Fallen and Flawed

I have been reading your stuff for a few weeks now and enjoy your work. I wanted to share an insider’s view on this one. In 2007 I graduated from Arlington Baptist College, formerly Fundamental Baptist Bible Institute founded by J. Frank Norris who, in statue form, still greets you on the drive in.

Now I did not grow up in church until I was 16 and feel like God used that time to save me from the fundie mindset. As I went through college I was blown away by the arrogance, chauvinism, bigotry, and even hatred of certain people in the name of Christianity summed up in the declaration, “You’re going to Hell!”

My struggle is the same as yours with this area in that on the ‘fundamentals’ of the Christian faith listed in #1, I am in full agreement. Especially with the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture. But where I think that these men (and women) went wrong was to turn their truth into arrogance and instead of taking that truth to reach the world, they set themselves up as being too good for the world leading to a misuse of scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 6:17.

As I am now struggling to understand my role as a pastor fully relying on the Bible as truth, the challenge is to tie the call to holy living with the command to share the Gospel with the world – even the ugly parts. The stand I take is that political fights will not change anything unless the hearts of men are transformed first. Therefore, my job as a pastor is not to judge unbelievers or get anyone saved, but to teach and to live in such a way that people can see Jesus and thereby learn to love God more, and love themselves a little less.

Of all the branches of Christian thought I most identify with, it’s this one. But Pastor Ingram pegged it when he said that the Fundamentals as a group have turned to arrogance and bigotry. I also struggle with this, because my first instinct is to fall into an “Us vs. Them” mentality. (Which is precisely why I became so deeply entrenched in the Witnesses for three years. They play upon that very feeling, and use it to drive their hooks into you.)

I try to remind myself that if God had that mentality, the Gentiles would never have been grafted in to His family. That sobers me up to no end, and helps me to stay humble. At least, for a while…then God has to smack me right again.

–Denita

The shift from condemning immorality and false teaching inside the church, to condemning it outside the church seems to be the issue. We can rebuke, discipline those within the church, but no jurisdiction outside. However, in the end each group will be judged by God. I think the ‘fundamentalist’ sees this and does what Paul speaks against in 1 Cor 4:1-5; they presume peoples final judgement before God.

I would say Christians are to live good lives amongst outsiders, so that by this the values of believers are clear and distinct, even to those who don’t believe. As well believers need to speak to the world – warning it, pointing to a need for repentance, but remembering that even we are under God’s grace, so we are in no position to condemn. You have been loved, so do likewise…

In a democratic country (US or Australia for me) we can speak out against these things (abortion etc.) and vote against or for what is appropriate, but in the end I would say Jesus is judge, so leave the ultimate decision up to him.

“11. Contemporary fundamentalists tend to love the Republican party and their moral agenda centered on abortion and patriotism.”
I think the Fundies and the Republicans would prefer that you said “anti-abortion.”

“I don’t like the baggage it’s accumulated: narrowmindedness, intolerance and xenophobia. Things I’m prone to if not careful.”
I thought myself a xenophobe for years before I learned that it has nothing to do with fearing xenon gas…
~
But, seriously, it is the dangers of entering into the areas of thought that we’re “prone to” that keeps us careful and prayerful and humble before our Lord. These are the imaginations we must constantly cast down and the thoughts we are to always submit to the obedience of Christ. Thank God we don’t have to determine for ourselves “WWJD?” but we can ASK Him, “LORD, what would you have me do?”
~
Words have meanings, but the world loves to change the meanings to fit the moment or, more accurately, the agenda of the moment. In 1828 Noah Webster’s dictionary defined the noun FUNDAMENTAL thus: A leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the ground work of a system; essential part; as the fundamentals of the christian faith
If he was correct, I guess that makes me a fundamentalist, no matter what today’s altered interpretation may be.
+
Incidentally, in my opinion it is the Christian who is the true object of the most genuine xenophobia, for we are the strangers and foreigners who threaten the pseudo-tranquility of unbelievers with our unequivocal Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I tried again to use the barquotes in the above post, but can’t seem to make it work. Sorry…

Anthony: You said, “The stand I take is that political fights will not change anything unless the hearts of men are transformed first.” Beautiful, and I agree 100%. I believe Phil Johnson said something similar.
Denita: Arrogance and bigotry and fear of the strange…scare me to death. [Is there a scientific name for that?]
Sam: You summed it up well, in the end, Jesus is the ultimate and only qualified judge.
Al: There’s no doubt that elements of fundamentalists in our lives, because we have certain principles–five solas for example–that serve as a foundation for belief. I’m okay with that. It’s the negative baggage I want to avoid. And yes, indeed, we are strangers in a strange land. [And by the way,
tag does not work in my comments, for some reason, thus, the “…” or “__” hack to make a paragraph break. I have someone who’s going to look into it.”

“Arrogance and bigotry and fear of the strange…scare me to death. [Is there a scientific name for that?]”
~
Not to step on Denita’s toes, but I’d say it would depend on whether your fear is of being the victim, the perpetrator, or both, in any or all of the three cases. Hope that clarifies everything!

I think fundamentalism is a good thing. You cannot do well at anything without fundamentals. The main issues, to me, are the legalisms associated with the fundamental movement. I am surprised to see John Hagee lumped into this movement as well. I guess if you think about it, some see the loony behaviors as fundamental…

[...] ‘13 Quick Facts about Christian Fundamentalism’ Demian Farnworth [...]

“And unfortunately, Fundamentalism threatens to overtake evangelical Christianity in America.”

Here in america, fundamentalism is pretty much synonymous with evagelism. That’s how bad it is.

Anthony said,

As I am now struggling to understand my role as a pastor fully relying on the Bible as truth, the challenge is to tie the call to holy living with the command to share the Gospel with the world – even the ugly parts.

Is that the ugly parts of the world or the ugly parts of the bible?

When writing the previous comment I was talking about the ugly parts of the world, but taking your point into consideration, it must also include explaining the ‘ugly’ parts of the Bible.

Now, for me this isn’t the violence in the Bible. To sinful humans, violence is natural to some degree. (I would say evolution supports violence more than the Bible through survival of the fittest. This justifies any and all human atrocities we may be able to commit). Not to change subjects, that is all there in the Bible and must be addressed, not ignored. But those aren’t the hard issues to teach. I would argue that things like Divine election and the reality of hell (how a loving God can send people there) are, from the human perspective, the ugly parts of the Bible and are infinitely harder to explain.

So yes to both parts. We must preach to the ugly parts of the world, and as best as we can, we must give an answer for the ugly parts of the Bible (though at some level it will be impossible – Isaiah 55:8-9).

Robert said,

Here in america, fundamentalism is pretty much synonymous with evagelism. That’s how bad it is.

In what way, Robert?

Anthony said,

I would argue that things like Divine election and the reality of hell (how a loving God can send people there) are, from the human perspective, the ugly parts of the Bible and are infinitely harder to explain.

I agree. I’d like to hear your evidence of hell’s reality and explaination as to why a loving God would send people there. So far, I haven’t been given an explaination that has made sense to me.

Consider that an all-loving and merciful God will send people that he loves into a place where they will be tortured forever. But, I (being a fallible human being) would not do such a thing, even if I had the power to do so. No matter how bad the people to be tortured were. As a matter of fact, few humans would ever do something so brutal. It’s even worse when you consider that God is also all-powerful. He could just make those wretches disappear forever (JW, SDA believe that this is what he’ll do). He could “put them out of their misery” and God’s misery as well. Instead, he’ll put them into worse misery than ever. How is that merciful, loving and just?

I guess, Demian, that I think of evangelical and fundamental as being the same thing. The lines seem very blurry to me. Maybe, I was personalizing it. My Bad.

To Robert: Although I love to discuss those issues, I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for that. Suffice it to say, that on I don’t think the question starts with why would a loving God send people to hell, rather, the first question to ask is why would a righteous God not send all sinners to hell and instead chose to save some? Perhaps we can find a more suitable place for this discussion though.

Robert said to Anthony:

“I’d like to hear your evidence of hell’s reality and explaination as to why a loving God would send people there. So far, I haven’t been given an explaination that has made sense to me.”

~
Perhaps in the future Demian will open up one or both of these topics as threads of their own. Meanwhile, I suggest that the most important thing regarding eternal damnation and those who will suffer it is that we recognize God as the only One with supreme authority to design and decide such matters. In other words, we must abandon all man-born concepts of what a “loving God” should do, and temper our feelings with the reality of God’s Word; compare and contrast the God of love with the God of wrath (for they are One and the Same); learn the limits of Christ’s atonement, who designed and enforces them; be thankful.

Anthony, Al,
Here’s an apropriate thread on my blog. I really want to know what you think.

http://superstitionfree.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-thread-doctrine-of-hell.html

Perhaps in the future Demian will open up one or both of these topics as threads of their own.

They’re on the back burner…other things to cover first.

As a Taoist, I dislike fundamentalism in ANY form. Fundamentalist Muslims are just as dangerous as Fundamentalist Christians as are Fundamentalist Jews.

Also, I don’t understand your distinction between fundamentalists and evangelicals. For me, they seem cut from the same cloth.

As a PERSON, I dislike fundamentalism in ANY form, too. Including Taoists.
–
Just teasing you, Trey, but I had to get that in. You’re not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. I hope you still love me.
–
Yeah, fundies and evangelicals are very hard to tell apart these days. And that’s the problem.
–
Fundamentalism–the anti-intellectual type–is taking over Evangelicals. That’s why people like Albert Mohler and Mark Dever are so forceful in their efforts to define Christianity in a Calvinistic sense. Hope this helps. And thank you for your contribution.

Actually Demian, I’m not sure if it’s even possible to be a fundamentalist Taoist. Sort of an oxymoron.

As to whether or not I still love you — I don’t know you. That said, I love all things! Since you’re part of the all, then I guess that base is covered.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out right now.

I checked out the links. As an outsider, I still don’t see THAT much difference between the two. If anything, so-called New Calvinism appears even more backward in thinking than your run-of-the-mill fundamentalist.

Any group that would dismiss homosexuality based on the writings of a society from 2000 years ago and more are suspect in my book. It looks to me like all this new movement hopes to accomplish is to take the FUN out of fundamentalism and fundies aren’t a very fun group to begin with.

Ah, well, thanks for being good humored! You are a kind Taoist. Which, I guess should be expected, but…
–
I’m not sure what you mean by “dismiss homosexuality” or how you define “backwards,” but I guess we could all make wide, sweeping value statements on things we don’t like, especially if we define values as relative. Your opinion is as good as mine, right?
–
But what really strikes me as odd is your statement “based on the writings from a society from 2000 years ago,” especially since you practice a religion based on writings at least 2000 years old…if not older. Is that not true? What am I missing?

On one of the links you provided it stated that too many Christian churches and institutions had gone soft on homosexuality. This new movement seeks to reinstate the idea that homosexuality is sinful and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I would define that as “backward” thinking!

As to your other question, there are two forms of Taoism: [classical] philosophical and religious. The former has been around for thousands of years and it is the nebulous version I subscribe to. Around the 3rd or 4th century AD, some Taoists decided to transform the philosophic system into a religion replete with deities and rituals. I’m not a fan of religion in ANY form, so I’m not a religious Taoist.

RT, you suggested that the “new calvinists” are [1]“backward in thinking” because they [2] “dismiss homosexuality based on the writings of a society from 2000 years ago.”
~
To the first point, I plead guilty as charged, but probably will define your terminology differently than you meant it. I am “backward in thinking” because my thinking is based on the teachings of the Bible, an old book, which presents the words of the God who created heaven and earth. In other words, I trace my beliefs back to what God gave us from the beginning, which remains today “the faith once delivered unto the saints (believers).”
~
Regarding the second point, I refer you to the first: My thinking is not based on the writings of a society, old or new, but on the writings of the Holy Spirit, administered through the handiwork of God-inspired men. That those writings make no allowance for changes of values over the passage of time indicates that what was moral sin then is still moral sin today.

Demien, you may be interested in browsing this website if you’re not aware of it:

http://www.sharperiron.org/

It is a fundamentalist website, but of a sort markedly different than the wacky fundamentalism from which you have distinguished your own views. While still carrying the label “fundamentalist,” they’re a whole lot closer to Dever/Mohler/Piper/MacArthur than to the others who wear the same label. Thankfully, the number of fundamentalists in this new camp are rapidly increasing (though, on the other hand, the ultra-fundie types aren’t going away either).

Scott, I appreciate the link! Thank you, sir.