I Cogitate

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact
April 11, 2005

Will Fundamentalism Change?


Maybe more importantly, can fundamentalism change? What will prompt such?

The following Linden McNeilly article in April 9, 2005 edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel explores this subject. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Following the road
Sanctuary at Garfield Park Christian Church challenges fundamentalism

Editor’s note: Post-election news coverage may give the impression that the country’s churches are ever-growing and increasingly powerful. But beneath the surface, trouble is brewing in many mainline churches, and local pastors are responding to the need for change. This situation has stirred mainline Protestant churches — the Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians — and drawn increased attention to religiously conservative nondenominational Christian fellowships.

By LINDEN McNEILLY
SENTINEL CORRESPONDENT

True or false? Fundamentalism is closer to early Christianity than progressive churches supporting modern social ideas.

The Rev. Steve’s answer: Decidedly false.

The Rev. Steve DeFields-Gambrel of Sanctuary at Garfield Park Christian Church in Santa Cruz objects to the notion that fundamentalism is somehow more faithful or biblical than progressive Christianity. To that end he has been giving sermons and leading weekly Bible studies classes entitled, "How Fundamentalism Betrays the Bible."

"My goal is to retake the high ground of biblical study. I’d like to demonstrate that a more progressive approach is in fact a more biblical, historical and even a more reverential approach to Scripture, as well as a more demanding route," he says.

Jesus was all about reflection and change, says DeFields-Gambrel. "If you’re convinced that the Scriptures must always agree and can never be changed, then you just can’t hear what Jesus is saying. This is why Jesus had an ongoing battle with the Pharisees. They couldn’t hear God asking them to take new steps in faith. The failure of the Pharisees and the failure of Christian fundamentalism is an unwillingness to keep growing, to keep maturing in faith, because that means change."

Though the label smacks of ancient roots, Christian fundamentalism is relatively recent. It began at the turn of the 20th century as a reaction to popular acceptance of scientific ideas such as evolution and the theory of relativity.

The basic doctrines of fundamentalism are the literal truth of the Bible, belief in the Father-Son-Holy Spirit trinity, belief that every man and woman is born sinful and requires God’s grace, and an acceptance of Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven before Judgment Day.

DeFields-Gambrel believes fundamentalism inevitably results in a harsh, unloving religion, just the opposite of what Jesus intended. Jesus contradicted the Old Testament plenty, he says.

"In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says he’s not here to abolish the law or the prophets, but six times in a row he revises them," he maintains. "Jesus says, ‘You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." ’ That totally reverses both Psalms 139:21-22 and Leviticus 19:18."

Since early Christianity was a grass-roots movement, it spread by word of mouth and personal experience. There was no organized church, formal doctrine or text for several hundred years after Jesus died.

The New Testament was still being amended until 375, by which time it had been formally canonized by religious authorities. Since then it has been translated, adapted and rephrased.

"The scary thing about canonizing is that it was done by committee," says DeFields-Gambrel. "Nowadays we don’t respect many things done by committee."

Fundamentalist Christians take exception to the notion of a changing faith. On the Christian Web site, "The Gospel Way," David E. Pratte, a gospel preacher with the church of Christ in Round Lake Beach, Ill., says "There is no middle ground. We must accept the Bible as exactly what it claims to be: God’s verbally inspired and infallible word. Or else we must reject it completely and give it no weight of authority in our lives at all."
Yes, there is truth to the snootiness of some non-believers but is there any less 'holier than thou-ness' emanating from some of the believers? It is a knife that cuts both ways.

Accurately or not, the fundamental non-secularists were lauded for tipping the recent presidential election to George Bush and the mainstream media gorged on the electoral results, resulting in a litany of articles and commentaries, castigating both individuals possessing a private religious persona
but especially secularists,with a one word message: change. A complex electoral issue was simply dumbed down to this prescription: quote Scripture and always wear your religion on your sleeve.

But it seems that for many, becoming a Christian (or for that matter any religious faith) eliminates any further questioning, which inhabits further spiritual and personal growth. With apologies to Paul Simon and "Me And Julio Down By The Schoolyard," and with one very important word deleted from his lyrics: "...I'm on my way, I (don't) know where I'm going..." is the spiritual end-all be-all.

The by now famous line: 'with us or agin' us' uttered by President Bush addressing supporting or fighting terrorism is a primordial example of this black-and-white, no- nuance-allowed, line drawn in the sand, way of thinking.

It's closure comfortable for some but a 'don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts' religious/political/social mindset is indefensible.

My question to those Christians who feel called out here: what would have happened if each inhabitant of the Roman Empire evidenced a similar reaction to Jesus and his claims that you do to anything that questions your mindset?

top

RSS feed link RSS feed

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact