fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
On the last blog post I was asked in a to qualify why I thought that fundamentalism was basically a false understanding of God and the Christian faith. I thought it would be worth a broader discussion. This was my reply..
Mike, I believe fundamentalism does NOT reflect the ethos or the pathos of the biblical idea of faith. It cannot hold paradoxical truth in tension, has a profound tendency towards violence, demonstrates an un-Christlike lack of grace/mercy, is deeply moralistic, and is normally quite nationalistic. The Bible on the other hand, deals well with paradoxical tensions and nuances that the fundie can neither see, nor tolerate, largely because of its childish, black and white, view of reality. And also because it is highly selective in its appropriation of aspects of the Scripture–curiously similar to its mortal opponent, theological liberalism!! Both sides ’see’ what they want to see, and each has enough truth to make it palatable, but both are in fact heresies. Having said that, I believe that liberalism is the more insidious of the two, because it is far more subtle.
Besides, in fundamentalism it seems that there is not a lot of fun and a whole lot of mental. In other words, it is toxic faith and creates profound unhappiness.
Am I wrong here? What are your thoughts?
Comments
31 Responses to “fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
I think part of the scariness of completely writing off a group like fundamentalists is that it can be a very slippery label to get a complete handle of - in the same way that emerging/emergent/emerging-missional/just-about-sick-of-the-labelling-conversation can be a difficult group to put fences around. I think at the pointy end of fundamentalism, there are definitely people who fit with what you are describing above, and I don’t think that is a fair expression of what it is to follow Jesus.
But the diplomat in me wants to answer your title with a very definitive: “maybe”
You are absolutely correct. I think quite often in fundamentalism you have a redefining of Christian terms in order to hold onto aspects of some previous culture that fundamentalism now sees as part of their faith culture. Often fundamentalists who move to a more moderate, evangelical or emerging faith community do so as a result of seeing how their fundamentalist faith community is more influenced by revisionism and a previous culture than it is of the Spirit of Christ in the church and in the Scriptures.
At the other end, theological (classical) liberalism often attempts to redefine Christian terms in response to embracing aspects of a particular culture. Some aspect of either the scientistic, consumerist, democratic, etc. culture appeals personally to the individual. This often leads to a “crisis of faith” when it comes into conflict with their faith forcing a redefinition of the term in order for them to continue in the faith. In the end, theological liberalism often uses the same terminology but has a radically different meaning that often differs very little from secularist culture. Whenever theological liberal Christ followers move into more moderate, evangelical or emerging communities it is often due to seeing the culturally shaped presuppositions in classically liberal beliefs.
I think we are seeing a good critique of classical liberalism in the post-liberal movement (such as Hauerwas) and a good critique of fundamentalism in the more evangelical branches of the emerging movement (such as Scot McKnight’s stuff at Jesus Creed)
Not enough fun, too much mental, and a bit of the “duh” factor thrown in…
Thanx for the clever humour in your closing remark, Al, which I think you deserve to dazzle us with, since your earlier remarks are observant and apt. However, similarly to Geoff, the diplomat in me also hesitates to write them off completely. I do write off the polar-ism, misappropriation, and lack of hospitality often experienced at the hands of fun”duh”mentalists, but there is hope for those who are at the less extreme/entrenched end of this aberration of The Faith. I must confess that I was in fact one of those monochrome, contextually ignorant and closed-door types… BUT I was just transitioning a culturally-brainwashed, intellectually-dormant, and spiritually-stunted phase of my life, THANK GOD! So maybe we could think of them as people on a journey; people whom we can help to discover “the unforced rhythms of grace” (quoting Eugene H Peterson from his The Message Bible). We can be kind to the people and tough in our stance against the “dis-grace” of their practice of discipleship to the person and teachings of Christ. I admit, there is danger in that fundamentalism and liberalism can pollute and dilute, but I also have faith (active trust and intellectual acceptance) that the stocheia and aions or any other thing insidiously or blatantly raising itself up against the advancement of the Kingdom of God will not prevail! Am wading through some Hauerwas at the moment, as I appreciated some of the references you have made to him in some of the other posts. (Incidentally, my style of expressive dance has changed a lot of late, probably in deference to those happily-discovered unforced grace-full rhythms)
Great response Al, and timely too. I’ve been struggling with the words and actions of fundamentalists in the US during the current election campaign. Your beautifully crafted definition will be one that I see myself using in future!
And your observation of the insidiousness of liberalism, once again, so true.
M. Scott Peck writes some interesting things about the impulse toward fundamentalism (his own adaptation of James Fowler’s research on stages of faith, from a psychiatrist’s perspective.) A reasonable summary of this is at: http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/stages.html
He would see fundamentalism as a preferable alternative to the narcissism of the spiritually undeveloped… and he would recognise that there are those who need to submit to the “law” (fundamentalist legalism) in preference to living utterly for themselves.
So I suppose I think that fundamentalism can be “psychologically necessary” for some people.
One of the down sides of fundamentalist churches is that they often deal very poorly with those who have serious faith questions (such as thinking young adults) and burn their bridges with such people all too often. This gives Christianity a big image problem.
Fundamentalism is more like Phariseeism than the dynamic discipleship we are invited toward by Jesus… but as Lucy has hinted, it can be a stage we grow through.
Life is complex eh?
fundamentalism links with nationalism only where there is power involved. In South Africa, white fundamentalism has no nationalism involved, I believe because there is no position of power. And no, under Apartheid is was something different from modern-day fundamentalism.
A wise theology professor once told me that you can be an evangelical-fundamentalist, a liberal-fundamentalist, or `selectively-fundamentalistic’ for that matter.
Although I enjoy what is happening within the theological dialogue of the emergent church, at times I wonder if the term ‘emergent-fundamentalist’ could be fairly applied on some occasions.
Emergent conversationalists are great semanticists as the term“conversation”implies.
And sometimes uncompromising zeal for radical missiological change overtakes graciousness during exchanges of words critiquing the wider Church as it struggles to face its own many institutional and missiological challenges within a post-Christendom world.
If our goal is to liberate the wider Church from the Constantinian-institutional-fundamentalisms that bind it into a destiny of post-Christendom era missiological irrelevance, we will not do so effectively without being conversationally humble and gracious in our dialogual efforts.
If we really want to model authentic Jesus-life-styled-missiological-praxis to the wider Church, and within our local community, we must not ourselves communicate hard-nosed arrogance about those missiological truths we hold dear to the exclusion of all other perceived truths.
I am worried that sometimes in our passion for radical missiological change we can become radical just for the sake of being radical and its `shock value’, as well as for its seeming `prophetic chic-ness.’That is a sort of graceless fundamentalism which I want to avoid in being“emergent”.
Having grown up in a conservative-fundie environment, it’s certainly a mostly mental deal, and not a lot of fun. Downloading more and more Bible knowledge (without much application) and letting people know what you’re against is a toxic, Pharisee-producing cocktail.
Great definition (especially from someone who has reportedly said, “Party is sacrament to me.” Amen to that!).
Al, I hesitated to reply to your initial answer to me, but will offer this.
Yes, there are deep issues with fundamentalism. But, you and I are not the arbiters of their legitimacy before God as being orthodox or heretical. I think you may be allowing your personal feelings cloud your ability to extend grace. We do not single-handedly have to change the church. We just each need to experience personal transformation and to manifest the nature of our Father and Brother in this earth.
I am comfortable pointing-out the flaws in any group’s theology, values, etc. But, I feel you have crossed a line by labeling them as heretics.
Best,
M~
As a former Fundamentalist, having been one since a child up until 15 years ago, I think your definition is exactly right. I will also say that this is why I believe that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God to be true. It was by reading and hearing passages that I did not know were even in the Bible that caused me to see the error in this type of doctrine. Formerly all I knew were proof texts. I knew them so well, I can still quote them.
God is still showing me things and changing me at 52. It takes a long time to renew a mind.
Ahhh… so it’s not that we follow Jesus and look to Him alone for our salvation that brings us in to the Kingdom!
It’s how well we do or don’t live it out?
Interesting .
I think there’s room for a “childish” as you’ve put it (and as does the Apostle Paul) expression of the Christian faith.
There’s also room to grow up into Christ-likeness.
It’s the same road all who name the name of Jesus are on- and yes, some have institutionalized certain elements of that child-ishness, but as has been pointed out- that’s a very, very fuzzy line to use to start naming as “in” or “out”.
To do that, I’d rather stick with the two areas Paul gives us license in- Who is Jesus and What is the Gospel.
If you can make a case that fundamentalism pushes something outsides the realm of orthodoxy in those areas, ok…
But at this point, perhaps better to say that fundamentalism (and heck, let’s just say it, it’s opposite liberalism) represent an immature understanding of Jesus and what He was about. Both over-emphasize some things and so leave out some pretty crucial bits.
But for my money, if we want to play the “true expression of Christianity” game, liberalism is the more obvious and egregious offender in those two Pauline categories.
In other words, Jerry Falwell may have gotten under my skin, but I don’t think his Christianity, though different than mine, was so far off the mark that I won’t see him again and have an eternity to hash thru some things.
John Shelby Spong? That’s another story.
A couple of questions here.
1) Mike Gastin - Since many reflections of the body of Christ, today, don’t necessarily have councils that speak for the rest of the body, how do we determine who is a heretic and who is not? And when we do determine who is, how do we love them as neighbor? What makes you feel as though Hirsch crossed the line in calling Fundies (and Liberals) heretical?
2) Alan Hirsch - I read the post a couple of times and wonder to what degree it is too broad? Fundamentalism, in its time, seems to have served a good purpose. Granted, there is no such thing as a Golden Age to return to. My question is, though, what in fundamentalism is worth celebrating?
3) Bob - Regarding fundamentalism and “what is the Gospel,” I think I’d state that some forms of fundamentalism tend to be pretty exclusive. I’m not sure what you mean when you say “orthodoxy,” though, so we may stand on different spaces when it comes to “who is in and who is out.” And, I’m not so concerned whether or not Jerry Falwell will be throwing back a pint with me in “heaven” nor Spong for that matter; I think my main concern, which may be what the original post is getting at, is the persons who either of these turn off to becoming Christ followers.
Mike, I take your point bro, but I do believe that while there is truth in fundamentalism (clearly this is the case) it is distorted by the way they ‘inhabit their truths’ and how they live them out. I think the narrowness of truth must be held in tension with the width of grace. The fundie holds to the truth side of this equation, and the liberal to the grace side. The two are together true (in order words in paradoxical tension). to opt simply for the one is by definition untrue.
No, I am happy to say that fundamentalism is a heresy that strikes a blow at Jesus style faith. Certainly the liberal is heretical…I don’t see why we should let the fundies off the hook.
Dan, I believe the Jan is onto it is saying that black and white is part of the stages of faith. But we are meant to grow beyond it not institutionalize it!! And there is a different between childish and child-like. We are called to the latter, never to the former.
Hello, all….
I agree with Janet and Peck, especially when seen from the perspective of Peck’s book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. In that book, he does a fabulous job of walking folks through the stages of spiritual maturity. (I commented a length a number of times during my early days at this blog
)
It seems to me that the problem, as Alan gets to in the comment above mine, is when the fundie-types get stuck in stage two institutionalism — while the liberal-types get stuck in the stage three introspection and doubt cycles of deconstruction.
Getting stuck seems, to me, to be the problem here. Each stage is totally legitimate…it is the getting stuck that leads to the heresies.
And stage four mystics are those who have learned to embrace the ambiguity and live in the tension of those who have moved through childishness to embrace child-likeness.
Thanks for the good conversations, friends!
I don’t see a tight enough definition of fundamentalism here. While I agree with and have witnessed many of the bad things people have mentioned here about fundamentalism, I’ve also met many who consider themselves fundamentalist that are trying to challenge these things as well. I include myself in that category. I’ve been in the Southern Baptist Convention my whole life and a lot of these problems exist but there are many who are rising up within the convention demanding that we wrestle with the paradoxical balance between grace and truth. The SBC’s Annual Meeting was held in Indianapolis earlier this year and Leo Endel, the Executive Director of the MN-WI Baptist Convention, gave the closing challenge and addressed this very issue. More and more Southern Baptists are being positively influenced by what Mark Driscoll is doing in Seattle at Mars Hill (once again myself included). I know Driscoll doesn’t consider himself a fundamentalist but there are many people I’ve met that consider themselves fundamentalist that agree with Driscoll completely. Are all of these fundamentalists not really fundamentalists because they’re not “violent, moralistic, un-Christlike and nationalistic?”
Ah, complexity…
There’s a lot of nuances here… I guess this is where using the word “heretical” is problematic. However, I don’t think Al’s intent was to consign anyone to hell… more to critique fundamentalist and liberal impulses / movements biblically. It would be hard to argue that Jesus’ intent was to set up another nationalistic, legalistic, Pharisee-like group preoccupied with controlling the behaviour of others by force of law if need be.
Some people self-define as fundamentalists because they are passionate about what they see as the “fundamentals” of the faith. They are not the “psychological fundamentalists” Peck describes (and that I’ve just parodied) … although “psychological black and white” people are often at home in such churches. (In fact, if a fundamentalist is seen as someone who defends the fundamentals of the faith, Alan is a fundamentalist!)
If we describe fundamentalism in psychological or political terms… (black and white legalism, selective and simplistic biblical literalism, God on our side nationalism) then yes, it falls way short of the dynamic life of discpleship Jesus calls us to. If we see Christian fundamentalism as a defence of the faith in response to secularism (and liberalism) then it’s another beastie altogether.
Engaging in a prophetic critique involves words… but using words is difficult when they mean different things to different people.
It’s a stimulating discussion anyway.
Al - Toxic? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. Destructive? Yes. Flawed? Yes. Weak or even incorrect theology? Sure. But heretical? Didn’t we used to burn people for that? Didn’t we ourselves get burned for supposed heresy? I guess when I think the of baggage that heresy carries with it, to throw it at our brothers and sisters that have a limited worldview seems excessively harsh.
Now, if they were promoting free love or teaching Jesus was a space alien and not really divine - then heresy would seem appropriate. But, really it boils down to a worldview issue with both fundies and liberals, and I am not sure that merits heresy.
Dan - your question assumes a question that needs to be answered first. It assumes that it is our job (or someone else) to make these decisions. We are not in charge - Christ is. So, the orthodox church feels it is the deciding authority, the RCC thinks it gets to make the call as to who is in and who is out, the protestant church is not sure who is calling the shots - Rick Warren maybe? Really, we are just a bunch of sheep. We all have enough to worry about taking care of our spouses, children, family and friends. Our neighbors need love and Christ. Our coworkers need to see Him in us everyday. Our local bureaucrat needs to encounter Christ, too. Forget who makes the call on heresy on behalf of the church. Take care of your family. I’ll take care of mine. Let’s teach them the gospel as revealed to us and let’s walk out this gospel and let Jesus sweat the big stuff.
Maybe simplistic, but this world would see Him lifted up if we all just carried on and lived it out.
Mike, I use heretical here in the way that Paul uses it. As a serious error in doctrine that fundamentally distorts the faith…not in order to burn people!! The fact that we burnt people for heresy is the ultimate heresy. Its a denial of the faith.
Its funny, we are happy to called theological liberals heretics, but not their extreme opposites. Curious! I have no doubt about Spong. As far as I am concerned he isn’t even a Christian in the normal definition of the term. But hey, lets not get hungover about a use of a term. Lets just say that are dangerously skewed.
Al, maybe I am brining more historical baggage to the table on this than you are. Agree that burning those we disagree with is itself heretical. And, I see that your intention/use of the word is much less loaded than I am giving it when I read your thoughts.
We are closer in views on this than farther away. I mainly did not like the word being used, but I think I know what you are trying to say and I agree with you.
Thanks for letting us all stir-up the water a bit!
I am always slow to call people heretics and it fundamentalists are no exception.
I reserve the word for those who do not watch their life or teaching (1 Tim 4:16
) and compromize the good news in a fundamental way, either by rejecting the resurrection and the lordship of Christ or by living in a way which is radically inconsistant to it. Hate mongers qualify as heretics, teachers who speak of a ninefold godhead qualify as heretics, but not all fundamentalists take things quite that far. Mind you, even though I wouldn’t call them heretics, Id still call them out where their teaching and life does not reflect Christ. Treating God as a dispensing machine revolts me, teating non-Christians as punching bags angers me. Without calling them heretics I would still call them to repent.
Alan, you said “Its funny, we are happy to called theological liberals heretics, but not their extreme opposites. Curious!” I agree. I called a number of Sydney Angligans out on this over Phelps of God Hates Fags fame. No one has so far risen to the challenge.
Matt, I don’t understand what you are referring to by your comment “Phelps of God hates fags fame”. What does “Phelps” refer to?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
Christians of vitually every denomination have denounced Phelps as a purveyor of hate. Yet when I have challenged Reformed pastors from the Sydney Anglican church on the matter I have been met with crickets chirping in the night. They’re happy to denounce the extreme left but go quiet when called to comment on the extreme right. I get the sense there is some sort of concern that any sign of weakness will undimine their position in internal denominational battles. Yet this undermines the message of grace that they claim to be champions of. I respect their position regarding the ordination of homosexual bishops, I respect they find it difficult to agree with liberals who think contrary to them, what I can’t respect is their silence on hate speach. They claim they are not like Phelps, and get angry and hurt when guys like me make comparisons to goad them into action, yet wont condemn Phelps. I tend to think that church unity demands a more holistic and balanced understanding of heresy. One that understands heresy happens at both extremes.
Andrew, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps for a brief intro, then start Googling and scanning YouTube. It wount take you long to find stuff … and weep.
Christians of vitually every denomination have denounced Phelps as a purveyor of hate. Yet when I have challenged Reformed pastors from the Sydney Anglican church on the matter (some that are very well connected) I have been met with crickets chirping in the night. They’re happy to denounce the extreme left but go quiet when called to comment on the extreme right. I get the sense there is some sort of concern that any sign of weakness will undimine their position in internal denominational battles. Yet this undermines the message of grace that they claim to be champions of. I respect their position regarding the ordination of homosexual bishops, I respect they find it difficult to agree with liberals who think contrary to them, what I can’t respect is their silence on hate speach. They claim they are not like Phelps, and get angry and hurt when guys like me make comparisons to goad them into action, yet wont condemn Phelps. I tend to think that church unity demands a more holistic and balanced understanding of heresy. One that understands heresy happens at both extremes.
A reason I find US-centric fundamentalism very disturbing and even exasperating is when it produces stuff commenting supposably “prophetically” in posts like the one I recieved from the following link http://www.elijahlist.com/words/html/textonly-10308-Clement.html
.
In what pupports to be series of prophecies about the Wall Street collapse related to the sub-prime real estate crisis, self-proclaimed prophets like Kim Clements - has a lot of influence in certain parts of the charismatic movement - triumphalistically suggests that somehow God has created the economic crisis for `divine reasons’, but that everything will be alright for the US Christian faithful because somehow miraculously they will be spared any pain because they have some sort of favouritism from God sheltering them from any responsibility, consequences etc. All will be okay with America is often repeated in the prophecies.
Not only are these sorts of responses from the charismatic side of US Christianity lacking in any call to repentance from consumerist greed, but they smack of the sort of thing which Jeremiah accused the false-prophets of Israel of when they faced similar sorts of unhealthy denial in the face of major economic, spiritual and international crises in Jer 14
To quote: “But Master, God! Their preachers have been telling them that everything is going to be alright - no war and no famine - that there’s nothing to worry about”.
God’s response to an exasperated Jeremiah: Then God said, “These preachers are liars, and use my name to cover their lies. I never sent them, I never commanded them and I don’t talk to them. The sermons they’ve been handing out are sheer illusion, tissues of lies, whistlings in the dark”.
My point being that in time s of major crisis such as 9/11 and this Wall St/Sub-prime collapse innocent people get hurt because of the greed and sins of others. The Western world, particularly the corporate finance sector, with its greedy consumerism inevitably hurts people - its greed has consequences. And it most hurts the poor and marginalised, and creates poor and marginalised people.
I think it would be a good time for US Christianity, particularly that of the fundamentalist-charismatic prosperity Gospel fostering type to face the fact that it has fostered greed. And that this greed is sin. And it has contributed to what has happened with sub-prime collapses, false consumerist pipe-dreams, and Wall St Chaos effecting the broader world.
When non-Christians read the sort of stuff contained in what is puported to be prophecy about such major crisis issues effecting them it just reinforces their perceptions that evangelical Christians, particularly US fundamentalists and charismatics are unrealistic, ill-informed, spiritual lunatics, who are either utterly blind to the truth about what is going on in the world or who just can’t handle the real truth without over-spiritualising it in some vain effort to avoid facing its consequences, sins etc.
Point is if heresy is distortion of truth, then charismatic fundamentalists producing such jingoistic tripe like the `prophecies’ which I gave the above link to, seem to represent particularly dangerous heretics in my personal opinion. That is because it appeqars lots of guilible US and other fundamentalist/charismatic Christians seem to swallow their false prophetic “everything will be okay because we’re American and Christian okay”, when they are just as vulnerable to economic crises as everyone else is.
Thanks Matt for that info re Phelps.
One of the reasons Sydney Anglican clergymen reacted that way was to do with job-protection claer and simple.
During the 100 REVS Apology to gay people for the hateful ways Christians in the past have judged, condemned and in general withheld Gospel love to them in Sydney’s past, it was noted that whilst several Anglican clergy (and I few from other mainstream evangelical denominations) stated that whilst they supported the Apology they couldn’t be seen to participate in it by their peers because their jobs had been threatened if they did.
For me to participate, there was no job to lose. For them the choice was much harder.
Nonetheless, a lot of clergy from all evangelical and charismatic backgrounds did. And I think from our reception by the gay lesbian marchers, it was a special moment for them - many thanking us, weeping, sharing their stories, understanding that Jesus was making a statement that He loves gays despite what people like Phelps say. Our marching was no endorsement of the gay and lesbian lifestyle or the blatant shows of in-your-face sexual eroticism on display during parts of the Mardi Gras march. However, it was very clear to us marching that Jesus was there and that what we were doing - what we were saying - made Jesus and the Gospel far more accessible to the participants and onlooking crowd there.
The next week I happened on a function where the Christians there called Sydney Sodom and Gommorah and prayed for fire and brimstone to rain down upon gays and lesbians in divine judgment because “God hates sin”. really what they were saying was that God hates sinners. I happened to be there in my 100 REVS Apology T-Shirt dropping someone off a what I thought was a conference on the Holy Spirit and dance. Inside the Hills Conference Centre where it was held there were people handing out fundamentalistic newspapers charging evangelicals like me who participated in the 100REVS Apology as “naive”, “Misguided” “ignorant” , “unwise” for participating. Well I am glad I was foolish enough to risk following Jesus because disreputable Jesus was most certainly unwisely there with/through us, not dispensing words of hatred and judgemental violence toward the gay community hosting the event, but walking the Gospel talk of loving them in-deeds as he did so often in the Gospels when he mixed with the “unclean” and socially unacceptable and disreputable (such as drunks, tax collectors, lepers etc).
If fundamentalists were fanatical about loving others in the practical/fundamental ways Jesus described in the Gospels and the Apostles described in their Epistles, I doubt fundamentalism would be such a big problem.
But it’s clearly not about loving one’s neighbours like Jesus commanded, but about things like forcing one’s views, codes of ethics and religious practices upon others and hating anyone who disagrees.
I think its more than job protection though. I think there is a basic failure to understand that the equal and opposite of one evil can often be an equal and opposite evil. Balance is not considered and found too hard, it is often not even considered in the first place. Many seem to operate under what I call “the myth of the slippery slope”, a way of seeing the world that leads them to suspect that anything half between two extremes is half way to hell, a myth which reinforces that anything less than extremism is compromise. But what if we operated under a different story, the story of the life giving well in the middle of the desert, one which draws people in from extremist positions?
Consider what the world would be like if liberal Christians could sit down at the table with conservative Christians and say, look I am really, really concerned for the rights of gays but I agree with you that a position which tosses the New Testament out the window cannot reasonably be called Christian and I part company from the religious syncretists that do. Looky, I think you need to be more compassionate and we’ll disagree on many things but I agree there are outer limits to what can be considered Christian dialogue. Consider also if conservatives could say, look I think you’re too flaky but i agree that hate mongers distort the truth as much as syncretists, yeah lets set some outer limits to what can be called Christian dialogue. This is exactly what the Athenasian creed did in terms of Christology, I think we need something similar in terms of sex theology, an agreement on outer limits in both directions.
Well, at the risk of further hijacking this thread (and of being labelled a liberal heretic) I’m starting to wonder whether we need to revisit our theology around the gay issue… as evidence starts to mount that many people do not “choose” to be gay, and that genetic factors have a significant part to play in this.
It’s not unprecedented that the bible gets reinterpreted as science makes new discoveries (eg that Genesis 1
is more poetic than a scientific description about the length of time of creation… or that when the bible talks about the 4 corners of the earth it is poetic rather than a description of a flat earth) etc. Nor is it unprecented that we’ve re-examined passages that look like women are unable to speak in church gatherings in the light of 1st century cultural issues.
I think an honest dialogue about the theological and behavioural issues would be helpful for those dealing with this at a pastoral level. I heard recently about a couple encouraged into an unhappy marriage in the hope a heterosexual marriage would “fix” a man with homosexual tendencies. This didn’t work… and has caused much misery to all concerned.
I’d like to think the Christian community can do a much better job of dealing with such a complex issue. I know Deb has looked into this far more than most people… so maybe this tangent is better shifted over to the personal blog.
I agree with you Alan - we could quibble over a “proper” definition of fundamentalism all day but I think we all know what/who Alan is talking about. We’ve encountered them and some of us have been them. I would go so far as to say that the sin of fundamentalism (in any religion on any side of that religion) is idolatry - creating God in an image of my making and worshiping that and then demanding everyone else worship it as well.
now, having said what I did above, I will add that we should all remember that we are to treat “offenders of the Gospel” the same as Jesus treated tax collectors and prostitutes - in the most loving, caring and generous way possible…and it’s probably good to remember that when the Kingdom comes in full, we might all find that we’re guilty of heresy.
I think its good to be reminded that we’re saved by faith, not our theology of faith, and that we all have the potential to fall into theological error. But again I think we need to differentiate between errors on peripheral matters and heresy on core matters. I can for instance disagree with a dispensationalist but still work with them, but I can’t work with a hate monger. I have to treat them as I would a non-Christian, with grace sure, but not as a co-worker.