

To be sure, much of this statement arose as a response to a fight that many denominations experiences in the early 20^th century, namely the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. This fight largely centered on the question of evolution, historical accuracy, and how Christianity should think about the Bible. It even came to affect the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970’s when the Conservative Resurgence purged the SBC of all ‘liberal’ inclinations.

          So I would suggest that it’s probably fair to say that our perception of the word ‘fundamentalist’ probably reflects a bit of the history that we’ve inherited. Likewise, it’s worth noting that the original five fundamentals do – in my view at least – touch on something central to our faith. If we think about Christianity, it’s pretty tough to separate the overarching tenants of the religion from things like the virgin birth, which allows for Christ’s divinity. The identity of Christ, as both human and divine, is kind of at the center of our faith and if we don’t take those fundamental assumptions or beliefs into account it’s extraordinarily difficult to claim that we’re Christian. I’m not going to say it’s impossible. I’m not always eager to make a list of things people have to believe in order to be saved, but I do believe that those doctrines are pretty central to the Gospel story.

          Likewise, substitutionary atonement (where Jesus dies on our behalf so that we might be saved) and the bodily resurrection are also pretty central to what Christianity as a whole is about. Although it’s worth noting that there’s a bit more flexibility here. Eastern Christianity has always, for example, put less of an emphasis upon the more Western legal conceptions of guilt, death, and justice that we see in the story of Christ’s execution. Instead, Orthodoxy has tended to speak more about God’s work of recreation and healing within the cosmos through Christ. The emphasis is a bit different, even though both traditions honor Jesus’ death and resurrection.

          Similarly, I find it a bit humorous and ironic that most of the early sources for fundamentalism cite a bodily resurrection. To be sure, that is the primary view of most of the New Testament’s authors. It’s also my view. Yet, many people who refer to themselves as fundamentalists now stray away from this doctrine and often seem to embrace a bit more of a convoluted view – where they try to synthesize the idea of a resurrection with a more neo-platonic idea of people which includes their body, their spirit, and their soul – which raises questions about what happens to the soul after death. Does it sleep? Or does it immediately go to heaven or hell as many fundamentalists claim? If it immediately goes to heaven, as one might hear at a funeral, then why would there be a need for a bodily resurrection? Time has the funny ability to change the way people think about themselves, even if they use the same word to describe themselves as earlier generations.

          But most of those doctrinal issues, numbers two through five on the list, aren’t really as central to what people are really talking about when they refer to fundamentalism. The real concern that comes with the word relates to the first point of fundamentalism – the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. As a quick point of reference it might help if I provided some definitions.

Verbal inspiration – the theological doctrine that a divine inspiration extends to every word of a particular text.

Inerrancy – the theological doctrine that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teachings”[2] or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”[3]

Generally speaking, these two doctrines represent the primary concerns of the average fundamentalist. Likewise, they relate heavily to the question how one can read the Bible “literally.” But let me ask you,

What does it mean to read the Bible literally?

          A literal reading can mean many things. As I mentioned early, a words definition largely stems from its usage. But what we tend to think of when we hear the word is:

·        A reading that sticks with a strict meaning of the word or words, not a metaphorical or figurative meaning.

·        A reading that sees a text as true to fact; not exaggerated.

It is largely this kind of idea about fundamentalism that inspires both admiration and contempt for the word. More than anything else, the word fundamentalism centers on a question of methodology. How do we approach the scriptures? How can we consider them authoritative if we don’t take every word or clause super seriously and try to apply it to our life? These are the questions that Christians are faced with. Likewise, they’re the questions that inspire the following label.

          Many of you may not have seen this before. To some of you it may even be offensive. But this thing exists and it is often used to bash Christians and our scriptures. And if we really think about it and have some empathy for the perspective of someone who is not a believer this label might make sense. Why would anyone want to literally read and try to apply a book that seems to condone genocide and any number of other horrible things?

          As we all know, most Christians don’t read the Bible that literally even if they do claim to try to read it literally. We all know, intrinsically that we read different kinds of writing differently. When we speak to each other we do so in different ways: through stories, jokes, fables, histories, poetry, and song. Each of these genres comes with different rules that we as listeners or readers understand. The Bible also has genres which demand research and respect from the reader. This is something most Christians, except perhaps for the most eager fundamentalists, can agree upon.

          My own bias is to spurn the label fundamentalist. It’s a term I would never want to be associated with. Yet, I can see why some Christians have an invested interest in using the label. It signifies a commitment to a particular identity. This identity usually comes with ideas about the end times, God’s wrath, and a doctrine of scripture that I don’t agree with; and to be honest I often feel embarrassed when I have to speak to non-Christian friends who presume that all Christians hold what are in my view eccentric views. I often feel like the work of apologetics (where we defend our faith), often requires more apology than argument.

          And perhaps that’s the lesson! I could go on about what I believe about scriptural inspiration and authority. I could explain why I included a reference to John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion in this morning’s Call to Worship.[4] I could even drone on about how the Reformation wasn’t fundamentalist and how figures like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Karl Barth have shown a keen concern to draw a distinction between the scriptures, which act as a medium and testimony to God’s revelation, and the Word of God (Logos) which is Jesus Christ. I could even go back to the quote I often pull from St. Augustine, wherein he condemns fellow Christians who make draw dangerous distinctions between the scriptures and science, provoking nonbelievers to presume that Christianity is a religion of the uneducated.[5] But I don’t think the lessons we could pull from those Christians are as important as the more fundamental one we need to address now.

          The Bible is a testimony to God’s love and devotion to his creation. It should not be used as a weapon to objectify, demean, and tear down people with whom we disagree. The Bible, like Christ, reflects both humanity and the divine. The way in which we may each go about articulating that may differ, but the central theme of love should remain. Christians should not be inspiring nonbelievers to write warning labels for the Bible. Our treatment of its contents should be respectful, but respect also demands diligence. We should be diligent in how we read the texts. We should be diligent in how closely we pay attention to the genres that are in the Bible and what kind of historical contexts shape the writings we can find there.

          I may believe that Christianity is not a religion of fundamentalism, but the real lesson is that it’s a religion with a long history of very careful and thoughtful reflection upon the things we can find in the Bible – including the difficult parts. May we pray that we, with the help of the Holy Spirit, become better ambassadors of God in how we reflect Jesus to the world, even in how we read the Bible. Amen.

---

[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 4th edition, Eds. P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 43.

[2] NL Geisler and B. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New (Generation, Baker Books, 2012).

[3] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994) p. 90.

[4] John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 5.

[5] St. Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.