Why I Am Not A Theological Fundamentalist

"Fundamentalism" is a tricky word. According to some people, anyone who takes the Bible seriously is a Christian fundamentalist. Therefore, in the minds of many, if you believe that Jesus alone is "the way, the truth, and the life," believe that humans are sinners in need of a Savior, and attempt to follow a Biblical moral code, then you are a fundamentalist. If that is the case, then I will happily accept the fundamentalist label. But within Christian circles this debate is a bit more complicated. I do not consider myself a theological or social "fundamentalist" however I do interpret the Bible "literally" (though theological fundamentalists and I differ on how one interprets things literally) and I do consider myself to be a conservative. But I will argue that there is a difference between theological conservatism and theological fundamentalism. Here are some of the differences I and and other theological conservatives have with theological fundamentalists. I'm not attempting here to give a full scale Biblical defense of my positions or a refutation of the fundamentalist ones below, only to highlight the differences and implications in each system of thought. Here are some relevant differences between the conservatives and fundamentalists within Protestantism:

1. The role of women

Fundamentalist Protestants see no room for women in any kind of licensed or ordained ministry whereas many conservatives do. Of course, fundamentalists would not consider anyone "conservative" who believed in a role for women in ministry and think any such talk is "liberal" and a reflection of the modern feminist movement. Nevermind that conservative denominations such as the Wesleyan Church, Nazarene Church, Assemblies of God, etc, etc, were ordaining women long before the modern feminist movement ever came into existence. The goal of fundamentalists is to portray egalitarian equality as compromising Biblical values and conforming to the modern culture.

Fundamentalists ignore the many verses and Biblical figures that would support the egalitarian position. They instead hone in on just a couple of debatable passages as their interpretive bottom line, which themselves really don't even imply as much as they would like. Fundamentalist understandings of male headship, women's "silence," etc take precedence over the many roles women actually served in Scripture--prophets, apostles, teachers, political leaders, small business leaders, etc. It would seem to make more sense to defer to the roles that Jesus, Paul, and other OT and NT figures of significance gave to women, rather than trying to tie everything to several debatable passages, but fundamentalists see it otherwise.

2. Age of the Earth/Origin Theories

Fundamentalists have made a key tenet of their theology a rejection of naturalistic evolution, a literal six-day period for the creation of the heavens and earth, and the belief that the earth is little more than 6,000 years old. Conservatives likewise have issues with naturalistic evolution but generally do not believe that the earth is only several thousands of year old. They are open to, but not typically very supportive of ideas of "theistic evolution," though they'll at least listen. Either way, they agree with the fundamentalists that God, and not "nature" is the Creator, and that God is sovereign.They recognize that Gen. 1-2 is largely a work of theology and poetry, not science. Their focus is on God being the creator of heaven and earth, not time lines of creation or man's existence. They may view the days of Genesis 1-2 as symbolic of indefinite periods of time, as the Hebrew allows. Others, like myself, would argue that Genesis 1-2 really is describing 24 hour day periods, but that the language is used primarily as a theological literary device, not a strict scientific account of history. Maybe, just maybe, the handful of young earth creation scientists have it right, and everyone else in the scientific community has it wrong because they hate God. Or maybe the young-earth creationists are wrong.

3. The rapture/role of modern Israel

Fundamentalists are almost united in their belief of dispensational premillenialism, typically with a "pre-tribulational rapture" being a central tenet. This system of end-times theology basically believes that we are without question near the "rapture" of the church, the invisible snatching up of Christians prior to a 7 year tribulation period where God judges the earth, which is followed by the Second Coming. Fundamentalists generally believe that God has two separate peoples--Israel and the Church--with two separate programs. Thus, fundamentalists are very "pro-Israel" and believe that Bible prophesy demands unconditional support for the modern nation of Israel, whereas conservatives are more nuanced in their approach to the current Mid-East situation. Politically, fundamentalists believe that the Arabs have no legitimate claim to any land currently possessed by Israel. They await the construction of a rebuilt Old Covenant style Mosaic temple which they believe an antichrist figure will exalt himself in before his destruction.

The problem with all this is that the Bible nowhere says any of it. In terms of the pre-tribulational rapture, every single Biblical prooftext used as a support of the doctrine falls apart on close inspection. There is no New Testament or Old Testament passage demanding the construction of a third Temple. To come up with this fundamentalists have a peculiar reading of Daniel 9:27 and believe Ezekiel's Temple in chapters 40 and beyond was not something to be realized in the New Covenant era and/or eternity, but something that literally needs to be built for end-times events to transpire. There are some conservatives who believe in a pre-trib (or mid-trib) rapture, but those numbers are shrinking. Conservatives are certainly not anti-Semitic but they do not place the importance on modern Israel that fundamentalists do. Ironically, fundamentalists typically believe that after Christians are raptured, that 2/3 of all Jews will perish in the "Great Tribulation" and most of them without Christ and presumably doomed to an eternity in hell, which calls into question the true nature of their "support for the Jewish people," but I digress. Conservatives do generally believe, however, in a future revival amongst ethnic Jews based on Romans 9-11.

4. The literal fiery hell

Ever burn a small part of your finger on the stove and feel the intensity of pain that brings? Well, fundamentalists pretty much believe that the eternal hell really will be a place of literal fire, flames, and physical burning, only there the pain will not confined to a small part of ones finger, but their entire being for all eternity. To prove this they use many prooftexts in the NT where hell is described in fiery and agonizing terms. Conservatives likewise believe in a real place called hell, that it has an eternal nature, and that it is a pretty awful place, but they tend to see the fiery descriptions of hell more metaphorically. For example, is hell really a place both of eternal fire and eternal darkness? At least in this natural world, those two things are not compatible. Also, are there really going to be worms eating the resurrected flesh of the damned for eternity? Or are these just uses of imagery to convey the awful reality of hell. Conservatives don't try to (literally) "water down hell." They know it's a terrible and eternal place and they wish no one would go there. This here is more of an argument about Biblical interpretation, though fundamentalists usually get very defensive when you suggest that perhaps people really won't be literally engulfed in flames and tortured by fire and worms for all eternity.

5. Eternal security/Calvinism

Fundamentalists tend to be five-point Calvinists, or perhaps more prevalently these days, not five-pointers but believers in eternal security (once saved, always saved). Admittedly, there are non-fundamentalists conservatives who hold to one or both of these positions, but there are many conservatives from the Wesleyan-Arminian branch of Protestanism who reject both. Calvinists generally consider all non-Calvinists to be heretics at worst or highly theologically deficient at best. Five pointers also don't have a ton of use for some Baptist groups or others who only reject points 2-4 of Calvinism, but hold to modified beliefs of point 1 and point 5, perseverance (the "once saved, always saved crowd). Both five-point Calvinists and eternal securists think of Christians who don't hold these positions as being "liberal" or believing in a "works-centered righteousness" even though that is very far from being true descriptors of Wesleyan soteriology.

6. Approach to Biblical Scholarship/Inerrancy

Fundamentalists are not typically too keen on non-fundamentalist Biblical "scholars." They usually see any form of higher criticism as a slippery slope towards liberalism. This is not wholly unwarranted as liberal Biblical scholars took over the universities in the 19th and 20th centuries and attacked the Bible from a variety of angles with various critical methods. But the irony is that many higher critical forms of Biblical study actually vindicate the Scriptures and help give one a better and broader understanding of the Scriptures. Amongst some of the more extreme fundamentalists, I've actually read them critiquing any historical/social/rhetorical/etc approach to Biblical study as being inherently bad since it supposedly degrades inerrancy. The line of thought here is that Scripture alone is necessary to understand these same Scriptures. Hence, any kinds of academic approaches to the Scripture, or even more extremely, any kinds of study aids, are unnecessary since all we need is the Bible alone! But can we really understand the Pentateuch without an understanding of the Ancient Near East and related literature? Can we fully understand Israel's history without knowing the history of the region? Can we best understand the social, political and religious setting of the New Testament if don't study the intertestamental period? The answer is no, but some fundamentalists beg to differ. Likewise, most of the "scholarship" from fundamentalist academics only vindicates fundamentalist positions without fully considering conservative approaches.

7. Understanding of Spiritual Gifts

Fundamentalists are not particularly fond of the charismatic movement and mostly believe that certain spiritual gifts ceased at the close of the "apostlic era." Fundamentalists are very much believers in spiritual gifts--that each believer has spiritual gifts and should use them, but only certain spiritual gifts, i.e. the non-spooky ones. Thus, they don't believe that there is a true gift of tongues, healing, prophecy, etc for today (their understanding of prophecy for today is basically limited to bold preaching), but that such gifts died off with the first and second generation of believers. There are some conservatives who hold this position, but many do not. For instance, I do not consider myself a charismatic, and I think certain pockets of the charismatic movement have its own problems, but I really don't see any Biblical warrant for the "cessation" of certain gifts. The Biblical scholarship defending cessationism is generally lacking in my opinion and just seeks to justify the fact that certain gifts don't manifest themselves in their fellowship (I guess they won't if the presuppostion is that they are not for today). Thus, many conservatives are sort of a "third way" in the fundamentalist/charismatic debates.

8. Marriage to the Republican Party/American Nationalism

Fundamentalists generally are strong supporters of the Religious Right political movement. Most conservatives broadly agree with the moral values and concerns of Religious Rightists, and even might find themselves voting Republican usually. However, they are growing more and more fed up with the marriage of the Religious Right to the Republican Party and its agenda. Thus, some theological conservatives are believers in "progressive" political ideals. Others like myself are conservative libertarians or paleo-conservatives. But theological conservatives more and more are abandoning the ideal of marrying the church and state, or imposing a rightist political agenda on the public as many fundamentalists would like to see happen. Fundamentalists tend to often wear their patriotism on their sleeve believing that America is generally superior to the rest of the civilized world and is used as a tool of God to spread democracy and freedom around the globe. Fundamentalists were amongst the most supportive group of Bush's invasion of Iraq and typically find themselves in agreement with the neoconservative political movement and ideals. Theological conservatives are more likely to declare themselves free agents in the political debate and have a more humble view of American superiority. They also are open to social justice concerns and issues that are typically considered a staple of the left, such as AIDS relief and enviornmental concern, though they do not approach these issues humanistically or from a "liberal" perspective.

9. Marriage to the King James Version of Scripture

There are two groups of fundamentalists on this issue. There is the more militant "KJV 1611 Only" group that believes that the King James Version of Scripture is the ONLY valid Biblical text available to believers and that all other translations are Satanic counterfeits. The other group believes that other translations may be permissible, but that the KJV is superior in accuracy. As such the latter group typically favors and urges the use of the KJV over other English translations. However, while the KJV is a fine translation, it simply is not based on our oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and contains a number of errors that are actually corrected by some of our newer English translations--translations which ironically are charged with liberalism or Satanism by KJV advocates. Academic defenses of KJV superiority are always done by fundamentalist "scholars," though a balanced view of the issue does not support their conclusions. Thus, fundamentalists truly have made their particular favored version of Scripture a "Paper Pope," and some even make the issue of translations a litmus test deciding whether one is a "true Christian" or not! Most fundamentalists hold to the more moderate but still favoring position of the KJV over all other translations. For a lengthier view on this subject see NT scholar and Asbury Seminary prof Ben Witherington on his own blog: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/08/origins-of-english-bible.html

10. Biblical "Separation"

A very big tenet of theological fundamentalism is the focus on "Biblical separation." Separation is part of the statement of faith of most independent Baptist churches, which are all heavily fundamentalist. Basically, they believe that anyone who doesn't share their fundamentalist doctrine should be avoided. They hate any kind of cooperation with non-fundamentalist Evangelicals and reserve their most fierce ire for any kind of Protestant dialogue or cooperation with Catholics. Thus, they openly preach against organizations like Promise Keepers since it incorporates Catholics. Most even openly demand separation from any denomination that is a part of the National Association of Evangelicals, a coalition of denominations not known for their liberalism or promotion of bad behavior, Ted Haggards recent activities not withstanding. In several independent Baptist churches I've visited in the past, the "separation" part of their statement of faith was the lengthiest part! Theological conservatives may have very strong theological differences with Catholics, but they don't see Promise Keepers as a bad movement, and don't necessarily think every single Catholic is doomed to eternal hellfire. Also, while many conservatives are not charismatics, they don't mind cooperating with charismatics in various movements and issues. But with separationists, there is no middle ground. You are either theologically pure or you are not. If you aren't (i.e. like them), then you should not be associated with on a deep theological, or even personal level.

The above ten issues are certainly full of generalizations and are not definitive. Not all fundamentalists believe in each of these ten tenets, and not all theological conservatives disagree with all of the above. I fully acknowledge that perhaps I am wrong on one or more of the ten issues above and that my ideas are open to revision or new insights and understanding. I'm not sure most fundamentalists would also concede as such however. It also must be noted that the above is not intended to "water down the Scriptures." It's my contention that theological conservatism is intending to do the exact opposite and is actually MORE faithful to the Scriptures. That could be the big irony in the whole discussion. Fundamentalists, while they insist on what they think is strict literalism, may actually be misinterpreting the Bible on a number of fronts with great theological, political and personal implications at stake.

Thoughts?