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?

The Pro-Abortion Crowd...

Do they really want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare?" I argue below that such a claim is highly suspect based on the actions and words of the pro-abort lobby:

Read the full article here

Is Joe Lieberman Really a Moderate?

No, but he is a willing tool of imperialistic neoconservatives whose main priority is promoting international strife. Such "conservatives" are more than happy to overlook Lieberman's far left positions on all sorts of issues as long as he sings the praises of the war machine. Read and comment on the article below:

Joe Lieberman: The Neoconservatives' Favorite Liberal

Democracy Gone Wild In Congregational Churches?

I am a pastor in a denomination that practices a mild form of congregationalism. We have District Superintendents who hold great sway with their churches, but ultimately churches make their own decisions about who will come pastor their church and when this pastor needs to leave. We have structure within our denomination, district, and local churches, but most of the positions filled are selected based on a democratic vote. On the local church level, typically our church boards are composed of the pastor (who more often than not is the head of the church board), deacons, elders (if a church recognizes such a position or distinguishes them from deacons, often they don’t even though according to Scripture the two offices aren’t the same), "members at large," the church treasurer, and other positions and variations. Often times, these church boards resemble business boards, where the pastor or board chairman is the CEO and the board members are the "leaders of the company" who conduct "the business" of the church. In these meetings, ministry vision is often overshadowed by custodial concerns, reports, etc. Thus, separate boards of committees are typically formed to do the ministry visionizing separate from the church board.

In a more Presbyterian form of church government, the structure of church government is different. Typically here, there is a "board of elders" separate from a deacon board or other entity that focuses mostly on ministry. In the Scriptures, the terms for elders and presbyters are typically used interchangeably and denote the spiritual leaders of a body of believers. In modern arrangements, the elder board is led by or joined by the "Senior Pastor" who functions vocationally or bi-vocationally on a daily basis as the head elder. Churches with prysbyterian forms of government are typically just as (or even more) bureaucratic than their congregational counterparts but with striking differences. There is not an emphasis on congregational "elections" to fill various spiritual leadership or committee posts. Instead, it is the job of the already existing spiritual leadership— the elders or whoever— to fill these spots. In congregational churches, nominees are picked through a nominating committee, and the members of the church ultimately vote on the winners.

There are some obvious dangers in the congregational format. For one thing, popularity, name recognition and other factors may overshadow who is actually best qualified. And rather than pastors and other church leaders who best know their congregation filling posts, the decision is instead left up to the majority. On a district level, one of the committees I sit on saw a one its best members lose "re-election." The person who was elected to fill the spot certainly seems to be a capable enough individual, but it really would not have been the choice of the board or this particular ministry director to have lost this valuable contributor. Sensing what a loss it was, the committee chair asked this individual to stay on as a non-voting "advisorary member" to make sure their insights weren't wasted. Also, on a district level, newcomers to the process with less “name recognition” are at an obvious disadvantage since few know who they are and what their qualifications are. Even though the people with the best name recognition are often the best people for the job, this is not always the case. Qualification and calling sometimes take a back seat to the perceptions or whims of the popular will.

On this same note, on a local church level, a pastor and his church board or elder board cannot make appointments even though they are typically in the best position of knowledge and discernment to make such decisions. Instead it has to go to a popular vote where the wrong man or woman might continue in, or be elected to, a position they are not best suited for. Another danger in congregational manifestations such as "church elections" is that they pit church members, and typically friends, up against one another. In many churches this is no big deal, but there are times where feelings are hurt and friendships interrupted.

While I'm not going to be crossing over to a Presbyterian church anytime soon (And I do support and appreciate my denomination even in areas where I have some differences), I do think some quarters of Protestantism have taken direct democracy a bit far. Especially as Americans, we love to have a voice. If the majority says it, that typically settles it (except for the losers who may or may not have truth on their side). In America, we typically don't like the judiciary branch overruling our popular wills. When the courts strike down a referendum that was voted on the "the people" or strike down a law that Congress passed and the President signed, we call that "judicial activism" (even though the courts are there in part to be a check against Democracy Gone Wild). In the past, we know that the popular will was wrong sometimes. Today though, we like to think that we have it all together and that if the majority says so, then it must be the right thing to do. This principle goes for our churches as well.

I'm interested in others providing their congregational or prysbyterian horror stories and/or success stories. What do you think is the best form of church government, and regardless of which model we take, has the individualistic democratic spirit gone too far in our local churches and denominational structures?

Election Result Analysis and Response--The Beginning of the End for the Neocons?

As I write this, Democrats are taking the U.S House by a very healthy margin and will probably win the Senate by a hair. What this means:

1. An almost total repudiation of the ruling Republican establishment and their leadership the last few years.

2. An even bigger repudiation of the handling of Iraq. Thankfully, Republicans will be forced to shut up that they are morally superior on foreign policy issues and they are now weakened overall with their "war on terror" talking points.

3. Public right-wing scandals, from Delay, to Cunningham, to Foley and even Haggard severely hurt the GOP. Right now, Bill Clinton's Democratic Party no longer holds a monopoly on scandal.

4. Democrats should not see this as a ringing endorsement as much of this was mainly a protest vote. Dems now needs to show some fruit the next couple years or this momentum will certainly fade. This wasn't so much of a vote for Democrats as it was one against Republicans. Nationally, there's still strong conservative sentiment out there, but not so much for the kind of conservatism that The Weekly Standard and likewise the welfare/warfare presidency Bush and the outgoing GOP stand for.

In regards to Michigan elections:

1. DeVos, who spent a whopping 35 mill of his own money, and went up against a lackluster incumbent in a state with the worst economy of the nation still could not come close to a win.

2. I voted for him, but realistically DeVos is getting what he deserves in part for being a wuss on affirmative action and in part for not defining himself at all in this campaign. All we know is that he was "for jobs in Michigan." Thanks, Mr. DeVos. I'm also for puppies and cute kittens. What does any of that mean though?

3. By a healthy margin, voters democratically laid the smack down on affirmative action. This may well be the biggest conservative victory in the nation. Even in many strong Democratic counties, the AA ban passed. Kudos to Ward Connerly who led this fight and the voters for demanding an end to reverse discrimination in the public arena.

4. Michigan voters also expressed their disdain for eminent domain and thankfully told the government that it cannot go around seizing private property, unless it has a really great reason, and unless it can overly compensate private property owners in the event that they do. Kudos again to Michigan voters.

5. A third kudos to Michigan voters for rejecting the teacher's unions demands for more money for public schools. People are beginning to see that a lack of funds has not been the problem with the educational system.

The lesson from all this? Perhaps Michigan Republican state candidates will get a clue and develop some backbone on issues the voters actually agree with them on. Nationally the mood of the country looks like this: voters are currently swaying to an anti-war sentiment, they overall back strong immigration reform and restrictions, they are sick of corrupt and inept Republican government, they favor traditional marriage, they are hesitant to overturn legal abortion (according to the South Dakota vote, and most other state polls) though are not wildly enthusiastic about it either, and overall still lean towards fiscal responsibility.

Except for abortion where there is still a "pro-choice" majority, Americans are actually fairly paleo-conservative. Perhaps the politics of Buchananism are being vindicated after all. I'm personally hoping that this will be the beginning of the end of the reign of the neoconservatives and will lead to the resurgence of Old Right conservatism. If anything, this has certainly humbled the neocons. Or at least it should. It will be interesting to see what kind of tone Bush takes in response to all this and what direction conservatism goes from here.

The Fall of Ted Haggard--An Ananias and Sapphria Moment

Sometimes God does things that should cause all of us to collectively pause or strike a holy fear into our hearts. I call these "Ananias and Sapphria Moments." The story of Ananias and Sapphria is recorded in Acts 5:1-11. This was a husband and wife couple who attempted to deceive the Christian community and were struck down and killed by the Lord. Basically the early Christian community was selling their property and belongings and distributing it to those in need. Ananias and Sapphria sold a piece of their property but decided to hold back some of the income they received from it. Peter confronts both of them individually and both lie and claim they gave all the money they made from the sale to the apostles. It's important to note that it was the lie that eventually did them in. Peter says they did not lie to men, but to God and both were struck down on the spot. The last verse of this story is very telling in terms of the effect it had upon the community: "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events."

These dramatic smitings are not commonplace in the New Testament, or even the Old Testament. But they sent a strong signal and warning to the community. The fear that was put into the hearts of the people was not a cruel fear, but a holy fear. God is a holy God and will only contend with deception and evil for so long. There are times where God makes a high profile example to teach the rest of us a lesson or warn us what can happen if we fall into and persist in sin. While God did not cause Pastor Ted Haggard to drop dead, He did bring him down from leadership in a dramatic fashion. This should make all Christians pause, especially those of us in leadership (and the wrong response to just assume that such things could never happen to us, or that we could never fall into the types of sin we criticize!).

Not widely reported was the contents of the last service Haggard led at New Life church last Sunday. Haggard prayed during his pastoral prayer that "lies would be revealed" and his sermon focused on I Samuel 16 where David was anointed by Samuel to replace King Saul. Haggard expounded on how God brings down leaders and raises up other ones. Little did Haggard know how close to home all this would hit just three days later when the scandal became public. Does anyone, even the hardest of religious skeptics see this as just an interesting coincidence? Rather than gloating about the fall of another Evangelical leader, all people, both Christian and non-Christian alike should see God actively working in this situation (And yes, he very well can use a former gay prostitute to bring about his judgments, just as he used the Assyrians or Babylonians on a much larger scale in the Old Testament). God is calling ALL of us to get our own houses in order, especially those in Christian leadership.

I am the first to admit I am far from perfect. Those who know me know this very well. None of us should get on our high horses just because we may not be struggling with homosexuality, drug abuse, or whatever else. The truth is all of us are hypocrites to some extent if we really want to press the issue. All of us are imperfect, all of us far short of just about any standard the Scripture sets, and all of us need a Savior. And all of us need to bring our shortcomings to the Cross of Christ, and as a community of Christians we must hold one another accountable. My hope is that this does not drive Christians, particularly Christian leaders, into more isolation to avoid failings. That would be completely counter-productive. Instead there needs to be more community, more openness, and more repentance on the part of individual Christians and the body of Christ on a whole.

I do not want to pile up on Haggard. His life has been turned upside down, he has lost his job, lost his reputation, and the whole world is scorning him. I seriously do hope that God will work in His life and bring him healing. Right now he and his family need prayer, not righteous scorn. Everyone knows he did wrong and he is paying a very high price and will continue to. His accuser also needs prayer. His church needs prayer. Evangelicals on a whole need prayer. May this very unfortunate incident bring not only Haggard and his immediate circle closer to the Lord, but all of us as well. And may it cause all of us to pause in holy reverence of the Lord God, who is calling all of us to a closer relationship to Him with no divided interests or inconsistencies.