AN OUTLINE CRITIQUE THE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST SYSTEM
This study is only an overview, in order to get something of the flavour of the major criticisms and observations concerning fundamentalist theology, the fundamentalist system and the fundamentalist believer. Having spent twenty-five years in a Calvinist fundamentalist environment I support most of the following observations. The arguments are only briefly presented here since it is not the purpose of this study to ex- amine at large the structure of fundamentalism. I present the observations rather as a context for this study of the Calvinist's approach to spiritual gifts. Those who wish to examine the arguments and observations more fully should refer to the books listed at the end of this chapter for further reading.
FUNDAMENTALIST THEOLOGY
What sort of theology is created by a system that depends upon the in- errancy of Scripture? Fundamentalists do indeed have a theology but: -
a) It is a fossilised theology based on l8th Century revivals and the conservation of l9th Century Calvinism. But, because of discoveries and insights gained since these times, changes have taken place as regards the approach to Scripture by scholars. The reformers were not aware of these discoveries, and created an integrated system of theology which at the time was appropriate and made sense. But WE are aware of these discoveries of literature, archaeology and science. If then we still hold to certain of the reformers views, we are DIFFERENT from them, because we have knowledge that they did not possess. (1). It is like us holding to the notion that the earth is flat or that that sun goes round the earth. At one time, these seemed plausible, but new evidence has caused us to abandon or modify these ideas. If the reformers were sincere seekers after truth, I am certain that they would reappraise and modify some of their views in the light of subsequent discoveries.
b) The older theologies required a thoroughly worked out system, with interdependent parts carefully stated and worked out in detail, such as the Westminster Confession of faith. Many groups within modern fundamentalism, including Charismatic groups, merely pick out parts of these systems and have no concept of interrelatedness. Rather, adherence to vital, nodal points is required as tests of orthodoxy. (2). But the claim that the theology is orthodox must be questioned when the hol- istic, systematic interrelatedness of earlier systems is abandoned. It would have bean unthinkable at the tine of the composition of the West- minster Confession to merely extract certain features and leave others. Rather, the whole works together. (3). But in much fundamentalism, elements of doctrine are conserved in such a way as they have to be affirmed, even though that doctrine may not play a great role in the life of the believer, such as for example, the virgin birth of Christ. One of the functions of this doctrine is to act as a sign of the correct conservatism of the believer. This process is called formalisation.
c) Claims of orthodoxy are emphasised by fundamentalists, who trace a line of thought back to the reformation and to the early church fathers. But claims of orthodoxy must again be questioned. As with documents like the Westminster Confession, only certain parts of the theology of these people are selected. Augustine's emphasis on justification by faith for example. But other, more Catholic ideas adopted by Augustine are ignored. So when appeals are made to certain historical figures, there is a selection of ideas and doctrine, such that some aspects are emphasised and others ignored. Similarly, they may appeal a line from Athanasius and his doctrine of the incarnation and the trinity, but ignore the integ- rated ideas that went with it, including the priesthood, liturgy and vest- ments. For similar reasons, there is a break with orthodoxy when using documents like the Westminster Confession, but not only because of se- lective use of passages and loss of integration. There is also a different purpose. This document was drawn up to be imposed upon every per- son in England and Scotland by the state, but it is not used in that way by fundamentalists today. Not only is its integrated approach ignored but it is used for a different purpose than that for which it was intended.
d) It is inactive. There is no new work for theologians to do other than conservation of ideas brought out in the reformation, revivals and nine- teenth century, and their reiteration. There is no progression of theology other than a reframing of it for today's world. Thus: -
e) There is no challenge to the institutions, assumptions and traditions of fundamentalism except within it's main framework of belief. Forms of church service may be changed, so that choruses are sung as well as hymns, or something similar; methods of evangelism may vary, but basic assumptions about the nature and interpretation of Scripture are not ad- dressed. In this sense it is totally complacent and lacks self-criticism. (4)
f) Because of it's views on the authority and inspiration of Scripture, and the belief that it's interpretation is correct, preserving a long line of pure Christian thought and doctrine against the error, corruption and heresy of liberal and Roman Catholic thinkers, it has no conception of a catholic community of theological thinkers in discussion. It insists that the one question of theology is Scripture authority. (5). There is little un- derstanding of what non-conservative theologians think and no incent- ive to find out. (6)
g) As regards the Lord Jesus Christ, whilst fundamentalists acknowledge that Christ is both God and man, the emphasis falls heavily on the God-ward side. He is God walking about and teaching in a man's body. Any approach that starts out seeing Jesus as a man falls under suspicion from fundamentalists and tends to be rejected, or qualified with a stronger assertion that He is God. (7). Jesus becomes more like God giving out eternally correct information through a human mouth rather than a God/man speaking under the conditions of his time and situation… he is made into a superhuman and inhuman person. (8). One of the effects of this is to infer the downgrading of the suffering, pain and anguish of Jesus.
h) With regard to Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, there is a shift of emphasis, away from orthodoxy, intellectualism and absolute doctrinal correctness, with the coldness and formality that these imply, towards a personal experience of God. (9). There is in fact the potential for conflicts with Scripture via the 'inspired gifts' of tongues, prophecy and so on, but since there is less emphasis on the intellectual side of Scripture and the formulation of a systematic theology, such conflicts, unless very obvious, may not be noticed. Also, grading takes place, where the Scripture is seen as pre-eminent over displays of gifts in terms of authority.
i) The introduction of New Translations may force ecumenicity on fun- damentalists, especially with loss of the A.V.; There is greater awareness of contradictions between sources of Biblical documents. Thus, there is a contradiction in dates as regards the Israelites time in Egypt before the Exodus between Paul quoting the Septuagint in Galatians 3 v 17 and the references in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Masoretic text. (Genesis 12 v 4, 21 v 5, 25 v 26, 47 v 9). Differences between source documents and the exact rendering of words force openness to alternative interpretations to the protestant evangelical one.
THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL SYSTEM
Having looked at problems with the foundation of fundamentalism on the idea of infallible Scripture, and having looked at some broad aspects of the theology it creates, I want to expand on some of the facets and cri- teria for this group as follows:
Contrary to many views fundamentalism does not rest:
in simplism.
in concreteness of approach.
or in intolerance of ambiguity. (10)
1) The fundamentalist system consists of themes of separation and ali- enation of believers from the surrounding world, from modern theology and from modern Bible study methods. Anything perceived as threaten- ing to the fundamentalist ideology is to be avoided and/or criticised. In mentioning to certain fundamentalists that I was reading ' Fundamentalism' by James Barr, which is critical of fundamentalism, I was reminded by them that this was 'dangerous'. The fundamentalist position often consists in a depreciation of whatever is exterior to the Bible in their interpretation.
2) There is in fundamentalism a characterisation of the believer as chosen by God in His sovereignty, and that those who do not share this believer's worldview are not really true Christians. Fundamentalism tends to argue that fundamentalism is the one true faith, and those who embrace other Christian systems are false Christians. But, this basis of faith in Scripture alone is not sufficiently coherent to maintain one inter- pretation or faith. Other fundamentalist groups also hold to inerrancy and singleness of Scripture, such as the Christadelphians. The authority of fundamentalism fails to prevent the emergence and growth of numer- ous and violent contradictions within it's own scheme. This is because of the vagueness and gaps present in Scripture and the variety of traditions brought to its interpretation.
3) There is fundamentalism an emphasis away from benefits and re- wards in this life, and towards the life to come, when God will judge all things and complete fairness will be introduced. Thus tolerance of dissat- isfaction, compliance to the status quo and lack of criticism is en- gendered. It is accepted that some things are not fair now, but rather than change them, an appeal to a better life to come with humble accept- ance of one's lot now is made.
4) There is a negative characterisation of the individual person apart from their condition as a believer. This may serve to confirm the beliefs of those who have low self esteem that their self estimation is right, and that the gospel message is true by reason of it's accurate diagnosis of their person. Sin is a valuable intellectual resource to fundamentalism, without it, it could not get anywhere, yet fundamentalists do not have a deeper or fuller awareness of sin than other aspects of Christianity. (11).
5) The conservative approach accepts older views, though it is selective. It seeks to preserve rather than rebuild, though within Charismatic groups there are progressive elements. The Charismatic influence is by no means limited to protestant fundamentalism; it is to be found in Ro- man Catholicism and liberal theological groups.
6) There is today, within fundamentalism, no social gospel. One reason that there is no interest in social action is because of eschatology… the doctrine of the last things. There is an expectation of things getting worse as we enter the last days before Christ's return. Fundamentalism has departed from its fore bears in this respect. (12)
7) There is an anti clericism, such that theological scholars and academics are often not recognised, and ordinary laymen with little or no theological training may get up and speak on the Bible. The qualities looked for by fundamentalists are conformity to fundamentalist practice, an accurate repetition of fundamentalist theology, and an absence of any scandal or overt sin such as continual thieving or overt sexual immorality. Academic qualities, if not conforming to fundamentalist ideas, are simply liberal and wrong as far as the fundamentalist is concerned.
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM
How does the fundamentalist system maintain its influence? Many people like or want to believe that there is, somewhere, some book that is absolutely true and correct, and in European and American culture, that book is likely to be the Bible. But, does the Bible distinguish itself from this non-religious appetite for belief in a true book, or does it pander to those emotions? (13) We have seen that the approach to Scripture is worked out by and for the conservative position. It does not give reasons to the non conservative why Biblical inspiration should be essential, apart from a claim that the Bible says so, which is a proof only for those who already hold the fundamentalist position. It forms a tight circle around existing believers… they can escape only at the cost of a deep and traumatic shattering of their entire religious outlook. (14)
Furthermore, Conservatism is often not content to preach the gospel as a message of salvation. Rather, it may use the gospel as a weapon to at- tack man, undermine his security, overcome him and force him into sub- mission to the conservative way of thinking. (15). The person who accepts such a faith soon finds that he has to live within a conservative evangelical community which also holds as essential a whole lot of other things and the personal dynamics of the group are used to enforce conformity with these opinions. (16). Conservatives present a benign per- sona of the Bible and of themselves as conservative evangelicals rather than fundamentalists, i.e., extremists. But there is a real danger of unbal- anced and/or superficial teaching, within a system that we have already found psychologically binding.
There is also a depreciation of the world… (there is none good but God). That which is outside fundamentalism is presented as wrong, un- healthy, displeasing to God, e.t.c.. This is done partly by emphasising 'conversion' which distinguishes between 'real' and 'nominal' Christians, and partly by mistrust of others arising out of a desire for purity of doctrine. Having said that, of course, it is equally true that philosophies and assumptions essential to science and social science theories in turn may and sometimes do depreciate religion. Any world-view may be preju- diced, superficial and blinkered, including evangelicalism. The Apostle Paul analysed and carefully observed other religions, (Acts 17), so, for the fundamentalist, there, should not be intellectual abandonment of religions and schemes outside their own framework. But such abandonment there is, and it may serve to protect believers from experiences that threaten their indoctrination.
There can be a danger of what Cohen calls logocide. There is a danger of not adequately defining and qualifying words from Scripture. More dangerously, there may be too many meanings assigned to one word, which effectively destroys the word, and thus false interpretations of the gospel may be offered. Thus, in problem situations with the fundamentalist scheme, believers may be told that a particular word or phrase does not mean what it appears to mean, but has other meanings, spiritual meanings, literal or allegorical meanings or subtle shades of translation, or that the word may be used in a number of different ways, such that the word 'heaven' may mean the sky, the universe, or paradise.
There is a tendency to repress any tendency to think critically about one's beliefs. (17) This may be done by becoming involved in teaching others, and thus suppressing, one's doubts whilst reiterating beliefs to others. (18) Thus there is a stifling of inner apprehensions that the believer has nothing to see, hear, touch or handle or something better in lieu of these. (19). Indeed, the only TANGIBLE evidence of God in these groups is the Bible.
There is the use of Holy terror. Much has already been written on this elsewhere. A system has been created where there is fear of judgement or apostasy or punishment for in effect not conforming to the system. Whilst Holy terror may to some extent guard the basic ideas, the believer is not necessarily in an attitude of fear, but may be quite stable, balanced and happy.
THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL BELIEVER
What then is the believer like? Contrary to a lot of views, he in fact tolerates too much ambiguity. He lets artificially induced confusion reign where he ought to throw it off. As we have seen, the Scriptures do not of- fer a full and comprehensive guide to life. Rather, the believer is likely to make himself dependant upon a Pastor's rendition of arcane pseudo-is- sues to deal with practical matters when common sense should be suffi- cient. (20). Cohen, looking at sub conscious and unconscious factors con- siders that a process of dissociation induction takes place.
By dissociation is meant a process whereby a coordinated set of activit- ies, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions become separated and function in- dependently. (21). So, for example, information, experiences, and impressions are gestated unconsciously. Whilst it is true that we do apply implications and principles without fully understanding, nevertheless we want to keep reworking ideas that do not fit the evidence of our senses. The believer however is obsessed with God and God's thoughts as expressed in the Bible. All other thoughts are to be avoided or else there will be a deterioration of faith. The inner man is seen as full of cor- ruption, and desires to rework ideas may be thought of as part of this corruption, a sin of doubt and or error regarding our attitude to the in- errant Scripture.
There is often intense group loyalty. The common convictions of the group come to dominate the individual. They do not interpret the Bible individually, but rather there is a reiteration of the normal fundamentalist interpretation. If the band of doctrinal purity is drawn tight enough, freedom and spontaneity can easily be lost. The loss of contact with non- conservatives produces an in-group mentality. (22). The social and religious organism has a closed mind. (23).
There is a general tendency to accept entirely from science it’s picture of natural conditions in the world and to man oeuvre the interpretation of the Bible in order to find a place for it's narratives within this picture. Fundamentalists do NOT accept science as the controlling arbiter of reality, ultimately, they go to the Bible, but for a simple account of the world and how things work, they accept the scientific picture and work within it. (24).
The life of the Christian is defined in such a way as to provide for the acceptance of the secularisation of the surrounding culture… and it's economic structure. (25). This includes preponderance to the right and extreme right, a tendency to sanction the capitalist system and laissez- faire approach to society, and to look with favour on the use of military power. The system becomes the ideological guarantor of the rightness of the existing social order, and it may be a focus of nationalistic feeling. (26). Whether these characteristics are. good or bad, right or wrong is not the issue here, they are merely pointed to as observed by others a prevalent within this group.
Needless to say, Barr is not without his critics, and perhaps the most scholarly is a work by Paul Ronald Wells called 'James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a new Liberalism'. This book is hard going, and uses many long and technical words and arguments, but ultimately, in many ways, it fails to address the main issues that I have outlined above, Wells argues that fundamentalism is consistent in its argument regarding similarities between the dual nature of Christ and the dual nature of Scrip- ture, and that it would nave to be shown to be inconsistent to be disproved. Here again, the onus is thrown upon the unbeliever to disprove the fundamentalist’s position rather than the other way around. In any case, surely consistency and proof are different things. Wells argues that the fundamentalist aligns the authority of Christ and the authority of Scripture in the context of the revelation of the Father. Again, Wells ar- gues that 'all Scripture' in II Timothy indicates an organic scriptural unity, and that they were viewed as one code, though he concedes that it is not possible to assert which books are in 'all Scripture'. He further ar- gues that the distinction between the 'original inerrant manuscripts' and later faulty copies is a logical one, and that one can do theologians such as Warfield an injustice in implying too much calcu- lated maintenance of Calvinism by his arguments. Wells maintains that the fundamentalist concerns about inerrancy are not to do with main- taining a series of doctrines or a system, but are rather about sin as a cor- rupting and God rejecting factor, however, as we have seen, too much emphasis on this leads to a position whereby all doubts and contradict- ory positions are sinful.
Wells argues that revelation has to be put in the context of the relation- ship of Divine and human elements, which are not neutral. These ele- ments are in a context of the unity of the Spirit of God and the people of God. He argues that the real duplicity is between communion with God in the Spirit and the breaking of that communion in covenant breaking disobedience.
As God communes with man, the word of God to man takes on the use of created means such as words, language and consciousness. This communion is not known to man until it enters human form, the human factor, history and created reality being necessary for this communion to be realised. The human is not an appendage to the Divine. This leads Wells to consider the problem of the letter of Scripture and it's relation- ship to the Spirit. He argues that Calvin recognised the problem:
Inspiration can be spoken of in a fallible sense, whilst Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light - there must be a distinguishing mark of authority. Wells argues that Calvin transcends the duality problem by stating that the Spirit is the Author of Scripture and the Spirit is consistent with Himself. However we are merely in a philosophical argument here and we still have no evidence that Scripture really is what fundamentalists claim it to be. Once again, Wells cops out by insisting that fallen reason is no judge of the truth of the Spirit. Wells argues that the Spirit takes men's words into service so that these are divinely authorized to seal the covenant communion. However, this cannot be considered in a formal way as a problem of how the divine and human are united, and that such an undertaking would be an unwarranted attempt to penetrate the mystery of the Spirit's work. In other words, Wells can't solve the problem either, and of course, to try and do so is sinful. Wells then goes on to say that Scripture is fully a work of the Spirit, and of man in restored communion with God, and that therefore, the truthfulness Scripture cannot be considered in isolation from the work of the Spirit in the new creation. He argues that it cannot be declared as having errors by taking fallen human reasoning principles and applying them to the new creation, or by looking at correspondence with certain factors accepted as true, because this sets correspondence with present human know- ledge as an authority over Scripture. Here again is the 'everything out- side of scripture is sin' argument, counted with the idea of insight and elitism of those in communion with God. What then are the criteria of in- errancy according to Wells?
He argues that errancy/inerrancy cannot be established or disproved by human reason but through consideration of the scope of Scripture and its ability to restore man to communion with God!! It is not that factual correspondences are eliminated, but they are not central. In other words because Scripture affects some people such that they are drawn to God, converted and so on, we should accept Scripture as inerrant. By this argument, the Koran is true also. I find Wells' argument wholly inad- equate. Beliefs are supported by correspondence with perceived reality, evidence, logic and so on, and discrepancies lead to doubt, lack of commitment, conflict, dissonance and unsettlement, promoting either a change of beliefs, or, if this is too costly, attempts at denying or reinter- preting conflicting evidence, redoubling one's efforts at increasing faith, or self condemnation. If acute enough, it would lead to rejection and re- bellion. Wells then addresses the issue of how Scripture is to be inter- preted. He argues that if we interpret Scripture empirically, then theological connections are severed and the Bible becomes merely a human document, and it's interpreter becomes trapped in socio/cultural relativism. However, Wells suggests that we place our interpretation in the context of the renewing work of the Spirit, thus seeking the material con- tent of the renewing work of the Spirit in the human form of the text.
Notice that Well's view has not even addressed discrepancies in Scrip- ture, or the issue of which books are in the canon. He has rather argued for a special insight, knowledge and understanding which is a privilege gained by the believer through his renewed and restored relationship to God. Once again then, we have certain assumptions, the building up of an internal logic system linked to pleasing God. Though raising some interesting points, I think Wells fails to dismiss Barr’s comments in full or to any great degree.
At best, what is supported is a softer view of inspiration, where boundaries between inspired and uninspired books are blurred and the extent of inspiration is not clearly defined.
The relational/communion perspective proposed by Wells allows for some mistakes via copying, translation and in the originals whilst still allowing for considerable unity, harmony, coherence and correlation to commonly accented truths. Human reason plays an important part in evaluating scripture: 2+2=5, is this true or false? 100 chariots or 1000? Both cannot be true. Scripture ideas are complex and human reasoning incomplete; therefore this entire issue is difficult and not absolute. This is the best that we can say.
WHAT THEN IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Fundamentalism is a conceptual framework which structures and gives meaning to the world and Scripture in a particular way.
It centres primarily on the Scriptures, but the Scriptures, like facts, do not speak for themselves. We have to bring to Scripture concepts in or- der to categorise and make sense of the material that Scripture contains. Fundamentalism draws out one of many possible interpretations of Scripture for its system.
The theological meanings are created and maintained through a framework of interpretation where texts are graded, such that some are seen as more important than others, some are taken figuratively and oth- ers literally and so on. These meanings are also heavily influenced by a sense of tradition or orthodoxy that is selective in the information that it uses and which interacts with today's world, it's thoughts and experiences.
Thus for example it's strengthening of the idea of Scripture infallibility is a reaction to the rise of science and Biblical criticism. Fundamentalism is a collection of particular ideas and in that sense is an ideology, which is maintained and preserved by repetition and by avoidance of contrary ideas that are seen as dangerous and corrupting to the 'true' faith.
FURTHER READING:
BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SCM Press. London.
BARR, J. (1984) ' Escaping from fundamentalism' SCM Press. London.
COHEN, E.D. (1986) 'The mind of the Bible believer' Prometheus Books. Maw York.
LANE-FOX, 'R. (1992) 'The unauthorised version: Truth and fiction in the Bible'. Penguin. London.
WELLS, P.R. (1980) James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a new Liberalism. Presbyterian and reformed Publishing Company. New Jersey.