FINDING BIBLE TRUTH - FUNDAMENTALISM


The essence of Fundamentalism is an unconditional acceptance that the Bible is literally infallible and that nothing written in it may be questioned. A fundamentalist will insist that anyone who does not believe this cannot be a Christian. It was a fundamentalist view of the Bible that caused Dr John Lightfoot, following Archbishop John Ussher, to declare that Adam was created on October 23, 4004 BC, at nine o'clock in the morning. Each of the very large number of fundamentalist sects has its own interpretation of what the Bible says and each will insist that this dogma must all be accepted by its members. I find it encouraging that even within the best disciplined groups the human spirit of independence keeps breaking out - resulting in the fragmentation of those groups - which at least gives a wider choice of doctrine to choose from.

Fundamentalism relies on dogma, not on faith. Allow me to explain the difference. Our beliefs can be divided into two parts: those that are based on established fact or on evidence which we consider sufficient to remove any possibility of their being wrong, and those which we accept in spite of a shortfall in evidence - those that we accept by faith. There is no formal evidence of God, nevertheless by faith Christians accept Him. Essentially faith covers all those areas of belief where complete factual evidence is not available. If new facts become available it will be obvious that our faith must be modified to accommodate them. If you refuse to do so, and hold on to an article of faith in spite of facts that clearly contradict it, then you have not faith but a dogma. All too often unreasoning credulity, which is falsely called faith, is promoted as the crowning Christian grace

Many of the established Churches are to some degree fundamentalist in that they will not publicly adopt the more rational views of the Bible discussed in their theological colleges and privately accepted by perhaps a majority of their ministers.

I once asked (separately) two fundamentalist Christians what they considered to be the nature of God. The Christadelphian view was that since man was created in the image of God, the nature of God had to be the same as the image of man - body, legs, arms and all. The Jehovah's Witness said that according to the Bible God was pure Spirit. Both agreed that God had the same emotions and mental processes as man, and that a complete picture of the nature of God could be derived from the Bible, and each knew that their belief was true and the only true belief possible. When it was suggested that the nature of God was a mystery that could never be fully understood each rejected the notion out of hand.

Intellectual freedom and fundamentalism cannot co-exist. Intellectual honesty and fundamentalism cannot co-exist. An open mind on matters of religious belief and fundamentalism cannot co-exist. An enquiring mind and fundamentalism cannot co-exist. Scientific reality and fundamentalism cannot co-exist. Yet normal intelligent decent people swell their ranks, people who would strongly object to any attempt to control their ideas in any other field.

The history of theology over the last century and a half may be seen as a steady reduction in certainty as Bible scholars have exercised their freedom to show how many of the old assumptions were without justification, and as rapid changes in society has shaken peoples belief in old accepted standards. It is in opposition to this erosion that fundamentalism has flourished as people fear the loss of an old sense of security more than they welcome a new and more honest faith. Expanding on this, four main reasons for fundamentalism's acceptance can be suggested: First that a dogma offers a relief from uncertainty - all the answers are there, neatly packaged, within the Sect's credo - acceptable so long as you do not trouble to examine them too closely. Secondly a sect, particularly one that has not had time to fossilise, is often much more exciting, allowing far more opportunity to participate actively in the life of the Church. Thirdly, for the intellectually lazy or intellectually challenged, a dogma relieves you of any need to think about your faith. Finally acceptance of the dogma will often gain you entry to a close circle or society of welcoming friends. For the young, who (often correctly) see the local parish Church as being run by a complacent dispenser of platitudes for the benefit of a geriatric congregation, a small local branch of a Sect can offer a perfect outlet for their well-intentioned energy and zeal.

The main stock-in-trade of the fundamentalist is certainty. In the secular world all of the old values are being challenged and the difference between right and wrong is continually being blurred. Where once the moral values of society, however hypocritical, were clearly defined, now vocal apologists can be found for every indulgence. The fundamentalists will tell you that all the rules are set out in the Bible, which they will interpret for you; there is no longer any need to worry, or to think, or to question. Obey us and you will go to Heaven with a clear conscience.

But surely to a Christian the Bible must be a guide, not a rule-book, and surely the freedom from the rule-book of the Hebrew Law offered by Paul should not be replaced by a new set of laws, based on nothing better than idiosyncratic and often flawed interpretations. In the first few centuries there was a very real danger of the young Church fragmenting, as the views of the free-thinkers and Gnostics gained a wide following, a number of alternative interpretations of the Christian message gained significant support, and local Church leaders started broadcasting their own ideas. Some of the more important `isms' to develop were:

Adoptionism. That Christ was the natural son of Mary and Joseph, `adopted' by God.

Arianism. That God the Son was not divine, nor did he exist from the beginning, but was the first creation of God. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain the Arian doctrine.

Docetism. That Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one.

Ebionism. Rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary. The Ebionites believed Jesus became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish Law. Ebionites also rejected Paul.

Gnosticism. An umbrella term for a wide variety of views rejecting conventional Christianity. A typical doctrine was that the world, produced from evil matter and possessed by evil demons, could not be the creation of a good God. To its adherents, Gnosticism promised a secret knowledge of the divine realm.

Manichaeism. Dualist belief in the separate and independent existence of a god of good (Jehovah) and a god of evil (Satan), the whole of existence being a struggle between the two.

Monophysitism. Maintained that Christ had only one (divine) nature, thereby opposing the orthodox doctrine that he was both divine and human. The modern Abyssinian church, Armenian church, and Coptic church, maintain a Monophysitic doctrine.

Pelagianism. Denied the doctrine of original sin, and the necessity for infant baptism, maintaining that all sin resulted from deliberate human choice.

Sabellianism. That God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit were just ASPECTS of one entity, and not also independent entities in their own right.

The thunder of Bishop Irenius in the late 2nd century against non-conforming views as heresies, and his insistence on the acceptance of prevailing Church dogma as though it was the received word of God, may seem to modern ears as a grossly tyrannical attempt to dictate what people should believe - and of course it was. At that particular time it may have been the lesser of two evils. Today's Fundamentalist sects take an identical attitude, and insist on conformity to prevent the Sect from breaking into factions - not always successfully.

The Bible offers a picture of continuing growth in man's concept of God, from the primitive notions of Genesis, to the strict and legal contract conditions of Leviticus, humanised by prophets such as Isaiah, radically updated by Christ in the new concept that the Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law, and the concept of God as a loving Father. Are we to assume that growth in understanding had to stop the moment Luke or John or Paul put down their pens, that no further increase in understanding was possible, that every concept was complete, to be sealed and remain inviolate through subsequent ages? This seems absurd, but there can be no further growth without freedom, and fundamentalism is the enemy of freedom. With freedom comes risk of error, and through the history of Christianity, through reformation and counter-reformation, through persecutions and pogroms, many errors can be seen. Perhaps the greatest errors of all have come not from freedom but from the lack of it, from intolerance for which the dogmas of fundamentalism must carry a direct and massive responsibility.

The early Church followed the teaching of Paul, who seems to have had little or no knowledge of the detail teaching of Christ, and its rapid spread was due in large measure to the promise of an afterlife, in which all sins would have been forgiven provided a few straightforward rules were followed. This was backed up by the example of Christ, the miraculous powers attributed to the early Church, and the promise that any earthly trials or persecutions would shortly end with the second coming of Christ. Because during those early years the Church was able to develop freely, the fading of the initial hopes of Paul's simplistic Church could be replaced by the more enduring teachings of the Gospels.

If you were to ask how you might by rational discussion convince a committed fundamentalist of errors in his beliefs the answer would have to be that it is probably not possible. Any questioning of any detail of his dogma is an attack on God, on his sect, and on him personally. Show him blatantly obvious errors in the Bible and he will assume that a complete explanation exists; show him a conflict with observed fact and he will assume that the observations are in error, show him that a different interpretation of something is more logical, or better supported by facts, and he will just assume that you are wrong. If you urge him to check the facts out for himself he will say that there is no need, the Bible tells him the truth. The armour of dogma (which he will call faith) is impervious to fact or reason. The only hope may be to stir the core of perversity in him so that he himself may start to question what he has been told.

It is the leaders of these sects that cause the most concern, the people who write their pamphlets, control their studies, ensure that there is no deviation. It always seems impossible to me that an honest individual can perform the sort of mental gymnastics that they do, in misquotation, in ignoring anything that does not support dogma, in absurd or completely unfounded assumptions, without being fully aware of what they are doing. Yet the human capacity for self-deceit is boundless while an all-too-evident assumption that the end justifies the means will readily salve any inconvenient conscience. No doubt the great majority are sincere when they claim that they are doing the work of the Lord.

CULTS.

Some of the signs that a Sect may have become a Cult are:

Leaders who claim a unique, exclusive ministry, revelation, or position of authority from God.

A belief that the group is the only true Church (group) or that it maintains a critical stance regarding other Christians while praising and exalting its own leaders.

Use of intimidation by warning that members who leave the group will "go to hell" or suffer some other calamity.

The requirement that members give substantial portions of their income to the group or leaders.

Over-emphasis on loyalty to the group that results in almost total absorption of one's life into its activities.

Development of a "we versus them" mentality that makes outsiders evil enemies of the cause.

The most basic difference is that a Cult exists to exploit its members in the interests of its leaders, a non-cultic sect, however much you may dislike its methods and attitudes, does not. One particular group that calls itself "The Worldwide Church of God" has suffered more than most from fragmentation, spawning more than sixty new organizations. A paper by Alan Ruth, one of its departed members, reviewing the problems of this Church, suggests that a substantial proportion of the offshoots became Cultic in nature.

* Return to HOME