Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Product of Fundamentalism

What happened in Norway the other day was a human tragedy of incredible magnitude. In such an open-minded, progressive country, it was probably as damaging to their national psyche as 9/11 was for us here in America. My heart broke and still breaks for the people in Oslo and on that island, both those who died and those who survived. For the survivors, it isn't something they'll get over anytime soon. It likely wounded parts of their souls that will never heal in this lifetime. Then, there are the families which are now a member (perhaps more) short, having to forge ahead in life without beloved sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, who were victims of the deranged killer. Heartbreaking.


I was watching the news with my dad a few days ago as reports were just beginning to surface about the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, and his motivations. I looked at my dad and said, "You know, the margin between this guy and most of the groups I write about is paper thin."


Then, today, I read this compelling piece by Elizabeth Esther. I agree with her entirely that there's nothing "Christian" about this guy, despite his label by the media as a "Christian fundamentalist" and his self-labeling of "Christian". What is he then? Simple. A fundamentalist. Period. He cloaks his fundamentalism behind a "Christian culture", while having no genuine connection to or faith in Christ. Elizabeth included a quote from his 1,500 page manifesto that, frankly, made me shudder...


So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian.Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.


What does that remind you of? Who does that remind you of? I'm not saying the groups I write about are just like Breivik, but again, I believe the margin to be as thin as a piece of paper. Just a couple of days ago, on a friend's FB page, I made this statement...


"As far as patrios and fundamentalists, only God knows, but based on what I see, they pay lip service to Christ - but the true deity of their faith is "the bible" and the culture they've crafted from it, using it as a religious rulebook (in many cases adding to it) and denying the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers."


I see little difference in the mindsets of the leaders of the patriarchal paradigm/Christian homeschooling mafia and men like Breivik. This isn't an attempt at hyperbole, nor am I being even slightly facetious. I think they worship neo-conservative, white, romanticized "American", "Christian" culture, stemming from idolization of the biblical canon and a narrow, narrow, narrow, legalistic, superficial reading of it. I think reference to Christ is nothing more than lip-service and a facade to front their ambitions and desires for social engineering and domination. Keep in mind that I'm talking primarily about the leaders of these movements rather than the rank and file - most of whom I believe are just severely deceived despite having good intentions. The problem is, the rank and file have their minds polluted and indoctrinated with fundamentalist poisons, can easily get worked up into a sociopolitical, cultural fervor ("fear-vor" might be more appropriate), and it's from the rank and file that people like Timothy McVeigh, and men like Breivik, emerge.


Breivik didn't need Jesus to practice his version of Christianity. He admitted as much in the quote from his manifesto. All he needed was the culture he attached himself to. A while back, in this post, I wrote the following...


You don't need Jesus to have a plethora of children. You don't need Jesus to home school. You don't need Jesus to adhere to any particular dress code. You don't need Jesus to adhere to any particular behavioral code. You don't need Jesus for a man to be a masculine visionary or a woman to be a feminine homemaker. You don't need Jesus to stand against the effeminate or the feminist. You don't need Jesus to vote Republican or Constitutional. You don't need Jesus to overpower the opposition by force of numbers, particularly when those numbers are primarily dependent on breeding. You don't need Jesus to practice priestcraft, and most certainly not for a father to act as prophet, priest, and king of his home. Many who know little to nothing about Jesus do these things. Many devout atheists do these things. 


You do, however, need those things to take dominion.



Compare that to Breivik's "Christianity". Paper thin margin.


Consider than many of the dominionist/reconstructionist churches and para-church organizations have connections to various militia groups, and perhaps have weapons caches of their own. Maybe even some of those I write about. Heck, I've even heard rumors that the Focus on the Family "compound" has, or has had, a weapons collection. I can't verify it, but I'm not quick to dismiss it. They're all cultural warriors. To believe these groups have spiritual ambitions is naive. They have cultural ambitions. Period.


Look at the romantic notions some of this crowd presents about America and its history. And by "America", I mean neo-conservative, white, fundamentalist "Christian" culture, filtered through a literal, superficial interpretation and idolization of "the bible". Joe at IC recently took a look at the romantic spiritualization that Doug Phillips used to distort the interpretations of some the the cultural icons of the "Greatest Generation" and WWII - cultural icons who would likely consider him a sociopolitical "religious" fringe fruitcake. I once linked to Geoff Botkin's take on what Major Dick Winters passing meant for "American manhood". My comments at the time...


Pretty low rent. I read "Band of Brothers" shortly after it was published almost 20 years ago, and I've been the proud owner of the HBO box set of the "Band of Brothers" miniseries for almost 10 years, having watched it so many times that I've nearly memorized the dialog. Major Winters is, in my opinion, a true hero of American and international freedoms, and I think it's pretty disgusting for Botkin to use the man's memory and legacy to promote the poisonous VF ideas of "manhood"...especially when Major Winters himself would likely think Botkin and the VF crowd are as batcrap crazy as the rest of us do.


...still stand. I seriously doubt Major Winters, for example, taught his young daughters to remove the shoes and rub the feet of distinguished male guests, and he'd probably see it as being as creepy and geisha-esque as I do.


None of these things involve Christ. He isn't necessary to promote a sociopolitical cultural ideal or take sociopolitical dominion over a culture. He's just unlucky enough for all of these people to slap His name all over their desires, their ambitions, their cultural goals. He has nothing to do with it. 


It's a sad thing when Jesus leaves your culture...and He isn't really missed. His departure should change everything. What you're left with is just plain old fundamentalism comprised of dangerous fundaments (for those of you in Wilkes County, that means "assholes") who do nothing more than use God's name in vain - and make the practice of our faith in Christ more challenging for those of us who actually place our faith in Christ, what with society equating their "faith" with ours.

44 comments:

  1. After I lost my husband, I attended a Vision Forum home church for three months without knowing anything about their doctrines. Unwittingly my presence put the men in a huge dilemna. As a physical scientist with four patents and a plan to get an advanced degree, I represented the feminist enemy that they would normally denounce as a Jazabel. But I was also a widow who had been married 20 years and nursed my husband through pancreatic cancer. I was somewhat outspoken but not abrasive and I also had friends that they respected.

    After three months of confusion because I did not know anything about their doctrine, I got tired of being the cause of so much angst without understanding why. I politely told them I was leaving because I wanted to hear more about justification through faith. The men looked bewildered and one said that he was tired of talking about justification through faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lewis, I'm no fan of Focus on the Family but I think rumor-dropping and then giving your opinion on that rumor is beneath you. Quite honestly it sounds like the fear-mongering the so many groups, political, religious, activist, etc. would use. I've read here a long time and believe you possess integrity and believe you want to maintain it. Like you I'm too blunt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now if only your post could be preached from every "pulpit" in the world... I would love to see the shocked looks on peoples' faces.

    My most blunt suspicion is that the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids might mean that the majority of what we call the church doesn't know the real Jesus Christ, they certainly don't display the grace of Christ, and therefore... I question how many are actual real followers of Christ.

    I think 90% of people who call themselves Christians are cultural-Christians. It's a socio-economical-political feel-good thing to do.

    I get in trouble from everybody for saying that. Moderates want to quiet it. Legalists argue against it. Grace people are fearful of it.

    As for Maj. Winters, he'd probably take offense to someone expecting or commanding his daughters to rub a guest's feet. He may have been from a different generation, but he had an understanding of respect for *every* person. To require or command something from someone who has no authority over someone else is to be disrespectful. A guest requiring or commanding his daughters would be disrespectful to his daughters. Throughout the series Maj. Winters was shown to not be like typical army control freaks. He respected their rank when he didn't like them, but otherwise respected and honored that they were humans stuck in a hell-hole.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @anon 7:56AM...If you're no fan of FotF, why does a "rumor" about them place my integrity in jeopardy any more than the "rumors" about so many other things I give my opinions on?

    Don't kid yourself into believing that FotF is somehow tremendously different than these other dominionist groups. Same avenues. Same goals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lewis: This is anonymous at 7:56 a.m. Yeah I agree you have been using rumors and I haven't called you on it before. Maybe I did this morning because I hadn't had my coffee yet. Or could be that I got up on the wrong side of the bed. In actuality I like you and I think you run the risk of using the same tactics that you despise in an avenue and for a goal that are worthy. I'm not offended for the sake of Focus on the Family -- I have never been a follower, listener or proponent for the group or any other dominionist group. Sorry for getting up your hackles. It is my sincere criticism and not intended as destruction or subterfuge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a sad thing when Jesus leaves your culture...and He isn't really missed. His departure should change everything. What you're left with is just plain old fundamentalism comprised of dangerous fundaments (for those of you in Wilkes County, that means "assholes") who do nothing more than use God's name in vain - and make the practice of our faith in Christ more challenging for those of us who actually place our faith in Christ, what with society equating their "faith" with ours.

    I feel exactly the same way. I am not ashamed to name the name of Christ, but I AM currently ashamed to be called a Christian.

    I'm no fan of FotF either. You plainly called it a rumor, so I say you have down nothing unethical in reporting that the rumor exists, and your opinion of it. Goodness, we're all grown-ups reading here. We can do our own research if it interests us, which I doubt it does. If I lived in Colorado though...:)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon...Thanks for the explanation.

    Even though much of what I post here would technically fall into speculation, sometimes even rumor, to those getting their information only here, there are very few things I post about from a position of reasonable doubt. Sometimes I'm privy to bits of info that I can't share outright due to the requests and circumstances of the sources of the info.

    All that said, I'm not a journalist, and I don't claim to be or seek to be the leader of any movement. I sell nothing, and don't have any plans to sell anything. I'm just a guy writing a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lewis, Thanks again for your great analysis. I agree that Breivik was a "cultural Christian" and not someone who practiced what Jesus taught. I haven't read about his beliefs elsewhere (though I've heard plenty about him on NPR and TV these last few days) and you're analysis fills in some of the gaps.

    "Cultural Warriors" of all types can indeed be very dangerous. Anytime one thinks they have all the answers for how others should live, they are treading in dangerous waters. I have no problem with people trying to influence others, but when you decide your way is the one and only correct way, that's not a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lewis, these were some of my exact thoughts after the Norway killings. The reports in the UK, where I am now, were probably pretty similar to those in the US...characterizing Breivik as a Christian fundie with hatred for 'multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, feminism, and Islam'. Just the things I've heard such people as Geoff Botkin rail against. That and many other facets were unnervingly familiar and I promptly wondered what you'd have to say about it.

    On a tangent...one of the stories that filtered over here from across the water was that Glenn Beck had described the teens at the political camp as Hitler's Youth-types, merely because they were attending a political camp! What irony, as the article pointed out, that Beck sponsors a conservative political camp for youth, and I can think of several other youth political events which are decidedly fundamentalist...yep, Hitler's Youth, all of em! The disingenuous strain runs deep across the board.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lewis,

    A perfect example of a church existing with Jesus not being there is in the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3. They were lukewarm and Jesus would spit them out of his mouth. They claim to be rich and wealthy and have need of nothing! In reality they are miserable, poor, blind and naked. In verse 20 he told them (and this verse is NOT a tool of evangelism as many people say by taking it out of context, but rather a condition of the church), "Behold I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will COME IN TO HIM..." Since when is Jesus OUTSIDE of his own church that he has to knock on its door? Here in Laodicea he has to knock on the door to get back in! They squeezed him out over time and forgot about him. The parallels here are striking, too. You can function just like a "church" and not even know Jesus is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think you paint with too broad a brush.

    There are perfectly healthy loving fundamentalists in this world. They are not the source of evil.

    Twisted and cherry-picking "Christianity" can be harmful.

    But I don't think this article is fair to Fundamentalists in general, most of whom do not promote or condone evil.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it's entirely fair. Nothing good comes from fundamentalism as it exists in the world today. Practically every war in this world is being fought because of fundamentalism. Practically every social divide in our country today is the product of one kind of fundamentalism or another.

    Granted, there are some good people caught up in fundamentalism...but that doesn't make fundamentalism less rotten. It just means a lot of otherwise decent people are deceived.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fundamentalism is whack. It's a new, American version of Christianity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism_(religious_movement)

    My personal opinion: everything is cited, so I think any "disputes" about the accuracy of this article are part of a concerted effort by fundamentalists to hide their history and what they really believe. They lied to me for years! My DTS grad f-i-l merely told me they believed the fundamentals of the faith. I thought he must mean the Creeds. Was I ever wrong! Live and learn...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Practically every social divide in our country today is the product of one kind of fundamentalism or another."

    I am not a Christian fundamentalist now or ever, but I don't know what this means. Maybe I'm not on the same definition page. Do you really mean social divides or cultural divides? I think I can understand where you are coming from in your war example. However the other statement needs examples because it seems to me you are really saying that we could all just be happy, smiling people holding hands if it weren't for those evil deluded fundamentalists (of any ilk). Are you really blaming all the worlds problems on fundamentalists? What about the complacent? And the greedy? And the power hungry? What about the morally bankrupt? Deadbeat dads? Poor economy? The cost of healthcare? The reign of technology? Global markets? Droughts? Bad SNL skits? McDonald's happy meals?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you really mean social divides or cultural divides?

    Those are, in many/most ways, essentially the same.

    However the other statement needs examples because it seems to me you are really saying that we could all just be happy, smiling people holding hands if it weren't for those evil deluded fundamentalists (of any ilk). Are you really blaming all the worlds problems on fundamentalists?

    Do you believe this is what I've said?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I reread the article and my comments in this thread. I don't see so much as morsel of a suggestion that every single bad thing in this world is the result of fundamentalism.

    Whis is THIS particular post causing you distress?

    ReplyDelete
  17. No worries. I'm not in distress. I'm simply don't understand your statement. I disagree that social divides and cultural divides are the same thing. For example, you and I could share the same culture but be in different social classes because of education or income. But no matter what the definition, how is "practically every social (or cultural) divide the product of one kind of fundamentalism or another"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Because most social divides are along cultural lines. People are attracted to the like-minded.

    The majority of divisive issues in this country are defined by extreme positions/"non-essentials"/fundamentalism, whether those are religious issues, political issues, or social issues (which are typically spill-over from religion or politics). What's going on in DC right now is largely the product of fundamentalist political posturing - lots of people bickering over "non-essentials" to the matter at hand, all with an eye on and posturing for the next election cycle.

    I'm not saying ALL...I'm saying most.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Nothing good comes from fundamentalism as it exists in the world today. "

    I think that is a very extreme statement.

    What do you mean by fundamentalist?

    I am thinking of people who confess "the five fundamentals," easily found on the internet, to wit:

    1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
    2. The Virgin Birth
    3. The Blood Atonement
    4. The Bodily Resurrection
    5. The inerrancy of the scriptures

    People who confess the above have done amazing good. I hope you have a different understanding of what fundamentalism is? The list above is the classic definition; you should be aware of that if you are going to say that "nothing good comes from fundamentalism."

    If you are aware of it, I don't know what to say! To say that the millions of Christians over the years who have believed the above have done "no good?" How could you say that?

    ReplyDelete
  20. People who confess the above have done amazing good.

    They've also done some incredible bad, and still do.

    To say that the millions of Christians over the years who have believed the above have done "no good?" How could you say that?

    I didn't.

    I'm well aware of the list of "fundamentals". If you've read here very much, you'd be aware that I'm not particularly partial to it - especially #5 on your list. #5, in and of itself, is, from my perspective, idolatry of a sort, and is responsible for a lot of wounded and hurting people.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lewis
    "Because most social divides are along cultural lines. People are attracted to the likeminded."

    Doesn't that make those that follow here by your definition "fundamentalists"?Doesn't that make us contributors to or participants in the social divide? Aren't most of us here saying we separate ourselves theologically (at least) from those who we would say have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible? Aren't we really often taking extreme, non-essential positions here and elsewhere based
    on those beliefs? As for D.C. we're looking for people/groups defined by their differences to find commonality. That's a big job on top of all the vitriol. Do you think you could find commonality and work with someone you consider to be a Christian fundamentalist?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Doesn't that make those that follow here by your definition "fundamentalists"?

    Not every culture/group of people is fundamentalist. Most of the readers here are trying to get away from fundamentalism. They aren't my followers in any context other than following my blog via blogger or email.

    Doesn't that make us contributors to or participants in the social divide?

    Of course it does. Not because we want to be separated from people, but because we NEED to be separated from fundamentalism. I don't know of a single person who reads here, ostracized from family, who wouldn't like for their family dynamic to heal and to be reunited. Religious fundamentalism often/usually makes that impossible.

    The social divide itself isn't the problem. Its cause is. The divide itself is only a symptom.

    Aren't most of us here saying we separate ourselves theologically (at least) from those who we would say have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible?

    I'd go a step beyond this, actually. Theologically, politically, and culturally, generally speaking.

    Aren't we really often taking extreme, non-essential positions here and elsewhere based
    on those beliefs?


    What extreme position have I taken? What non-essential do I promote? Loving God and loving our neighbor? The extreme to Christian fundamentalism would be hedonism. I haven't taken or promoted a position of hedonism. I don't promote or support voilence such as we saw in Norway or from other fundamentalists (even if there are a few people from my last few years I'd like to bump into in a back alley). I don't infer "2nd Amendment solutions" as some religious and political fundamentalists do. If by extreme you mean separating myself from fundamentalism/fundamentalists, I see it as the only viable option for the sake of my own sanity. I think they've done me enough damage.

    Do you think you could find commonality and work with someone you consider to be a Christian fundamentalist?

    Only if and when their fundamentalism doesn't become part of the equation. Fundamentalism is like smoke. It wants to dominate any environment it enters.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lewis, thank you for your clear-headed response. Yes, it is #5 on their "short list" of fundamentals that is the poison pill. That is where the horrid doctrines of:

    YE Creationism as an essential of the faith
    Many OT laws exalted to prominence in modern beliefs
    The strange hybrid of tithing only ten per cent while citing OT passages and determining that clearly means the money must go to your local MOG
    The rapture (pre-trib of course) which is sort of a halfway second coming of Christ
    Patriarchal gender roles
    Many varied and strange beliefs that vary from congregation to congregation, proof-texted from "inerrant" scripture

    Even the definition of the atonement is in reality much more strictly defined by fundamentalists as penal substitution. Fundamentalist preachers ignore the Christus Victor view of the atonement. The person posting above KNOWS all this to be true.

    But even more important, those of us who have escaped with our faith in God intact KNOW by painful experience what fundamentalists mean by #5- they mean Biblioloatry, and exaltation of the Bible to the point of diminishing the life and words of Jesus Christ to "also ran" status with Moses, the prophets, and the epistles.

    On the mount of transfiguration, God made it plain that the words and life of Jesus were exalted over all the former revelation of God to the Jewish people. Fundamentalists have reversed that prominence, but saying that all the rest of the Bible really IS Jesus, since Jesus is the Logos made flesh. Here they define the Logos of God as, wouldn't you know, THE BIBLE.

    It's so disengenious how they marginalize Jesus that way. Ugh. Can't believe how much of my love for Jesus was co-opted by this system of belief for so long. They had me going there for a long time, serving fundamentalist churches and doctrines because I thought it was the same as serving Jesus.

    Love; Jesus said that all will know we are his disciples by our love. That is the big reveal that fundamentalism is not about Jesus, but about The Commandments of Men.

    Thanks for standing up for truth as best you can, Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ". . .they mean Biblioloatry, and exaltation of the Bible to the point of diminishing the life and words of Jesus Christ to "also ran" status with Moses, the prophets, and the epistles."

    I find this a perplexing notion. You can't know the life and words of Jesus Christ, Moses, the prophets, or the epistles unless you read the Bible to know them. None of us were there. We rely on the Bible to learn about them.

    So, you use the Bible to get to know Jesus and the others listed; then say that believing the Scriptures are inerrant is "Bibliolatry."

    You can't have it both ways.

    As for the list of "bad" results from fundamentalism, it ain't necessarily so.

    You could list far worse items, and attribute them to a wide range of non-Biblical beliefs. Look at the Hindu effect on the humanity of women, for instance, or the murderous effect of communism, or the slavery inherent in Islam.

    All far worse than anything you've accused Christian fundamentalism of doing.

    I stand by my opinion that your anger is wrongly directed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Marie...You can know about the life of Christ by reading the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not "the bible". Those books just happen to be included in what you know as "the bible".
    I know about Moses by reading certain books which just happen to be included in "the bible". Same with the prophets, and same with the letters the apostles wrote. The bible isn't a single organism.

    There are also OTHER books, not included in the canon, which tell us about some of these same things and people.

    Bottom line: If you believe that the biblical canon is inerrant and infallible, THAT's where your true faith is. Jesus didn't promise to leave us "the bible" to lead us into all truth. He promised the Holy Spirit.

    You may want to read at these links to better understand the dynamic of what I write here...

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/03/canon-fodder.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/03/canonball.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/04/rethinking-fundamental-literalism.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/bible-and-religious-addiction.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-canon-fodder-so-bunker-down.html

    If you find those posts disagreeable, there probably isn't gonna be a tremendous amount of content here you'll care for.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, you use the Bible to get to know Jesus and the others listed; then say that believing the Scriptures are inerrant is "Bibliolatry."

    No one here, to my knowledge, has attempted to invalidate the books of the bible. I, and some who read here, simply acknowledge that it DOES have human errors, discrepancies, and contradictions, and we no longer need to "spiritually" explain away those things to satisfy our faith. Needing to do so makes an idol out of the bible, causing it to be the true deity being worshipped.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Looking at these five fundamentals:

    1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ
    2. The Virgin Birth
    3. The Blood Atonement
    4. The Bodily Resurrection
    5. The inerrancy of the scriptures

    Here's what I see. I think #5 ought to be, "Salvation by grace, through faith," rather than "the inerrancy of the Scriptures. I have no problems with the first four (as long as you don't insist that penal substitution is all that the blood atonement is about, and view with suspicion anyone who thinks there might be more to it than that). But if the "inerrancy of Scripture" is going to take precedence over the pure grace of God received through simple, trusting faith, then it's a hill I refuse to stand on. I do consider the Bible inspired and authoritative for faith and practice, but to insist on "inerrancy" (which in practice usually means, "our interpretation is the only correct reading and if you don't agree, you're in rebellion") is to replace grace with law in so many ways. As Lewis said-- we are saved by Christ, not by the Bible. The Bible points us to Christ, not the other way around. The Bible must be kept in its place and not made into an idol.

    Any time grace is replaced with law, the Spirit with the letter, and Christ with commandments, harm is done. Fundamentalism is doing harm. Most of us who post here have been harmed in some way by it. So ask yourself-- is my Christianity about "the five fundamentals," or is it about Christ Himself? Is it about a Person, or a list? Is it about doctrine, or a love relationship?

    And why defend fundamentalism, as if that was what life in Christ was all about?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll label myself a Hippie Christian Heathen and say I'm not even too fond of the Virgin Birth. To me it is totally a non-essential, and to divide people as "right" or "wrong" (or more correctly, "in" or "out") causes more harm than good and is un-Christlike. If Jesus was who he said he was, he doesn't need the fulfillment of that particular prophecy.

    Personally, the Jesus and salvation story is a lot more compelling with what we know for sure... with Mary and Joseph as an unwed teenage couple, trying to hear and follow God's call in their lives. Sounds more like what a loving, all-knowing God would be aiming for, too.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lewis,

    I know that a lot of my knowledge of who Jesus is comes from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

    However, Jesus is in all 66 books. From the creation account to Revelation; Jesus is there. He is in the fiery furnace with Daniel and with Moses in the desert and being worshipped in the temple. He visits Abraham. He is sung of in the Psalms.

    If I don't believe these books, collectively called "the Bible," to be inerrant, how can I believe what they tell me about Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  30. He is in the fiery furnace with Daniel

    If you mean literally/physically, that's only courtesy of the King James translators.

    If I don't believe these books, collectively called "the Bible," to be inerrant, how can I believe what they tell me about Jesus?

    By trusting the Holy Spirit.


    Please allow me to ask you - have you heard of the "Book of the Secrets of Enoch"? Do you believe it's "inspired"?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "If I don't believe these books, collectively called "the Bible," to be inerrant, how can I believe what they tell me about Jesus?"

    You can believe them to be inspired by God to contain everything we need to know for our salvation and relationship with God. They are not, nor were ever intended to be, a book of rules for every aspect of living, or to be read as if they were a memo from the Boss left on our desks yesterday. You can look at them in terms of the doctrines of accommodation (that God adjusted the message to the understanding of the humans receiving it) and perspecuity (that the scriptures are clear regarding what is needed for salvation, but this doesn't mean we need no scholarship to understand the rest).

    Jesus never said we were to obey everything in the Bible. He said we were to follow the Golden Rule, for that principle governs all the rest.

    The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You could look at them as a record left by people whose lives were touched by the Holy Spirit- a record of what they experienced and what they believed about it. All these people who had these experiences with the Divine had real revelation- just like people have today!

    All of it was leading up to Jesus- JESUS is the Logos of God,not the 66 books that men later voted on as Biblical cannon. JESUS and JESUS alone!

    Not Abraham, not Jacob, not Job, not David--Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. HE is the One who said that seeing Him was seeing the Father, as He and the Father are One.

    He never said "when you read the OT scriptures, you've seen the Father", in fact he chided the people who trusted in those scriptures for their revelation of God, but failed to see that all that was written was written pointing to JESUS, WHO WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE FLESH!!

    Jesus, and Jesus alone in the Logos of God. The people in the OT and the epistles had experiences with this same God, but all that they wrote is colored by their personality, the times they lived in and the presuppositions they brought to all their experiences. ONLY JESUS CAME TO SHOW US THE FATHER.

    Or do you really believe that God- the same God who hated human sacrifice- really wanted Jepthath to sacrifice his daughter to Him? Or that Lot's daughters were fully represenatative of the Father when they got their dad drunk and sexually assaulted him?

    Do you think then that the law is stating the holy will of God in defining the crime of causing a woman to miscarry as less of a crime than murder? There was only a fine to pay for causing a woman to miscarry. The penalty for murder is death. Most fundamentalists I know call abortion murder. Are you more righteous than God?

    Or is the Mosaic law a Bronze Age collection of laws intended to govern a people in a certain place and time, written by Moses, a man who certainly had a personal revelation of the Divine God, yet those laws are not necessarily "the will of God".

    Or why did Jesus break so many with impuntiy? Eating with unwashed hands, working on the Sabbath, touching lepers, letting an unclean woman touch him, eating with Gentiles...

    I contend that Jesus IS GOD and He came to SHOW the Father and what He SHOWED is that at least some of the Law had it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Are the gospels:
    A. Errant
    B. Inerrant
    C. Semi-errant
    D. None of the above. You can only rely on Christ's words, that convey spirit and not letter, which are discerned by the Holy Spirit and do not cause social divides or cultural offense and which shows love to all people except fundamentalists, which you may freely label, as the Holy Spirit leads.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, I've never heard of a "book of Enoch," so obviously I can't claim it is inspired.

    The problem with the whole 'take what you want out of the Bible to teach you of Jesus, and then sort of feel out the rest about what you want to believe about Him," is, we are prone to error.

    So my Jesus can be different from your Jesus can be different from the Jehovah's Witness Jesus can be different from Rev. Moon's Jesus.

    Will the real Jesus please stand up?

    As for the assumption that I'm saying the Bible is a bunch of rules for living, I don't believe that. Although there are certainly rules there, and we should try to follow them.

    The Bible is I believe God's revelation of Himself to mankind. In writing. I think do deny its inerrancy is a grave error - and to get back to the original point of my comment -

    I think to blame those who believe it's inerrant ("fundamentalists") for the evil in this world today is really wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Marie...

    "No, I've never heard of a "book of Enoch," so obviously I can't claim it is inspired."

    You've read some of it. You just don't realize it. A portion of the book of Jude is a direct quotation from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch. This suggests a couple of things - The book of Enoch was obviously accepted as an "inspired" writing, and easily recognized, by the early church, and, being that Jude is the biological half-brother of Christ, this would suggest (even if not prove beyond doubt) that it was an accepted and acknowledged, and likely considered "inspired", writing within the home Christ was raised in.

    It's kinda hard to consider the book of Jude inspired without acknowledging the inspiration of at least a portion of the book of Enoch.

    There's a lot more to the canon - and what's not in the canon - than what we can responsibly just leave to the determinations of other men, councils, and translators.

    I think to blame those who believe it's inerrant ("fundamentalists") for the evil in this world today is really wrong.

    I haven't done that - even though Christian fundamentalists are responsible for their fair share. What I wrote doesn't sentence fundamentalism to a life of Christianity. There are cultural fundamentalists (like Breivik), sociopolitical/ideological fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, essentially every religion, political entity, and cultural entity has it's own group of fundamentalists. It's from fundamentalism itself, regardless of whatever religion, movement, or entity it's attached to, that many of the problems in the world originate. Fundamentalism is usually where thought ends and mindless mechanism begins. It's a numbing agent all its own.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This:

    http://shadowspring-lovelearningliberty.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-is-bible-divine-but-not-inerrant.html

    How accurate that the word "arrogant" comes from the the Latin for "I have no questions". That is definitely how it is for my husband growing up in a fundamentalist home. No questions allowed, because the fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible tell you exactly everything you should believe about absolutely everything.

    Even fundamentalist teachings on "world views" or "comparative religions" aren't so much about what other people in the world believe but why they are wrong and going to hell.

    Fundamentalists hated Rob Bells book so much because that's all it did, for hundreds of pages, is ask questions. Fundamentalist theology only asks dummy questions as a pretext for the answer they wanted to give. There is no wonder or mystery in fundamentalism; they know it all.

    A-rogo: I have no questions. Perfect description.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ Anon 11:06

    I have never met a fundamentalist who felt slight by being labelled as such. Shouldn't you be proud of the name, and willing to suffer for it?

    Or is that too uncomfortably close to acknowledging that your doctrines about Christ are more important than Christ alone?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Shadowspring:

    I am not nor have I ever been a fundamentalist. Although, ironically when I've asked questions here or expressed a difference in viewpoint -- I am mistaken/labeled as a fundamentalist. I think it would be wise for all of us to admit whether we be a fundamentalist or otherwise that it is the human condition to be defensive when our faith, beliefs, opinions or expression thereof is criticized. I confess that my multiple choice question was satirical and smacked of sarcasm. I am not proud of that and therefore I should be able to take the heat (suffer) because of it. I ask your forgiveness.

    Would you allow me to ask the question again? Because I really and truly would like to know your opinion.

    Do you consider the gospels to be inerrant or errant or something else?

    Anon 11:06

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anyone's opinion on the above question would be welcomed.

    Anon 11:06

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon 11:06...D, without the qualification you added to it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Or maybe better stated, "something else".

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous,

    When you frame the debate in fundamentalist's terms--Inerrant, semi-errant, or errant--you will be mistaken for a fundamentalist. It reminds me of the SNL skits about 'da Bulls','da Bears' and 'Ditka'. http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6203

    Here is the official stance of the denomination to which my congregation belongs:
    http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/The-Bible.aspx

    My personal stance is listed above. The Bible is a record of human interactions with the Divine God, and though the revelations of God were very REAL, culminating in the ultimate revelation God in human form, Jesus Christ, the people writing it were mere mortals.

    So if the choices are: fundamentalist, half fundamentalist, bible is completely irrelevant, or other, I would also pick other.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I consider the gospels to be inspired by God. I don't think modern, Western newspaper-style accuracy is something the ancient writers cared or even thought about. "Inerrancy" is an idea that comes from that modern Western mindset. I believe it is anachronistic and misleading to apply it to an ancient Middle-Eastern group of texts. God inspired human writers to write the Bible. He did not treat them as if they were mere pencils in His hand.

    ReplyDelete