Comments on Elizaphanian
I think your basic argument is unassailable, Sam. However, if you want to actually persuade people, rather than just defeat them, you might want to reconsider some of the wordings ('satanic ideology'...'demonic possession').
"Demonic possession" probably does count as rhetorical overkill (grin) but "Satanic" I mean in all seriousness. I've become more open to such language in recent years, and I think it describes something accurately.
I don't think I'd ever persuade a fundamentalist of my point of view, this was really a venting of steam.
I don't think you'll persuade a hardcore fundamentalist, but I think you might persuade people who are wavering or doubtful, if they see you coming alongside them rather than assaulting them.
Actually Sam's bellicose writing is wonderfully ironic - he denounces fundamentalism and sounds like a fundamentalist as he does it. I actually appreciate that sort of style and have no problem with it!
Sam, can you expand further on your thoughts on how Gandhi was "saved" despite not confessing Jesus as Lord? If you have any links to previous articles then that would be fine.
On the matter of inerrancy.
In his book "God has Spoken", JI Packer (an Evangelical Anglican), supported the work of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (he also wrote a book called "Fundamentalism and the Word of God" back in the 1960s when Evangelical Anglicans were depicted as Fundamentalists by mainstream Anglicans).
You can view the chicago statement here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Ch...lical_Inerrancy
I think for people like myself who say they believe in the inerrancy of scripture are not exactly the sort of people that you describe in your blog posting. To me, inerrancy is not the idea that the Bible can be proven via scientific and/or historical analysis, but simply the proposition that "everything in the Bible is true".
Groups like the "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) actually do make the error that you mention, and spend a lot of their time trying to prove the Bible via scientific evidence. I know of one YEC inspired group that takes people for boat trips down the Grand Canyon and explains how the formations around them are only a few thousand years old...
The reason why the Chicago Statement came about was because many mainline denominations were embracing the idea that the Bible contained errors - the virgin birth was not true; Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead; the prophet Isaiah didn't really write the second half of the OT book with his name on it... and so on.
The Chicago Statement is interesting because it actually contradicts some of the more extreme positions that many Fundamentalists hold. Article 12 says:
"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."
"We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
This is not the same as saying that the bible can be proven scientifically, but does point out that the scientific method cannot substitute and contradict scripture. (Note also that it does not mention 4004BC, the traditional fundamentalist "date" of creation)
Article 13 is a wonderful caveat too:
"We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture."
"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
This means, for example, that 1 Kings 7.23 is not in "error" for inferring that pi = 3. Moreover, it also allows for the historical records of the OT (and NT) to be arranged in non-historical and symbolic order.
Article 18 says:
"We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture."
"We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship."
While the "denial" section is obviously aimed at post-structuralism and reader-centred hermeneutics, it also can be used to shoot down many Fundamentalist arguments about how certain parts of the bible should be read. Fundys tend to shoot off verses left right and centre to prove their assertions without understanding their literary and grammatical context - something that is clearly adhered to in the chacago statement.
The statement also says this:
"We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise."
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."
Any thoughts? It might be good to read the Chicago statement for yourselves and see what you think.
Tim - I think in person I exactly would 'come along side', but I'm not sure it does any harm to emphasise the seriousness of the error.
Neil - lots of stuff in there which I'll try and write some posts on, beginning with Gandhi.
Rev Sam,
As a hardcore, unapologetic fundamentalist, I very much appreciate the candor.
I will pray for you.
BTW: I usually rank those who are angry about God as anti-theists rather than atheists. The reason is that atheists claim that they don't believe in God - thus, God should have the same position in their consciousness as the Little Mermaid or Shrek. The extreme anger seems to argue against them being true atheists. A true atheist would examine the fact and statistics related to survival of the fittest, and then probably send his children enthusiastically off to a fundamentalist church!
Sam, I just stumbled on your blog and this post was my entry point. I'm no theologian, but I am a follower of Jesus. And I currently live in Savannah, GA, and feel I have a pretty good understanding of fundamentalists as a result of living so long in the Southeast USA.
I didn’t follow all the ins and outs of your discussion about inerrancy. And I won’t pretend to understand it all. But it seems to me you missed the mark somewhat as to the source of the damage to the folks you’ve encountered.
From what I’ve seen around here the mean, ugly people who are fundamentalist have the same exact problem as mean, ugly folks from any other creed or denomination. And the problem is not their view of scripture.
No, the issue is that they put the traditions of their sect above their love of their Savior and their overwhelming need to be right over their love for their fellow man.
I agree that there are many who subscribe to fundamentalism who are just as religious and wrong headed as the Pharisees that Jesus railed so strongly against. However they are by no means unique in that regard. There are many from most any sect who are just as dogmatically religious and just as wrong. And they often come out the back side of their sect just as damaged.
When any of us put the traditions of our religion ahead of our relationship with our Savior we fall into that same trap.
Thanks for listening to my two cents.
A very interesting post, and one that I largely agree with, especially when you said, "As such this doctrine shrivels the human spirit; it renders impotent the wider human faculties of intuition and imagination; it embraces the secular assumptions of Enlightenment modernism; it distorts what the Bible actually is."
Over the last few years thare has been quite a lot of discussion about the concept of "contextualisation" - the gospel becoming woven into the culture in which it operates, and Fundamentalism grew out of the worldview of Enlightenment modernism.
I wonder if you have read Voltaire's bastards: the dictatorship of reason in the West by John Ralston Saul. Saul does not argue from a Christian point of view, but I think he describes, accurately enough, the climate of Modernism in which Fundamentalism took root. Originally, of course, it was a reaction against perceived modernism, but in spite of (or perhaps because of) that it took on many of the characteristics of what it was reacting against.
Please feel free to check out my post on fundamentalism, entitled "Inerrancy: The Heart of the Matter" at http://sbcpastor.blogspot.com
God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Father Norton:
Is fundamentalism as you see it a peculiarly Protestant disease? I would posit that it is, for this reason: Fundamentalism requires "my personal Lord and Saviour" to guarantee MY right interpretation of Scripture -- i.e., it comes back to not relying on God at all, but rather on the individual layman (or cleric, for that matter) -- it is power without authority.
On those terms, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I would go so far as to say that this kind of fundamentalism isn't limited to so-called conservatives, but finds a very comfortable home among so-called liberals or progressives.
Hi Chris - by the way, are you related to my Mrs? In any case, yes - although the roots go even deeper; I would say back to the split between East and West when the Latin-speakers went down a more individualistic path. It's something that wasn't created out of whole cloth at the time of the Reformation.
(May I call you Sam?)
Yes, she's my cousin. Her Mum and my dad are brother and sister. Love to all the family from ours: Judy (my wife); Nicholas (10), John (7), Dominic (6, as of two weeks ago), Francis (3 yesterday) and Charles (who shares his mum's birthday, and will be this year, after we arrive in Sacramento).
Would you concede that the Protestant split of the 16th century took individualism to an entirely new level?
Please call me Sam! I'm not sure 'concede' is the right word - makes it sound as if there isn't a common search for truth, rather a zero-sum struggle for control - but undoubtedly the effect of the Protestant reformation was to (in part) elevate individualism into an idol (and I say that as someone who sees Luther as a saint). My point is that the roots of that individualism lie earlier in Western history, most particularly the shift in Western theology around the time of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. It could be seen as an acceptance of a pagan (ie heroic) ideology. I've been giving some lectures on this recently....
I take (and accept) your point about the word concede, although I don't use it only in that sense.
I confess to not being well versed in either Duns Scotus or William of Ockham, but I'm a willing learner. Maybe a more basic question would be this: Why do you trace this individualism to this time period?
By way of analogy, I trace many ills in modern society through the French Revolution, back to Voltaire and Descartes, and from there back to the event I call the Protestant Revolt. I suppose I could, quite sensibly, trace this back to "non serviam" and a little place called Eden .....
Oh. I meant to say that Charles will turn 1 year old shortly after we arrive in Sacramento.
To broad brush fundamentalism is the same as calling all evangelicals or liberals identical. We all have a common lineage. For one to understand the differences one must trace the roots. Obviously that has been done to some extent.
For one I do not view John Darby as the pope. Just like every man he had failings and flaws in his life of service to God. I have no confidence in men. Because I hold to inerrancy my hope is in God's preservation of His truth.
It personally sounds like you had a bad go around as a youth and are reacting to that by rejecting everything you knew. I have no doubt that your experience was less than perfect. There are many people who claim the fundamentalist title without striving for God's glory through Christ first, as is true of numerous evangelicals and liberals.
My experience was the exact opposite. Scripture was honored as God's Word so that we would apply Duet. 6 in remembering it when we went about our day. God's love was made know through Christ. That was first and everything else was secondary. So if my experience led me to Christ in fundamentalism, and yours did not... does that make fundamentalism satanic? I should think not... rather it is the individuals who were leading you who failed to reveal Christ in their lives. And that can happen in the life of anyone who claims the title Christian.
Mark:
To whom was your comment addressed?
Good for you Sam.
Whilst your round condemnation of Fundamentalism as a dangerous heresy straight out the Pit looks a bit extreme coming from an Anglican minister, I must say that IMO there is no movement or ism in the world at the moment that even remotely compares with its ongoing "success" in damaging the faith, especially regarding the wholesale alienation of educated people - like Dawkins.
I have observed that the tendency of any "christian" movement to fragment stands in direct proportion to the store its leaders set on biblical inerrancy and doctrinal purity. Why doesnt this very observable fact lead more christians to ponder the spiritual origins of presuppositional biblical fundamentalism ?
"Richard Dawkins, for example, holds a fundamentalist view of Christianity, and the only difference is that he rejects what a fundamentalist would accept."
Eyes popping out of head! Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. I had a long conversation with an atheist that led me to exactly this conclusion. I agree 100% with classifying fundamentalism as Satanic - at the bottom, it's attempting to be the master of your fate, replacing FAITH in God with KNOWLEDGE that you have the right answer.
Chris Cormier,
I agree 100% with classifying fundamentalism as Satanic - at the bottom, it's attempting to be the master of your fate, replacing FAITH in God with KNOWLEDGE that you have the right answer
Is this a joke? If this were a spoken conversation I would take it for satire but this is the internet, so, joke?
*casts experienced eye over post*
No, that’s a Christian alright.
Commenting by HaloScan
