Friday, August 03, 2007

Why I only Argue with Fundamentalist Christians

There is a group in existence. They are called “Fundamentalist Christians.” Often abbreviated to “Fundy” or “Fundie.” If an alien landed today and Googled these words they would find two things:

1) It is generally considered derogatory to be a “fundy”;
2) It is almost impossible to define what it means to be one.

As I discuss with various Christians, I am very often informed, “Oh, you are not talking about me. I do not believe that way. You are only talking to fundamentalists.” Rare, indeed, is the person that owns up to being the fundamentalist to whom I am apparently referring.

I get the mental image of a group of people, that are all very certain there are fundamentalists amongst us, yet are equally certain that it is not them—but some person to the right of them. (Fundamentalism is ALWAYS to the right.)

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 1: Oh, no. I believe in Old Earth Creationism. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 2: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, I believe multiple Translations are acceptable. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 3: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, I believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol. Try the person to the right.

Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 4: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, and I believe the Bible condemns alcohol, I believe dancing is acceptable. Try the person to the right.

It is an elusive beast—this fundamentalist. We apparently universally agree it exists, and exists in large quantities, yet we seem to equally be convinced it is not us. Which is amusing, considering that skeptics are often accused of only taking on the “fundamentalist” brand of Christianity. If it was such a demarked division, why so slippery to find one? How is it that we are better at finding them than Christians?

I have heard the statement that the Protestant Movement got rid of one pope and created 1000’s instead. The idea that rather than having one uniform Church, Protestants have created 1000’s of separate churches, with separate leaders, and separate opinions of various theological positions.

With the growing sense of individualism over the past Century, and self-identifying, rather than group-identifying, I am seeing Billions of Popes! It has come to the point of rather than relying upon the Catholic Pope, or the Baptist preacher, each person is making their own determination as to what the Bible says.

Over and over, in on-line discussions I have seen:

“Well, I interpret that verse to mean…”
“I do not consider that inspired…”
“I think what Paul was trying to say…”
“Jesus should actually be viewed as…”
“The Americans have it wrong because…”
“The Europeans have it wrong because…”
“I use the Jewish perspective to say…”
“I use the New Testament Church perspective to say…”

And the Bible has become this sort-of general, nebulous beginning, from which we can twist and interpret, and translate and bend to say just about anything under the sun. It has all become a matter of personal taste and opinion, wrapped around individual desire.

While that may be fun and entertaining, the result is that there is no uniformity whatsoever. There is no black and white. It all becomes gray. So no matter what I say, it can be disregarded as simply being the wrong shade of gray to fit that person’s shade of gray. “Clearly he must be talking to some other person, because I interpret those verses differently.”

I agree that there are so many questions when it comes to the Bible. Was Paul talking about Jesus in a spiritual resurrection or a physical resurrection? Are the Gospels historical or legendary? Are the events of the Tanakh historical or legendary? Is Psalms 22 a prophecy? Is Revelation a prophecy or drug-induced blabber?

And because of these questions, and the multiple (maybe infinite?) way in which they can be answered, we end up with so many varieties, if I was to write a positional paper on any given subject, I would need to write millions of different responses in order to adequately cover yours.

I do understand that when I write “Christians say…” that it is impossible to follow that with any combination of words which would universally apply. Which means, at best, I can only cover the ground of a large group. (Probably not even a majority.) If a person would like to respond with, “I don’t believe that way, I believe this way” I am happy to engage in a conversation along their terms.

But I hope that people can understand that we don’t mean to only argue against “fundamentalism.” We are trying to discuss with YOU as to your position. We just have a difficult time figuring out who is a fundamentalist and who is not. If your position is not of fundamentalist stripe, then have a little charity and realize that those who you may accuse of fundamentalism say the same about themselves.

Never fear—I am sure I am not discussing your particular brand of Christianity. We can write it off that I must only be referring to the other person. You know—the fundamentalist. *wink*

8 comments:

  1. FWIW, my parents consider themselves to be fundamentalists, and believe that the word has been slighted by the media. They are Young-Earth Creationist, Bible-Literalist, Multiple-Translation, Alcohol-Is-Mostly-Tolerable Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Dagoods(waves)
    Whew, I'm glad it's not me:)
    I'll be checking here from time to time to see if I can find those fundies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Dagood,

    Here's a way to spot fundies. They don't have fun! Knowing God to them is a great burden and not the coolest thing that could ever happen. [One reason you don't get too many real fundies on the Internet is that they usually aren't very good with computers]

    Good article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I do understand that when I write “Christians say…” that it is impossible to follow that with any combination of words which would universally apply. Which means, at best, I can only cover the ground of a large group" (Dagoods)

    There is a very simple reason for this - I am becoming more concerned that Church-ianity (people that attend churches) do not believe the very words coming out of their own mouths nor truly believe the very things they say they do - they just think they do.

    You see this faith has been rationalized down to 'what you believe' and not 'what you do' (check any denominations doctrinal statement and see this is actually so). So if you believe 'correctly' then you are what they call 'a believer' - even if this contradicts 'living your beliefs' or to be perfectly honest what Jesus actually says - as long as you hold to 'correct' beliefs that is good enough. This is where the real battle starts - the structure has replaced the faith with something that sounds like Jesus - but is actually a construct of human power/conceit.

    How do I know this? Easy - it's all over the place in Canada and America. We have Catholicism covering for pedophile priests/nuns, Anglicans doing the same, United Church doing the same, Presbyterians also doing this, and some Methodists also. From whence come these charges? Residential schools in Canada - which murdered, raped, and tortured Indian kids from as early as the turn of the 20th century and as late as 1984. No single person has been held accountable for their actions (or as they call it 'repentance').

    I have become overwhelmingly convinced that the aformentioned churches are not Christian (they are hypocritical) and they would have an extremely tough time convincing me otherwise. But if they want to put me to the test (I am game) - start exposing the files of the people that did these things to kids aged 5-14 - and do not cover their sin and shame with a cloak of bullshit.

    Sorry for the rant - but I agree with you here - no one is ever to blame (the all elusive Christian 'blame it on the next guy').

    ReplyDelete
  5. Socityvs,

    James chapter 2 calls faith without corresponding deeds a "dead" faith. So while I agree that there are many people who call themselves Christian because they supposedly believe in the right things, ask yourself that if they really believed it, would they be acting the way they are? Actions speak louder than words. I don't demand perfection by any stretch of the imagination. But if you truly believe what you proclaim, we should at least be able to discern an attempt at consistent living when we examine your actions.

    By the way Dagoods, I'm happy to label myself a "fundamentalist", but you are right that there is no universal definition. Personally, I tend to think of fundamentalist as a Bible-literalist. After all, I think it is faor to say that the Bible supposedly contains the "fundamentals" of Christianity (and all those other beliefs come out of how we read the Bible). And for the curious, I belong to the Old-Earth, multiple translation, responsible alcohol consumption is OK stripe.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  6. "ask yourself that if they really believed it, would they be acting the way they are? (10 minas)

    That's the exact question I asked myself - but in the churches aforementioned we are seeing whole entities covering for individuals (protecting them from paying for their crimes). Fact is, when someone starts to believe what they read - they are the one's outcast - by the very church that swore to uphold those same teachings - laughable to say the least!

    "we should at least be able to discern an attempt at consistent living when we examine your actions." (10 Mina)

    The problem now isn't individual - it's very corporate. These people seem to be trying to uphold structure over decency - all in the name of the God we both serve 10 minas. If we were in those churches speaking out against this and asking for justice - we would be shown the door to the street - because God forbid they should 'look bad' in a marketable Western World. I cannot find another real reason for their inexcusable behavior besides marketing and 'public image'...same problem we see in mass Capitalism Christianity has been struck with - if you don't 'look good' then you become usless to society. Are these churches defending God or themselves now - which is the real question?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Believe me. I am an elder in the PCUSA (in the Baltimore presbytery no less), where the very problem you describe is extremely pervasive. You are right, it is corporate. By no means do I believe it is universal, but it is certainly far-reaching.

    However, it also is nothing new. This problem dates back to the very origination of the church itself. As I pointed out before, James was speaking out against this self-same attitude. People had misinterpreted Paul's message of salvation by faith alone to mean that they could claim to have faith but keep on keeping on in their old sinful lifestyles. After all, if they had faith it didn't matter how they lived, right? James pointed out that even the demons "believe" in all this, but they certainly aren't saved. True saving belief will result in good works, or else it is dead.

    It becomes incumbent upon people like us to continue to speak out against this unbiblical attitude (with gentleness and respect, but also without compromising). God never promised it would be easy! : )

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  8. great post, totally agreed!

    ReplyDelete