ABSOLUTE TRUTH: FUNDAMENTALISM AND GOD
In discussing fundamentalism in this essay I am referring particularly to Christian fundamentalism and that from a Calvinist perspective. Even so, some of the concepts and ideas put forward here will apply to any re- ligious fundamentalist system and so those from systems other than Christianity may be able to apply such ideas to their own framework.
Christian fundamentalism is considered to be a conservative move- ment – not necessarily politically, but in terms of seeking to conserve or preserve the traditional doctrines and practices of the group. In fact the more theology-based fundamentalists may even be described as ultra- conservative. Christian fundamentalists claim a line right back to the Apostles and disciples of Christ seeing themselves as preservers and inheritors of the truths which they declared. As far as they are concerned, these truths were laid down by the Apostles in the gospels and book of Acts of the Apostles and particularly by the Apostle Paul in his various letters that make up most of the New Testament of the Bible. These writ- ings are seen by many fundamentalists as the inspired Word of God, be- cause fundamentalists consider that God in the Person of the Holy Spirit breathed as it were these ideas, insights or revelations into these writers, withholding the effects of sin and transgression such that in their origin- al form at least, these writings are inerrant: that is they contain no mis- takes or errors. God is Perfect, has inspired these writers, withheld the corrupting effects of sin and so therefore these writings are without er- ror. Since then, there have been through time, in one place or another, those who have conserved and maintained the purity of the teachings that these writings contain. For Protestant fundamentalists, these truths became obscured and hidden under the Roman Catholic system, which, they say, over time, became distorted and corrupt, especially by late medieval times. Nevertheless, these truths were brought back to the fore- front at the reformation in Europe in 16th and 17th centuries. Religious leaders such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and others led a protest movement against what they saw as the mistakes and corruptions of the church, reforming the church so that it was based upon the Bible or Scripture alone instead of on the dictates of the Pope. Furthermore Scripture was made available to everyone by translating it into the language of the people, instead of keeping it in obscure Latin which was only understood by educated priests. So fundamentalists particularly trace their history back to this period. They will speak of the Puritans, of the heroes of the faith such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, John Knox, the Covenanters and others. These and their successors such as Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Howell Harris, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Lloyd-Jones and many others are all seen as ‘sound’ teachers – that is they adhere to and conserve this line and tradition of teaching, refusing to compromise it in the face of ‘unsound’ liberals and academics within the church and unbelievers outside of it.
It is in these kinds of ways that ‘sound’ teaching becomes elevated: such teachings are seen as the inspired, inerrant teachings of God under the light of which every idea and practice of the believer and church is examined. From the Apostle Paul to the protestant reformers and bey- ond, leaders began to set out and define systematically the teachings contained in the inspired writings. After some divisions and errors with- in the early church in the first centuries after Christ and after some de- bate amongst church leaders, the writings were closed so that no other writings could be added to them. Some writings were included in the canon, some, such as the Gospel of Philip and Shepherd of Hermas, were excluded. It should be noted that the actual principles on which these decisions were made can now be seen as weak and even spurious, such that with the extra knowledge and analysis that we have benefit of today concerning these writings, some of the letters now included in the New Testament would have to be excluded on the basis of this new evidence. Nevertheless, a canon or rule of faith was defined and bordered by this set of writings and with it, an orthodoxy and orthopraxy – one belief and one practice for the church. The ideas of heresy and apostasy were put forward: failure to conform to the canon, or conversely, the suggesting alternative or new concepts concerning God which contradicted the can- on or which were simply were not present in it, meant that a person holding such views was an outcast and could even suffer the penalty of death for holding such contrary ideas to those of this set of writings and the teachings they proclaimed. Indeed, some religious leaders made it their business to enforce conformity, demanding the burning of writings that were contrary to those of the canon, such as the Gnostic gospels. In this way, as they saw it, they thoroughly purged the church of impurity and corruption. Even so we should note that Protestant leaders such as Calvin, Luther and later Wesley, all excluded some of the books that we have in our New Testament. We can also note that the Roman Catholic Church included a set of books known as the Apocrypha, whilst Protest- ants rejected them.
With the advent and onslaught of the Age of Reason, modern science and thinkers such as Charles Darwin, these traditional ideas came under increasing scrutiny and stronger and stronger challenges. As a result, the Fundamentalist’s approach to Scripture and thus the teaching contained within it, hardened and became less flexible. Certain doctrines, such as for example a literal six-day creation period and/or a young earth the- ory, whereby through calculating dates in the Bible, the earth was said to have been created between 6,000 and 10,000 B.C., became ‘badges’ of identification – ‘markers’ of a ‘true believer’ holding steadfastly to and conserving the traditions of truth held to by previous generations of born-again believers.
What this systematic, ultra-conservative orthodoxy does is, amongst other things, define and conceptualise God for believer and it does so in a way that is unquestionable. This literature is the Word of Infallible, Perfect God, written by men inspired by God in such a way that all corrupting influence which would give rise to false and mistaken ideas about God is restrained. To question this teaching therefore is to question God. To doubt it, is to doubt God. To suggest alternative or contradictory ideas to those of Scripture is to fall into error, to be self-deceived or deceived by the devil, or to oppose God.
It is recognised by fundamentalists that there are different interpretations and different degrees on emphasis on different passages of Scripture and that these in turn lead to different practices. Thus we have Con- gregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and so on all within the protestant fundamentalist banner. This is accepted and tolerated so long as the main principles, plainly understood verses and truths of the Scripture are agreed upon.
But what the Fundamentalist has done is to elevate these writings and the ideas and concepts that they contain to an Absolute level and it is this that is one of their mistakes. Let me give an illustration. Christians call God the ‘Father’ – ‘Our father who art in heaven…’ Yet if the point is pressed, many fundamentalists will agree that God is not male and cer- tainly not female (since fundamentalism is male orientated and patri- archal). They will acknowledge that the term ‘Father’ is a metaphor for a God that cannot be defined by gender: a God that transcends gender. Nevertheless, the word ‘Father’ is useful for describing the relationship that the believer has with God, for the way God deals with humanity. It engenders the whole Christian theology of the only begotten Son – Jesus Christ, as well as the Apostle Paul’s approach whereby believers are thought of as adopted as sons of God and heirs, by reason of adoption, to the promises. But when it comes down to it, fundamentalists do not see God as a literal ‘Father’ or even as ‘Male’, but rather use the term in this ‘useful metaphor’ way. Fundamentalists are not always as literal in their interpretations as is usually made out. Many fundamentalists with regard to the creation account in Genesis take a similar approach. Because of the advances of science, instead of being inflexibly defensive, many fundamentalist believers find the literal interpretation too difficult to maintain, so they will talk about the six days of creation not in terms of literal twenty-four hour days but in terms of ‘figurative days’, that is periods of unspecified length symbolically described as ‘days’. As long as the main principles and ideas of the fundamentalist faith are not compromised, such ideas may again be tolerated.
Unfortunately, the Scriptures do lend themselves to a literal interpretation. The books of the Bible are full of history – the reigns of kings, court intrigues, conquests and battles, heroic leaders, defeat and conquest, a human named Jesus living at a time of Roman occupation, claiming to be the Son of God, performing miracles as evidence, being put to death and being resurrected after three days. These fundamentalists take literally. They are quite averse to the pre-reformation approach of analogous in- terpretation. Thus, medieval Dominican Friar Meister Eckhart may con- sider the verse ‘Jesus went into a house’ and elaborate a doctrine concerning the mystical presence of Christ in the heart, whereby the house symbolises the Interior Castle, or heart of a person which is the proper dwelling place of Christ. For fundamentalists, Jesus just went into a house. They simply argue that using this kind of analogous interpretation can lead to any doctrine that you care to construct – that you can believe anything. So fundamentalists differentiate between scripture passages: some are historical, some biographical, some are parables, some are symbolic and metaphorical, some are concerned with practical behaviour or conduct, and some are doctrinal, though as we have seen with Genesis, some literal sounding verses may be interpreted figuratively for convenience. Either way, the Scriptures and the main teaching inherent within them are elevated to an absolute degree: Scrip- ture and the concepts and ideas it portrays are the Final Authority for faith and conduct. The believer may be reminded of the watchwords of the reformers: ‘Sola Scriptura!’ – Scripture alone!
The question we have to ask is: Are such forms absolute? Are such ideas and concepts Ultimate? I suggest that they are not and we see a clue why in the approach by fundamentalists themselves to the Divine Name ‘Father’. The concept, attribute, Name, quality, characteristic, rela- tionship of ‘Father’ is not Absolute because God transcends gender – God is neither Male nor Female and therefore not ‘Father’. I suggest that there is a higher view of the Divine than that which is encompassed and bordered by conceptual ideas and forms, whoever may advocate them – Christian, jew or Muslim. God is transcendent of the concepts and for- mulations of ‘Father’, ‘Creator’, ‘Love’, ‘Judge’ and so on. These are all limited, finite, relational terms but God as Absolute is Infinite, Tran- scendent and Unique. God alone is Real – God alone has Self-sufficient existence – all else is dependent upon God. The Absolute is transcendent of these limited forms, names and designations. They are in fact just use- ful metaphors that stand between us as creatures of form and the Form- less, Infinite Absolute God. We stand in relation to God and these are re- lational terms that reveal aspects and facets of an Absolute that we can- not comprehend or encompass with forms, ideas and concepts. God transcends any philosophy or theology.
One mistake that fundamentalists fall into then is to elevate the language and conceptual ideas of Scripture to the level of Absolute – such that these main ideas must be conserved and defended at all costs. The attention of the fundamentalist is taken away from Absolute God and in- stead directed to relative level of Scripture and scriptural ideas which are then falsely elevated to the level of Absolute. This focus on form and concept actually distracts the attention away from the Absolute Tran- scendent Divine. The eyes of the fundamentalist are often not on God, but on conformity to and agreement with a set of conceptual forms which fall short of Absolute God.
This means then that forms are Ultimately transcended, or to put it an- other way, as we draw close to Transcendent God in experience, these concepts and forms of the Divine may fall away and be rendered useless – inadequate to express and encompass the Vastness of the Absolute. Systems of theology and doctrine are not the Absolute but rather occupy a relational middle ground – they are useful as far as they go. In turn this means that we can be more open and tolerant of other religious systems, rather than seeking to defend our own conceptions of the Divine at all costs. This does not mean that different religious systems or schools can be merged. Though Ultimately they all point to Absolute God, yet these systems and their concepts exist in relation and thus exclude as well as enclose. What becomes important for the individual is internal consistency and coherence – an integrity and good fit of concepts whilst at the same time recognising their middle status in transcendence.