To Stay or Not? (An anonymous guest blogger.)

A friend sent me this. I asked his permissions to use it anonymously. He agreed. I made clear the church affiliation and edited one expletive. Without editorial comments, here it is...

I understand fundamentalists (not in the doctrinal sense, but the authoritarian--the ones that are about control rather than belief) the way I understand Daleks from Doctor Who. Daleks are alien mutants who drive around cybernetic battle-machines with a death ray, and the way they find fulfillment in life is by exterminating non-Daleks. If a Dalek doesn't kill you, it's because it needs your help killing another of its non-Dalek enemies, or else because it needs slave labor for a while; regardless, you'll be in front of the gun sooner or later.

It's not a perfect analogy, because you can tell a Dalek from a non-Dalek immediately by whether or not they're a seven-foot-tall pepper-pot with a manipulator arm and a ray gun. You need to spend a bit more time observing social networks to distinguish between authoritarian fundamentalists and those who aren't. But it's fairly easy; their beliefs aren't about doctrine or truth, they're about authority--this is one reason you can never pin an inerrantist down on what any piece of scripture actually says or means, but they'll defend to the death the notion that you're serving the devil by questioning whether or not it's perfectly true. True statements mean something everywhere but in the fundamentalist world, where their only function is to bind people deeper into the authority structure. "Affirm, don't understand" is the order of the day.

Something that's been coming up at work lately for some reason is the argument over whether to stay in a flawed faith tradition, or leave it. In my neck of the woods, that's Church of Christ (CofC), but I know there've been similar discussions about SBC and evangelicalism in general in my blog-circles. Everyone in my department agrees that if you don't believe any of it, there's no point in staying, except maybe social self-preservation if there isn't any community available for non-Christians. The dispute is over whether, if you believe the "fundamentals" (nobody can agree on what specific things are fundamental, which is a discussion I try to avoid, but they at least agree to the idea that some things are more fundamental than others--even if there's not one principle they all agree on), whether you should stay in that tradition to try and redeem it, or leave it to put God's gifts to use someplace where they will do qualitatively and quantitatively more good.

My feeling is, if you're on your own or in the company of another consenting adult, do what you want (which is an imprecise way of saying "It's none of my business"). If you have kids--now there's the rub. If you have kids, there's a chance it might come to be my business years down the line when they come over to someplace like Leaving Fundamentalism or SecWeb's support forum asking for help, being alone and scared and having nobody they trust to turn to when they need to get out of a theologically abusive situation.

I'm tired, so tired, of helping to counsel men who grew up in authoritarian, theologically mainstream (in America) churches, and trying to convince them that there's some point to living life with--and then without--a vengeful God staring over their shoulder. (I'm not the Bible or their church authorities, so nothing I say is "rationally grounded". That's not modernism, which admittedly has its own set of flaws; it's a sick perversion of modernism in which "reason" means "what The Authorities say".) I'm tired of helping to counsel women who display all the symptoms of having been raped as children without actually having been touched. I'm tired of helping to shoulder the fallout when teenagers leave the faith for their own survival and their parents kick them out of the house at fifteen or sixteen. (It's a lot easier now that I have a job that pays too much and I can actually give some material assistance, but the emotional fallout doesn't get any easier to deal with.) Some days I think the universe might be a better place if we all went extinct, and I spend too much time fantasizing about ways to blow up the world.

My stance on staying with a tradition is this. If the problem is that people are saying and doing stupid things, things that make your tradition look bad to people on the outside, congratulations--you're part of a group of stupid humans. You never get away from that, not ever, unless you're cleverer than I am and find a way to kill everyone that you can actually implement. On the other hand, if the problem is that the group is authoritarian and controlling, toxic to the lives of its membership, and a lot of the attrition rate of your kids is coming from suicide rather than their simply growing up and moving on, you can't belong to that group anymore and still call yourself a moral human being--just a coward who's afraid to contradict an authority that's horribly, desperately wrong, and for no better reason than that it tells you it's above you and you're blind or stupid enough to believe it and follow. And it's not an either-or thing, of course; this is all part of a spectrum. But having spoken with people who are glad they stayed in CofC after all their grief, and people whose deepest regret was that they should have left CofC decades ago before it destroyed their children, it comes down to a judgment call: how likely is it that by staying, you're damning your kids to repeat your mistakes or worse, wasting ten or twenty or forty years in the dark, serving the wrong causes, being afraid for their souls, bound up inside cybernetic combat armor screaming "Exterminate!", totally alone?

If you can save the church but lose your children, f*** the church. Let it burn. Let it fall back into darkness where it belongs. No organization, no matter whom or Whom it was founded by, is worth a sacrifice of innocents who have no choice in the matter. Or help it from a distance, if you must, and can spare the time and energy and resources; but don't let it touch your children.

Or create or join a peaceful separatist community. I like that option. I've liked and trusted everyone I've met who's come from that background. There are so many options that don't involve years of rationalizing sticking with the status quo. I'm not saying everyone who stays with the SBC or CofC is dishonest or evil, but I have yet to encounter one whom I'm convinced lives in the same world as I do.

Too often, kindness and indulgence toward the elderly who are rigid and deeply intolerant, but lonely and frightened of change leads to more elderly, ten and twenty and thirty and fifty years later, who are just as intolerant and just as frightened of precisely the same things changing, when the rest of the world has long since moved on. We'll never get anywhere if we don't put our foot down *somewhere*. I don't know a way to fix that, other than to say that it stops with me. No more. I'm done.

Comments

[Tim Sean]

I am clergy in a Southern Baptist enviroment. The specific church I work for is moderate because it has an influential cross-section of academcis from the local university. So we keep toxic religion in check for the most part. But occasionally I feel some pressure (from the older members) to perpetuate the tradition more than what I and many in our midst feel is more honest approaches to revelation and it's expression.

Having said that, I am also the father of a five year old boy and increasingly fidn myself conflicted about exactly what kind of a religious context I want him growing up in. I'm not sure I want him identifying evnagelicals as his primary faith community. The only solution to ending such a conflict in me is to find the opportunity and the resources to change careers, a scary thing indeed as we often live fist to mouth.

I lack courage, and not so ironically, the faith to make such a leap.

[the jay]

two thoughts:

1) (and i don't mean this rhetorically or condescendingly) is it really this bad??? thankfully, my quasi-fundamentalist upbringing was either mildly abusive or not abusive at all. depends on the day which answer i give. and i really don't interact with many people who were truly damaged by fundamentalism--at least not suicide-damaged. pissed-off-damaged or cynical-damaged but not irreparably-harmed-damaged. perhaps more people in this category exist and i'm just not aware of it.

2) after spending several years volunteering in high school ministry in an evangelical church, i'm convinced that a genuine problem with evangelicalism is an inability to move people from the theologically black and white world of high school to a more nuanced theology.

i'm not sure that trotting out the jedp theory is a worthwhile enterprise for high schoolers. a) most wouldn't care and b) many of those who did would lack the capacity to process it appropriately. (that's because of development, not because of intelligence.)

but the lack of a process for theological training leads to SERIOUS disillusion by a freshman or sophomore in college confronted with all manner of arguments against christianity.

the other day my 4 year old son asked where heaven was. i wasn't about to launch into a full-on answer. he would've glazed over in 2 seconds.

so i had to tell him something true without giving him the whole story. someday he'll be ready for the whole story, but not today.

the trick is to teach in a way that gives people what they can process without teaching something that's not really true and that will make them feel ripped off when later in life.

i'm not sure how to do that, but it seems to me that figuring it out is REALLY, REALLY important.

i'll stop rambling now.

[Anonymous]

My experience on the inside was that in general it isn't this bad at all; my experience on the outside is that when all you see from day to day is the worst-case scenarios--the real stories, the people who are hurt and frustrated enough to make up stories that are partially true or untrue, and the cases where you just don't have enough clues to guess which is which--things look worse than they are, probably, and certainly they look worse than anyone on the inside receiving benefits of some kind from the organization is going to see.

The relevant question in my mind is, do you get an unfairly distorted picture of, say, a government when you only interact with that country's prisoners and refugees and dispossessed? Probably so, but you're still right to suspect there's something deeply wrong with the system.

The tricky thing is, you have to balance the drive to find out exactly what's going on (which is deeply important) with the realization that openly questioning and interrogating people who've been victimized by a system to find out if they're really truth-telling can, and in practice does, stifle their only means of speaking out against the powers that've wronged them. It's a hard line to walk, but my guideline with respect to those who leave churches is to give less benefit of the doubt to organizations (which by nature are more robust) than to individual people who find themselves cut off from their primary means of social support. That doesn't mean I believe them uncritically, but it does mean I hear them out without leaping to the defense of an institution or its leaders, who in practice will have an abundance of supporters--something people who find themselves outcast from their primary reference group are desperately lacking.

It also means I don't spend much time anymore speaking out against churches. It's usually helpful for people who leave to do that for a time, as it breaks the institution's stranglehold on their thoughts and sense of identity, but if they don't put it behind them, their anger devours them.

[Dallas Tim]

Any religious posturing done for the promotion of self is very dangerous and will, unchecked, ultimately lead to further disillusionment regardless of which side you're on.

Christianity has it's own little cult of personality that runs rampant throughout every demonination and sub-group.

Anon touched on one of my biggets pet peeves; Christian leaders who discard their own kids to pursue "Bigger and better things" (which typically translates to more prominent or financially beneficial trappings)

Someone ask me a question this weekend "Do you have anyone that you are personally discipling ?" My thought was "Yes, my three kids, I don't care about anybody else right now." Obviously I do care about others, but I'm so sick of seeing Christian parents take their children for granted. My family is my "Mission Field." Making disciples is not a one time conversion experience. It's an on-going process that seems to, in so many Christian cirles, include anyone but your own offspring and spouse.

To me, a true understanding of who God is doesn't include a panicked evangelical free-for-all where we run around yelling and screaming about impending doom.

The true Church will always be centered on Jesus. It will demonstrate His love in consistent, oftentimes methodical, fashion. It is rarely flashy and is usually done in private, dark corners where the "Holier-than-thous" won't go.

I do belive in Heaven, Hell, sin, Satan, etc... I also know that the truth is a gift to be used with humility and compassion. I know that sometimes the truth sometimes stings, like a bright light at 3am when you're asleep, or like antiseptic on a cut, but if my only goal is to point out how someone's biggest problem is that they're not like me?!?... That's a scary place to be according to the Bible. That's where the harshest judgement occurs. Hell is real, and it will be filled with lots of people who thought everybody but them should have been sent there.

[Kip Watson]

Such graceless remarks as calling your Christian fellows daleks and virtual rapists don't belong in any church, so yeah, by all means, get the h#ll out.

And stay out.

And don't come round to my church either please.

At least not until you've pondered that beam of ignorance in your own eye.

[revbrunet]

does anyone else note the irony of quoting a verse about grace for the express purpose of being ungracious?

[Kip Watson]

revbrunet, that's just sophistry though, isn't it.

Here you all are, gravely slagging your fellow Christians because they're marginally more ignorant than you. But you've got a ready answer when you get called on it.

Where's the love? Who's the hypocrite?

[greg]

kip,

have you met jesus? even read about him? wow. you might want to start over, and if your church is anything like you, we'll all stay out. thanks.

[Kip Watson]

Hey, but don't listen to me, listen to yourselves:

'They're rapists, heck - they're daleks. They ain't even human!'

[Kip Watson]

greg, this is tough love, my friend! :)

[revbrunet]

sophistry? again with the irony...

[Anonymous]

I haven't been Christian in years, but thanks for the feedback anyway. I tend to reserve my concern for the people who need it, which means Christians who belong to a supportive church fall pretty far down on the list of people I worry about insulting.

[Kip Watson]

Sure, if you're not a Christian it makes no sense at all.

The lukewarm will be spat out of His mouth. There'll be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when so many enlightened Christians when they find themselves out of Paradise while their ignorant unenlightened cousins are let in.

The servant who doesn't know his Father's will shall be punished with few stripes, but from those to whom much is given, much will be required. Those to whom the gifts of high intelligence, insight and knowledge have been given ought to be careful to use them for more than chuckling about their foolish fellow Christians.

[Joe]

Just stay where you are sir, Papa Gruff should be along any minute and he so much bigger and tastier than me.

[Joe]

"It's I! The big Billy Goat Gruff ,"
That was what the big billy goat said. And then he flew at the troll, and poked his eyes out with his horns, and crushed him to bits, body and bones, and tossed him out into the cascade, and after that he went up to the hillside.

[greg]

Joe,

Good point. Don't feed the trolls, people. Especially the "Christian" ones.

[Kip Watson]

Am I a troll just because I say something you don't like?

Or is it that you know I'm right but you're wound up so tight you can't admit to a mistake?

You're only human. Lighten up on the 'daleks' and you might be able to lighten up on yourself too. It often works that way.

[joe]

No, you are a troll because you randomly strolled onto this website looking for a fight. Hence, you are like the troll under the bridge waiting for someone to fight with.

[greg]

Joe,

Stop feeding him.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

I'm proud to have never called you a troll during our inerrancy debate.

I have seen "Arrogant Bastard" Ale but I've never called you that either:-)

[Joe]

my bad dog

[TL]

the jay raises an important point:

"after spending several years volunteering in high school ministry in an evangelical church, i'm convinced that a genuine problem with evangelicalism is an inability to move people from the theologically black and white world of high school to a more nuanced theology"

I spent my teenage years in a high school youth group, and although I look back on the experience fondly, I can't help but feel like it short-changed a lot of kids. The church was UMC, but the congregation (in hindsight) had a strong evangelical/fundamentalist pull. As a result, the primary thing you learned in the youth group were variations on 1) don't do drugs/drink/listen to heavy metal, 2) don't have premarrital sex, and 3) witness to your friends so that if they die tomorrow in a car accident or the rapture comes, they won't go to hell.

The problem as I now see it is that, if you spend your formative years learning that this is what Christianity is about, where does that leave you as an adult when these three issues are no longer relevant, or only nominally so? You're never given a theological framework for years 19 and beyond.

Based on my own experiences, some people coming out of this background have looked deeper. Others have plodded on to megachurches that offer a similar, simplistic theology for adults (don't cheat on your wife, witness to your co-wokers so they won't go to hell). But a lot have just said hell with it all, not because they were psyoclogically abused in a fundamentalist environment, but because they don't think Christianity has any more to offer.

[James Drury]

As a happy Fundamentalist I disagree with the dual use of the term "fundamentalist" as both doctrinally strict and personally controlling. Authoritarianism can occur in any church or organization whether liberal or conservative.

Authoritarianism in the church is just wrong while having *authority* is a necessity. As Fundamentalist Bible-Thumping Born-Again Baptist, I look to the Bible as the final authority while paying attention to what the Pastor may preach on Sundays. The Pastor may be wrong, or I may be wrong in my understanding of the Scripture. We need to check each other against the authority of the Bible to make sure we aren’t going astray.

I’d argue that authoritarianism occurs where congregations are not encouraged to study the Bible for themselves and instead rely on what someone else says the Bible means.

Besides, if Daleks were real Fundamentalists, there would be endless splits and fractures in whatever they have for society. “Exterminate!” “No, no! You’ve got it all wrong. Put more emphasis on the second syllable!” “I bet you’re a new season Dalek, aren’t you?” Most of the Fundamentalists I’ve met have no problem leaving a church where things weren’t going right.

A Baptist was ship-wrecked for many years before finally being rescued. The sailors asked him about the buildings on the island where he had been the sole inhabitant.
“That’s my house and that’s where I go to church.”
“What about that building?” they asked.
“That’s where I used to go to church.”

Regardless, the use of cultic practices of control does not make a church “Fundamental”. Some flavors of the Church of Christ definitely flirt with Authoritarianism to the point of allowing a “mentor” to dictate to whom a “disciple” should marry! That’s a cult, not a Fundamental church.

So, other than the terminology, I agree that poisoned churches should be avoided. That poison could be authoritarianism (I say what is true and you better believe it) or acute irrationalism (I have my truth, you have your truth, but there is no Truth). And you should never sacrifice your children on the altar of conventionalism (this is the way we’ve always done it).

[St. Kalel]

James,
Which "authoritative" version of the Bible are you using? I find it especially interesting you and your pastor are checking up on each others biblical understanding (paragraph 2), and then you imply we can interpret what it says outside the influence of others (paragraph 3). Which "t/Truth" is it?

[Dallas Tim]

Here we go again....

[James Drury]

As to what version of the Bible, you should choose the version that's easiest for you to understand. Please don't feel like you need to pick the one that I'm using.

The point I was trying to make isn't that the pastor and I "are checking up on each other" so much as I don't take what he says as absolute truth. Again, the problem I see is that people aren't reading the Bible for themselves and allowing themselves to fall prey to cultic influences. Don't take *my* intpretation as infallible, and don't take what your pastor says as infallible. Study the Bible for yourself.

I don't think there is any contradiction in what I said previously, but I see where I could have said that better.

Sorry, Tim. I really didn't think what I wrote would cause a problem. I'm not disagreeing with the author, just suggesting a different term to use.

[greg]

James,

Tim wasn't worried about you starting a problem; he was worried that I would jump on the "authority of Scripture" argument. However, I'm not going to. I've learned that there is nothing I can say to a fundamentalist that will allow her to surrender her categories. Again, this is an issue of how one knows, rather than the content of what one knows, a subject I'll soon be posting about.

[Anonymous]

James,

I was doing my best to distinguish between authoritarian fundamentalists and other kinds of fundamentalists, and reading my first couple of paragraphs, I'm fairly sure I got that across. See below for my terminology correction, though.

In Doctor Who lore, Daleks do split periodically. It's not over stupid things like the pronunciation of "Exterminate", though. The most notable division was between those loyal to their not-quite-Dalek creator Davros, and those who believed that maintaining Dalek purity was paramount even if it cost them their ties to the past. There are a few smaller splits that aren't as remarkable. The ones that are resolved "peacefully" (i.e. without total destruction of all sides) are those in which everyone agrees to focus on exterminating their common enemy the non-Daleks.

Ultimately it's just a metaphor that shouldn't be stretched further than is helpful, though there are certain useful parallels that arise. Discussion between Daleks and non-Daleks is almost always useless; Daleks are nearly helpless in the face of an unclear or absent chain of rigid, infallible command; unity is achieved through demonizing non-Dalek Others; Daleks advocate or commit lethal violence as a means of advancing their ideas of purity and holiness; and despite the damage they do to life in the universe, their greatest enemy the Doctor can't bring himself to destroy them because they are still conscious, thinking beings. There are nuances there that often fall by the wayside--their very being is as wrong as anything can be, yet they still deserve as much empathy and consideration as anyone else. It's a distinction that would never make sense to a Dalek.

Actual people aren't literally Daleks, of course (I feel like this is a qualification that nobody should ever have to make), but when they act like them, it's a bit worrisome.

I should probably use "authoritarian" rather than "fundamentalist", in the sense articulated by Sara Robinson over on Orcinus, but I used fundamentalist to reflect my own background in informal counseling of those leaving abusive church situations.

[greg]

Anon,

Agreed. It's a qualification you shouldn't have to make, and I've found fundamentalism to be pretty destructive irrespective of its varietal nuances. Just ask any gay person raised in a fundamentalist church.

[James Drury]

Greg and Anon,

Thanks. I realize the idea wasn't to argue Bible versions or anything other than the topic presented, so sorry if I caused a tangent. Yes, I saw the distinction at the beginning but I thought futher clarification was necessary. Again, I basically agree with the overall theme and Anon addressed the point I raised over the term used so all is good, I think.

I'm familiar with Dr. Who and the Daleks. My comment about splits in the Daleks was supposed to be a humorous poke at my fellow fundamentalists that split and split again their different churches and groups based on very minor points. Alas for my poor skills in writing!

Also, I'm beginning to see why we have different ideas on what "fudamentalism" really means - or has come to mean. Perhaps it is I that needs a new term. I'd hate to give it up, though.

[Dallas Tim]

I condsider myself a "fundamentalist." I also see a difference in myself and others who would claim the same label.

Believing in inerrancy doesn't make someone destructive. Beliving in penal substitution doesn't either. I think homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle condemned by Scripture. All of these would be seen as "fundamentalist" positions.

Taking a stand on sin and making your position know (per the Bible) may piss people off but that's about as destructive as Jesus calling the Pharisees "Children of the Devil." It may have been harsh, but it was appropriate.

The problem today is that many fundies aren't taking a stand for any other reason than to draw attention to themselves. That problem is rampant in every sector of our society (non-fundie circles included). This is the very attitute that Jesus condemned - the self-righteous arrogance that has no real compassion at it's core. Only the corrupt desire for un-opposed power.

To imply that just because the actions of some indicate that it is the belief system that is flawed is like saying that "Christians" are all wackos, so then Christianity must be wrong.

I do believe that certain belief systems can be ridiculous, but Biblical Christianity (and Greg, you know what I mean when I say that) leads to truth, liberty and eternal life in Jesus.

Greg, you yourself claim that the core of the Gospel centers around Jesus. That would be a "fundemental" aspect of our faith. That would appear to make you a true "fundamentalist." When I hear that term and think of you, I get a different mental picture of what you probably get when thinking of the same term and say, Richard Land.

I guess my point is that we need to try to make a clear distinction between what words have come to mean and what they actually mean. "Authoritarian" vs. "fundamentalist" does need some distinction.

[Zossima]

Gents, the term "fundamentalism" in the US was used by, uh, fundamentalist christians to define the, uh, fundamentals of the christian faith. These fundamentals include inerrancy and substitutionary atonement.

I know of no formal change among those claiming the label 'fundamentalist', so I'm quite sure greg isn't one.

What fundamentalism has become, however, is the five fundamentals plus an ongoing debate over individual morals ("Don't drink or chew or go with girls who do", as I was taught) and, for the past 25 years, a concerted, organized effort to impose those narrow 'values' on the people of the US.

So, look, when the term is used, it is quite well defined.

And when greg uses the term 'fundagelicals', it refers to the shift of evangelicalism to these fundamentalist tenets. There really is no difference anymore.

[greg]

Z,

Exactly.

[Dallas Tim]

"American evangelist Billy Graham came from a fundamentalist background, but many Christian fundamentalists repudiate him today because of his choice, early in his ministry (1950s), to co-operate with other Christians. He represents a movement that arose within fundamentalism, but has increasingly become distinct from it, known as Neo-evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism (a term coined by Harold J. Ockenga, the "Father of New Evangelicalism")."

That's in the latter part of the "Doctrine" section of the link that Zoss posted. It's my point exactly AND it says that the event marked the beginning of the DISTINCTION between fundies and neo-evangelicals, not their merger.

You can believe the tenets of the "Fundamentalist" doctrine, without the damage that goes along with those who espouse it for their own glorification. Look at every sector of our society and you'll find nut jobs who have taken a good idea too far. We say "Don't judge the whole group by the idiots sprinkled throughout."

Would we have judged the validity of the Jewish religion because of the Pharisees? Their leaders (many of them) had a self-appointed way of mediating their beliefs.

I think it somwhat unfair to refuse to allow for the notion that holding to the fundie position lumps you in with those who may be hijacking it for their own greedy purposes.

I think it's easy to do because you want to attack the tenets and show that they always lead to a hostile attitude when that is simply not true (as Zoss' link stated was the case with B. Graham).

[ninjanun]

But D-Tim, you're referring to a distinction between fundies and evangelicals that happened in the 1950's. We've since witnessed a shift among evangelicals BACK to a more fundamentalist understanding of the gospel, along with the authoritarian problems that can crop up with that understanding.
Hell, I witnessed that shift even within my own local church over the past seven years, which is one reason I got squeezed out of a ministerial position (wrong plumbing).

[Zossima]

Tim, I certainly don't think that most fundamentalists, including Dobson and Falwell are "hijacking it for their own greedy purposes". They believe what they're doing, so much so that they make obvious Faustian bargains (Ralph Reed, meet Jack Abramoff) to advance their cause, kinda like the Pharisees.

Fundamentalists like yourself obviously don't like the association with some of fundamentalisms more grating leaders. Hey, Dobson, Falwell, Reed, et.al, creep me out, too.

What has happened to Billy Graham and his style of evangelicalism? I think it's largely gone. Even Franklin is a creepy right-wing whack-job. If Graham started a distinction, it's largely gone now.

See, evangelicals today have uncritically embraced the five tenets of fundamentalism, are overwhelmingly engaged in discussions about personal morality (been to a small group lately?), and are voting with Dobson and company, even if they don't agree with his take on SpongeBob.

It's fundamentalism, whether or not people are comfortable with the word.

[Zossima]

But ninja, isn't that "biblical manhood and womanhood" in practice? Sorry to hear that happened.

[Dallas Tim]

This all sometimes seems like a subtle attack on the "Fundamentals" themselves. The theory is that if you start with a wrong premise, then your argument (and the attitudes and actions that follow) have nowhere to go but south.

"The wacko fundies are wacko because they belive in old, outdated, wrong ideas about interpretation and hermenutics, etc..."

Without starting another debate on inerrancy, I do believe that a proper, Biblical understanding of the Gospel (and both Testaments) can and should, yeild a marked difference in modern Christianity from the garden variety goof-balls that so often take the stage.

Yes, I am embarrased by the frequently proclaimed musings of certain people who claim to think like I do, but I am never ashamed of my views on Scripture, Jesus, sin, the devil and the like.

I am "Fundamental" but I would like to think of myself as "Fundamentaly" different.

[Zossima]

This all sometimes seems like a subtle attack on the "Fundamentals" themselves.

Have I been subtle? Didn't mean to be ; )

Yeah, I believe the fundamentals are mostly wrong in and of themselves and also wrong as a starting place for defining the faith. Simply, the Archimedean point for the christian faith should be Jesus, not the fundamentals that prescribe ways to believe about Jesus.

The fundamentals are a really weak way to make christianity correspond to a Western-rational rubric. They are a response to the Darwinian world that emerged in the 19th century, an attempt to make christianity satisfy logical criteria of proof. I think they are born of the fear that if Genesis isn't true, then Jesus isn't either. And this attempt at setting up are own universal laws, so to speak, fundamentally fails because it isn't rooted in anything observable or even rational.

Finally, I believe the fundamentals lead to the division, infighting over morals, microscopic focus on individual morality, and political bullying of those who don't subscribe to them (and are thus not 'christian'). In other words, a tree is known by its fruit.

Now, you can argue that the fundamentals don't lead to that, but then you have to provide some other motive or assumption that is behind the goofballs.

[Dallas Tim]

Zoss,

I disagree. I see the absense of an explicit statement on inerrancy much like the absense of a rule banning guns in schools in the 50's. It wasn't needed. Neither was an explicit rule on the Bible's authority because the historical Church would not have envisioned a day where some statement would have needed to be created to define what, to that point, had been a given.

Augustine said...
"I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."

Inerrancy may not have been structured in the form of the Chicago Statement, but the concept of the Trinity wasn't either until Nicea, several hundred years later. Not because no one believed in the Trinity, but because it just wasn't codified yet.

Show me one single historical Church leader who questioned the idea that Scripture was the inspired word of God. I don't mean "What does that verse mean?" That's a debate over interpretation. Hell, I have those with my pastor but it doesn't mean we're questioning the Bible's authority.

What I'm talking about is a statement from a historical Church leader saying "We don't need to take Scripture as the God's breathed text that it claims to be."

Augustine affirmed it, Luther affirmed it, the Scots Confession of 1520 confirmed it, the Westminister Confession of 1646 affirmed it, etc...

Maybe they were all wrong, but the notion that inerrancy is some new concept just doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

The "fundamentals" do come from such an interpretation of Scripture. Those tenets are timeless, because God's Word is timeless.

Inerrancy wasn't invented in the 19th century. It was addressed to make a clear statement against the tide of liberal attack that had, to that point, never been taken seriously.

[Zossima]

The word "inerrancy" didn't even appear in my previous post. I said that the fundamentals identified by the fundamentalists came about in 1910, largely as a way of circling the wagons in response to a perceived onslaught of science, which apparently is conveniently witch-ified as "liberalism" lest we actually hold the questions posed by science up for scrutiny in a sincere quest for truth.

Dude, you wasted a lot of energy there by reading what you want to argue into my post.

But since you brought it up, inerrancy is very different from the idea that the Bible is inspired. (Here)

Finally, why do you persist in the false choice of the Chicago Statement, which is that it's either all true or none of it is:

The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church.

It just isn't a rational choice. And again, it gives primacy to scripture itself over Jesus Christ.

Man, give it up. Inerrancy, the fundamentals, the whole package, are completely illogical (and ungodly) as a starting point, have created disunity and divergence of belief, not unity, have resulted in the judgmental stance of the Church toward the world, is not a position that Jesus held (as greg ably demonstrated), and on and on.

[Dallas Tim]

Z,

I was simply responding to your clarification that you feel it is the actual fundamentals themselves that are flawed since the foundational tenet of fundamentalism is inerrancy.

As for the choice of "All true/none true", who is it that gets to decide which is and which isn't? You, me?

If Jesus is important, how do we know what He actually said?

Honestly, no one has ever explained how we determine that. All I get is "You can't possibly believe that." No one ever steps up and says, "Well, this is how I KNOW that Jesus said 'Love your enemies.'"

Are you certain that Jesus said anything? I want you to respond to these questions in particular and actually answer them...please!!!

WHAT DID JESUS ACTUALLY SAY?

HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE?

I'm not using capital letters because I'm screaing, I just actually want someone to answer these questions without just saying "Everyone knows that inerrancy is wrong."

Don't sidestep my question this time... tell me what we can know for sure that He said and how.

Regardless of how you respond, I appreciate your tolerating my exasperation. I really enjoy these conversations although I fear Greg will soon ban me from particitation due to my stubborn adherence to my beliefs.

Grace, peace and fundamentals.

[greg]

Tim,

Your last post is simply not true. I've answered your questions many, many times. You simply choose to ignore what I write.

Positing a doctrine of inerrancy no more makes you able to know what Jesus said than positing the idea that he told you what he said. It's smoke and mirrors. You didn't respond to anything Z said. You continue to argue your points without ever noticing they've been soundly refuted many times.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Let's forget my points for a moment. You claim to have refuted them but your alternative is to to put your faith in what? Real events? What makes them real? Are you just subscribing to a nice idea? On what basis do you belive in Jesus? Actual proof, or just the hopes that what you believe actually happened?

Do you claim to have factual knowledge of Jesus, or is it just a really good idea that should be bought into by people who want the world to be a better place?

You seem to be able to point out the errors of my view, but unable to shed any light on the FACTS behind yours.

If I accuse someone in a court of law of a crime, the court will demand evidence. If you stood before a court and were defending your view, what evidence would you present?

Can anyone on this blog do this?

[greg]

Evidence for what? You have no evidence, Tim. Forget all that Josh McDowell stuff. I don't believe because the Bible says so. No one does. You come to believe, then you look for substantiation for your beliefs. It's the way people function, almost without exception.

I wasn't talking about me refuting your points; I was talking about Leighton and Z and others who have posted and posted only to have you ignore their points and continue to insist on inerrancy despite the fact you've admitted the book isn't inerrant.

We're not going to court. We're asserting a belief in Jesus as the resurrected God. That will never stand up in court. The proof of that belief is eschatological. If you've read my arguments before, you'll know that means resurrection and return, but the resurrection is not a historically verifiable event, as much as you'd like to believe it is.

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

So you're saying that the proof (Jesus) will one day appear (Return, etc...)? Almost like "I'll be vindicated one day when He comes back and then we'll all know.?."

Please do not read sarcasm into my questions, I'm really trying to understand you and not read past what you're saying because I really want to know what you believe. You may have stated all this in the past, but you were mostly refuting my view(s) and not really identifying yours (at least to me).

I believe that the original texts were without error. Do I have an original... no!
Do I see God claiming throughout the text that He was transmitting His words to me/us... yes! Do I think that a scribe might have made numerous typos... yes! Do any of them negate the fact that God has kept His word true despite human screw-ups...no! Do we understand the OT better because Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and mystery of the OT language... yes (He said so Himself).

From what do you derive your view of eschatalogy? On what basis do you place your faith in what is yet to come?

[Zossima]

Tim, greg is spot on. You haven't produced an iota of evidence for inerrancy or the fundamentals. Rather, you keep trying to throw it back on technicalities.

How do people KNOW anything? We have language, culture, and experience. That's how we come to believe Jesus is real. As Greg said, the reality of Jesus, and particularly the resurrection, is not open to propositional debate. It's proof is in the embodiment of Jesus by the eschatological community of his followers.

Inerrancy didn't convince you that Jesus is real. You adopted that later on because of the fear that you wouldn't be able to prove he actually is real.

Now, your question about how I know what Jesus said is absurd on its face, because it implies that you are certain because of a little hermeneutical device called inerrancy. But inerrancy is an idiotic, untestable, unprovable assumption.

It's been debunked for you time and again. Honestly, if that's all it takes to prove Jesus and the Bible, then my kid believing that Charlie Brown is a real person proves that the Great Pumpkin is coming in a few weeks.

[Michael]

D-Tim,

It seems from your posts that your faith is based on a logical conclusion of a preponderance of evidence. It seems like you have a presupposition toward a fact based, debate-enducing faith.

I believe you keep talking past greg and others because you are working from different grids. Not just theological gridworks, even more foundational than that.

Refuting your points and arguements does not necessitate someone offering satisfactory "proof" or "evidence" of the contrary. It might, if this conversating was operating by your rules of debate.

It seems that most who participate here think so differently than you, that they naturally operate by a different set of debating rules. You are now demanding proof from what you might see as an polar opposite view. As much as these people talk historical accuracy, cultural context, hermeneutical analysis and other things that you operate in with your fact based faith. Their life and theological gridwork does not need to be provable to be believable.

I can see you becoming a little defensive as I try to interject myself, becuase "hey, my faith isn't based on fact." But the way you post and demand proof and talk past people -- all causes me to think that watever makes up your theological grid is demanding fact or a preponderance of evidence.

It is probably very arrogant of me to try to step in when it seems like you are talking past each other, I just get woried when I see this very helpful conversation devolve into stagnant debate.

[Dallas Tim]

Z,

The "Community of His followers?" That's the best you can do?

Santa Claus has followers.

Again my question; On what basis do you believe in Jesus? How does our current "language, culture, and experience" help us determine what happened 2000 years ago.

I can't take you to Jesus and introduce you to Him. I can't provide physical evidence of His existence. I have never claimed to be able to do so. Faith does plays a major role.

But you're earlier claiming that the concept of inerrancy is a recent development is proven wrong by countless declarations and confessions that are documented historical records. You can't defend that anymore so you move on to something else.

The Bible and it's writers, claim that it's the spoken, inspried Word of God. Period.

Contrary to the unsupported notion that the Jews redacted the the OT, they did try to make sure that obvious copiest errors (which I have always admited existed) were adjusted. They NEVER claimed that the OT was NOT really the Word of God. The very fact that they, for thousands of years, have painstakingly studied, and re-studied the text ought to tell you that they took it damn seriously.

Again, what do you believe really happened? I realize you'll never answer this because when it comes to Jesus, we have nothing but crossed fingers and a group of followers.

This brings up another question that never seems to get answered here: What's makes your Jesus so different from anyone else?

[Anonymous]

The following example might or might not help.

I think the story of Doctor Who is one that is fundamentally worth paying attention to. I find myself using its language from time to time. One interesting example of a way it's influenced my thought is the section in 2x01 when it's revealed that human society in the year 5 billion is healthy and happy because of the sacrifice of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of sentient, intelligent, human clone cattle grown for the sole purpose of being infected with diseases, to which the Doctor responds, "If [humans] live because of this, then life is worthless!" Happiness at the expense of others' lives and welfare is not worth having.

Several points are relevant here. First, I don't think Doctor Who is anything other than fiction. I don't think anyone could ever claim its writers were inspired by God, unless they also hold that God is an agent behind all forms of creative expression. I don't think the ideas in Doctor Who are unique to Doctor Who, or even particularly original. (The example I gave above is very similar to a story by Ursula LeGuin, for instance.) I don't think everyone needs to hear about or watch Doctor Who; it will only be helpful for some. I certainly don't think the show is infallible, unless 19th century Scottish monks actually wore Birkenstock sandals. But it's a story, one among many, that helps to shape the person I am and am becoming. It turns out that all sufficiently deep and honest stories can be used in this way, even the ones that are flawed in important ways.

I also don't think this view is entirely comparable with Greg and Zossima's view of Jesus. They hold, I think, that the story of Jesus is unique among stories--if not in belief, in practice, in the act of giving it primacy over all other stories. But it does give an illustration of another way of believing something that doesn't involve a preoccupation with demonstration and evidence and rational groundings, which are wonderful and important pasttimes for the academy, but ultimately don't hold the shadows at bay in the middle of the night. The purpose of such a belief is not self-referential--its telos is not to hold a wellfounded, properly grounded belief--it's to be and become a certain kind of person. Under this view of what belief is, the greatest concern is not being put on trial and interrogated about facts and evidence; it's the fear of continuing to participate in destructive systems that destroy people, and of not being able to offer hope--not in the sense of certain expectation, but rather the strength to continue living and trying--where it is needed.