Fundamentalism and the Gentleness of Wisdom
One of the most unfortunate character traits of today's stereotypical fundamentalist is the propensity to fight.
Now don't get me wrong. I cling tightly to the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith--the deity of Christ, the infallibility of God's Word, salvation by faith. But the unpleasant odor of contention has crept into the movement as a whole, and frankly, it stinks. What began as a measured response to the German Rationalism of the late 1800s became a full-forced pendulum swing to the other side. Reason (or what rationalism claimed for reason) was the traitor and fundamentalism shot it in the head and put faith on the throne--an ideological coup de tat.
Unfortunately, the dynamic duo of faith and reason were separated and sola fida was twisted to mean something much different than what Luther meant. Without reasonable exegesis of the Scriptures, faith alone becomes a very fluid concept. Sometimes men believe the truth, sometimes men believe a lie; but always they believe. And with reason in a bloody mess, this is all that matters. (Ironically enough, reason often gets resussitated just enough to prove a point, never enough for a full discussion.)
What does this have to do with contentiousness? Quite alot. If you believe what you believe simply because you believe it, and reason is not working hand in hand with faith, there is no room for discussion. Discussion, you see, involves reason. And reason is the traitor. So dialogue is often considered tantamount to treason. This was a very common sentiment at Pensacola Christian College, a self-proclaimed haven of fundamentalism. During one of our senior Bible seminars, Dr. Greg Mutsch explained that the problem with liberals is that they just wanted to "dialogue" about everything instead of just believing. (After all, look what happens when you put the cross {t} and reason together {treason}.) To them, discussion equals unbelief; which is an odd approach to take considering most of the fundamental doctrines of the faith were cemented by councils of the early church in which many men with many different opinions would come and debate their understanding of Scripture until they hammered out a creed.
Some will argue that an unwillingness to dialogue is important when dealing with the fundamental doctrines of the faith; more often than not, though, what gets argued about in fundamentalist circles is not the virgin birth or the deity of Christ. Too often its about issues of practice, not doctrine.
Consider for a moment two or three Christian churches in your area that hold fast the fundamentals of the faith. Set aside drums, denomination and The Purpose Driven Life--simply consider the five key doctrines put forth by those that started the fundamentalist movement: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of His miracles. Now think of a self-proclaimed fundamentalist church in the same area. Is there fellowship and cooperation? Or are there feuds and separation?
A few verses come to mind. James 3:13-18: "Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
A wise man will demonstrate that wisdom in gentleness by his good behavior. And consider the context; verses one through twelve deal with the dangers of the tongue. The implication here is that while it is easy to destroy with the tongue, a wise man will gently reveal his wisdom by his actions, sans tongue.
Also notice the juxtaposed motives for not demonstrating gentle, quit wisdom--bitter jealousy and selfish ambition. I challenge every professing fundamentalist to examine all motives the next time the bell rings and the fight is on. So often our professed righteous indignation is just thinly veiled pride; we're flipping over the money changer's table so we can be the hero. But every man or woman greatly used by God fears the spotlight, because being the hero means you get the credit for something God did. If you love the thunder of applause, you'd better take off those boxing gloves and leave the battle to the Lord. (It's His anyway.)
"For where jealousy and self-ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing." I wish that this could be printed and handed out at every business meeting.
You may be balking at this, imagining a milquetoast Christian silent in the face of heresy. Not at all. Verse seventeen makes clear our priority--"wisdom from above is first pure." There can be no truth without purity, and it is the pure, undefiled Word of God that exemplifies holy wisdom. But let us not forget the rest of the list: "peacable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy, unwavering, without hypocrisy." Fundamentalism's strength is its purity, but at what cost? It's weakness comprises the remaining list items. And notice that the scurrilous traitor reason is on there as well, so lets not be too hasty to pull the trigger.
Please realize that I'm speaking in broad strokes about some dangerous traits the fundamentalist movement as a whole has taken. Not every fundamentalist is anti-reason and liberalism itself is a formidable foe (an essay for another day). But this knee-jerk reaction to rationalism by fundamentalism has torn some important tendons, and as a fledgling fundamentalist who holds dearly to God's Word, I'm urging fundamentalists to admit the injury and bandage the knee. It's the only way healing can occur.
InterAction:
24 July 20052. Dad G:
I have many thoughts, but little time at present, but one point expressed here especially caught my attention.
Jesse, I don't understand the dichotomy you and dramaturge have expressed between doctrine and practice. While a diversity of practices may arise from a Bible doctrine, shouldn't all our practices be tested against the Scriptures - our rule of faith AND practice?
Is it possible that at least some of the arguments about practice that arise among fundamentalists arise precisely because they consider the theological implications behind the practices? I suspect that many fundamentalists see themselves as "earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints" where it matters most - in what we do.
There is no doubt that many people, including our hypothetical fundamentalist, can be irrational, rock-ribbed and rude. And I wholeheartedly agree that this is pointless and unchristian. It neither strengthens our claims nor woos our detractors.
Nevertheless, I think every practice manifests a belief and good practices arise from good doctrine.
Dad
24 July 20053. jon:
or perhaps practice just is...
All of life must be held acountable to the Word. However, there is such a broad table that the Word covers. So much interpratation - practice, in that setting becomes almost as un-accountable as doctrine without reason.
24 July 20054. JDG:
Thanks for the great response! I would be a lazy thinker without you, dad.
I do agree with you. All of these things--music, Bible versions, dress code--are important in that they reflect a belief system. All practice stems from some belief system, whether it's the belief that God wants you just the way you are and you wear jeans to church because of it, or you believe that today's culture is beyond repair and you don't actively witness to others.
So we can talk about separating over doctrine, but doctrine is inextricably tied in with practice, making this whole issue of 'taking a stand' a messy one at best. What I was trying to suggest with my original post was that we demonstrate godly wisdom by our gentleness, and it seems as though drawing the line between doctrine and practice is a necessity if we are going to figure out where to apply heat and where to agree to disagree.
It might be best if we continue our discussion at the SharperIron website, where I originally posted this:
25 July 20055. JDG:
A friend of mine questioned my villification of liberalism in this post, so I think I need to clarify for the sake of the general readership. When I speak of liberalism (in this context), I'm not talking about political liberalism but the religious modernism imported to this country in the 1940's from the German Rationalist movement. In my research about Machen, one critique rightly stated it would have been more appropriate if he had titled his book 'Christianity and Modernism' instead of 'Christianity and Liberalism' because liberalism does carry with it so many other connotations.
25 July 20056. dramaturge:
I didn't mean to imply that practice is in some way divorced from doctrine. The problem I find is that practice (which is an application of docrtine) is treated as though it were doctrine. For example: (because it's fun) women wearing pants. The practice of women not wearing pants is based on the doctrine that women (and men) should dress modestly as women (and men). But so is the practice of women wearing pants. Both practices are applications of "dress modestly" in varying degrees. BUT neither practice is a doctrine based on explicit scripture. Therefore, to argue over it with the vehemence with which one would argue over an explicit scripture (Christ is divine, for example) is unwise and certainly not loving to the brethren. It isn't really a matter of dichotomy, but of degrees.
25 July 20057. JDG:
Actually, Renee, the pants argument is usually not modesty, it's distinction, though I see your point.
26 July 20058. xpressioncr:
Wow, this is a good one.
Dharma and Dogma are at it again.
The problem with all of this is that the most viable reason for "fundamentalist" action is fear--the fear of change or the unknown. Now notice the quotation marks around the word "fundamentalist." I fully hold to the "the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of His miracles." But, I would bounce twice as my butt made it to the curb in most "fundamentalist" churches.
Renee said it best when she wrote about turning interpretations of doctrines, or scriptural blurbs (or for that matter, church traditions) into points that are argued with equal vehemence to the proclamation of the 5 listed above. What have we done when that occurs? We have allowed our interpretation of the scriptures (which is most definitely flawed) to become equally reputable with the inerrancy of scripture...and by my 5 true fundamentals, that would be heretical.
Ideas about scripture translations (which are, either side of the coin, based upon scholarly research into the texts available) mutates “the inerrancy of the Bible” to “the inerrancy of a group of texts leading to a translation of the Bible.” Which somehow damages God’s hand as he graciously preserves scripture for us.
Ideas about music are drawn from hundreds of passages that lead to hundreds of differing opinion…best of luck doing what the Spirit is leading you to do with those passages.
I have heard a sermon called “Witches Wear Britches,” which draw from scriptures about Gender distinction and rebellion to say that wearing pants is equal to witchcraft.
I have heard fervent calls to repentance because parents have allowed their sons to learn to play the piano and cook and have not pressured them to play football—and this for the afore mentioned gender distinctions.
I have read pamphlets targeting vegetarianism as equal to the occult along with Karate and other martial arts.
And above all is the greatest fundamental doctrine of all…the greatest sin is to question anything said to you by the one who is your “Spiritual Authority.” “Don’t touch God’s anointed.”
If one is to be fundamental, be fundamental. And, if one is to be non-progressive, be non-progressive. But, for the sake of those of us who hold to the fundamental doctrines, and are progressive in our faith (the two can cohabitate) don’t mistake the two positions. There are big differences between fundamentalism, traditionalism, and non-progressivism. The first is Biblical, the second two (although possibly derived by the first) are preferential.
26 July 20059. JDG:
Good post Chris, though I think you're oversimplifying a very complex issue. It's easy to say that we should stand by doctrine and let the practice chips fall where they may, but keep in mind what was stated earlier--doctrine and practice do go hand in hand.
Using your logic, I could argue that Jesus Christ said that love was the most important thing, therefore the only thing that is worth fighting for is love, all else being preferential. You're clinging to these fundamentals like the virgin birth, which happens to draw most of its importance from passages alot more obscure than gender distinctions (such as the curse of Jeconiah, the legal requirements for a Jewish king, bypassing a sin nature, etc.), when in reality they are just interpretations you are drawing based on passages of Scripture.
I know many people who would argue you on all five points (using Scripture) but would still consider themselves a Christian. You said, "we have allowed our interpretation of the scriptures (which is most definitely flawed) to become equally reputable with the inerrancy of scripture..." Would you not admit that the five "fundamentals" are just interpretations of Scripture?
See, the ultimate problem is that even subtle nuances of practice stem from beliefs derived from Scripture. On the SharperIron forums, Andy Rupert gives this example, "One of the ideas that some have presented is that dress expresses one's view of God. With that mindset, casual dress could lead to casual worship, etc. While that may not be true, it is what some are thinking."
Everything that we do ties back to a bigger worldview, so something that may seem inconsequential to you is being considered by others as part of something much bigger. Not only that, but if the Scripture makes something clear that isn't in the big 5 grocery list does it suddenly become preferential? Because the Scripture is a little hazy about music, should we assume that all is fair game and pretend like "God don't care"?
Important questions I think.
26 July 200510. xpressionccr:
I hope you do not think that I am trivializing anyones standards...that is all good...however they want to play out that belief...I will leave that to God and them. I must take care of myself, and as I do, I must be careful not super impose the positions that God has given me on standards or practices upon those who are lead otherwise. Yes, i do believe in the fundamentals of the faith. And I believe that there is much more importance in the idea of how Christ's person is fragmentalized by the assumption of a non-virgin birth than arguments about what I think distinguishes between male and female clothing...is it color, style length, personality, social-prescription...If I wear what our patriarchs wore, I am in a skirt.
I do not think that God doesn't care...but I believe whole-heartedly that he seeks out hearts first....You said it first, (actually HE did) "spirit and truth." I agree with you on this on Jesse. I really do.
28 July 200511. dramaturge:
[B]Actually, Renee, the pants argument is usually not modesty, it's distinction, though I see your point.[/B]
around here it's rather both. and the distinction argument would take too long to deal with, so i went for the simpler one.
28 July 200512. dramaturge:
[B]Actually, Renee, the pants argument is usually not modesty, it's distinction, though I see your point.[/B]
around here it's rather both. and the distinction argument would take too long to deal with, so i went for the simpler one.
24 March 200713. xiaoxinwow:
FFXI GIL
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... ffxi gil buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Cheap WOW Gold ...
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ...
ffxi gil wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...
We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...
Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store ...
YourThoughts?
(Minutia)
This entry was written by Jesse on Saturday, July 23, 2005 at 9:00 AM and appears in the Savior chapter. The previous article was entitled, "Merging Into Traffic", and the next entry is called, "PlasticMind Hosting: Take 1". Bookmark the permalink, save it to del.icio.us or Digg it.
GetUpdated
ElseWhere
AllChapters
- 50 articles in the chapter 0's and 1's
- 34 articles in the chapter America
- 54 articles in the chapter Blogging
- 34 articles in the chapter Ears
- 35 articles in the chapter Eyes
- 18 articles in the chapter Family Ties
- 18 articles in the chapter Friends
- 3 articles in the chapter Great-Grandmother
- 58 articles in the chapter Heart
- 4 articles in the chapter Intercessional
- 61 articles in the chapter Journeys
- 44 articles in the chapter Kicks and Giggles
- 47 articles in the chapter Mind
- 28 articles in the chapter Miscellany
- 16 articles in the chapter Movies
- 2 articles in the chapter Podcasts
- 30 articles in the chapter Retrospection
- 63 articles in the chapter Savior
- 2 articles in the chapter Tech Tips
- 32 articles in the chapter The Pen
- 6 articles in the chapter Wedding/Honeymoon
- 19 articles in the chapter World
BiteSize.journal
ReaderFavorites
- The Mosquito Tone Test
- The Girl And The Boy: An Engagement Story
- A Farewell Letter
- Would Jesus Have Cared About The Cake?
- 10 Signs of a Jesus Follower
- Erego Ergo Sum (I Pay, Therefore I Am)
- A Libertarian View of Pensacola Christian College
- Situational Ethics
- Rich White People
- Fundamentalism and the Gentleness of Wisdom
23 July 20051. dramaturge:
Preach it, Jesse. The biggest arguments in the church occur because too many fundamentalists see matters of practice as doctrinal issues. Sigh. And while they bicker, reason gets tossed in the ditch in favor of heated repetition of statements. God is Supremely Reasonable--we are to worship in spirit and truth. too often there's too much spirit and not enough truth.