Ashamed of the Gospel: The Charge of “Fundamentalism”

Shame is an excellent tool to silence opposition, and Pope Francis knows how to use it, charging “fundamentalism” to silence theological consideration.

On September 16, 2015, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) wrote:

·       Religious fundamentalism keeps God at a distance, and keeps believers from building bridges with others, Pope Francis reflected on Sunday during a radio interview.

That’s odd! I thought that God wanted us to believe certain fundamentals of the faith like:

·       "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:16-17)

Aren’t we supposed to be assured by the fundamental truth that Christ died for our sins and, on the basis of this, to know that we have peace with God? However, it seems that, according to Francis, this fundamental truth would “divert [our] minds from him”:

·       “Our God is a God who is close, who accompanies. Fundamentalists keep God away from accompanying his people, they divert their minds from him and transform him into an ideology. So in the name of this ideological god, they kill, they attack, destroy, slander. Practically speaking, they transform that God into a Baal, an idol.”

I had no idea that this fundamental truth would “keep God away!” However, it is this truth coupled with the truth of my utter unworthiness that draws me lovingly to those I would ordinarily hate. (Okay, I have much more growing to do in the area of love.)

I am therefore mystified that, according to the CNA:

·       The Pope said that no religion is immune from the possibility of fundamentalism. He said fundamentalism, instead of creating a bridge, creates a wall that blocks encounter with another person. It seeks ways to disagree. With fundamentalism, he said, “you can’t have friendship between peoples.”

Instead, it is these Christian fundamentals that shoot down my arrogance, belief in my entitlement, and humble me to follow Jesus. It is these truths that have motivated me to reach out in friendship and to forgive those who hurt me. Why? Because of another fundamental – I must forgive as I have been forgiven.

Instead, it matters what fundamentals are embraced. If “world conquest” is the fundamental, this will have a stifling effect upon friendship. Also, if “violent socialistic revolution” is the fundamental or ideal, then chaos and destruction is guaranteed.

However, if love and justice are our fundamentals, we can expect better fruit and the blessings of God.

It is worthy of note that Francis has his own fundamentals. Here are some of his sayings:

·       "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

·       "A Christian who does not protect creation, who does not let it grow, is a Christian who does not care about the work of God; that work that was born from the love of God for us. And this is the first response to the first creation: protect creation, make it grow."

·       "God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

·       "The 'big bang,' that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God, on the contrary it requires it."

·       "This is playing with life. Beware, because this is a sin against the creator," he said, denouncing euthanasia as a "false sense of compassion" in November. The comments came on the heels of Brittany Maynard's advocacy efforts to die with dignity, but he did not address her death specifically.

·       As bishops ended a two-week conference in October by rejecting landmark wording that would soften the church's stance toward homosexuality and divorce, Pope Francis said: "God is not afraid of new things" and called on the church to adapt to "changing conditions in society."

Clearly, Francis has his own fundamental beliefs, and he is entitled to them. However, it does not seem that he extends this same courtesy to others. This disguised intolerance for the theology or fundamentals of others is also apparent in certain New Age thinkers.

Eckhart Tolle, Oprah Winfrey’s New Age guru, raises Francis’ objection:

• “If you go deep enough in your religion, then you all get to the same place It’s a question of going deeper, so there’s no conflict here. The important thing is that religion doesn’t become an ideology…the moment you say 'only my belief' or 'our belief' is true, and you deny other people’s beliefs, then you’ve adopted an ideology [theology or fundamental]. And then religion becomes a closed door.”

Everyone has their ideology, even Tolle. He too is a fundamentalist! His ideology is mystical and experiential as opposed to rational. His ideology excludes no less than the ideology of the Ayatollah. He even obliquely appeals to his own ideology to defend his fundamentals.

We are all fundamentalists. Instead, the question should be, “Do I have a theology or fundamentals that accords with reality, justice, and love?” Francis has been pushing an anti-capitalistic, pro-socialistic fundamental and castigates the church for not following suit.

However, the church has many reasons to question the implementation of more entitlement programs in the place of biblical interventions.

Charles White, professor of Christian Thought and History at Spring Arbor University, writes about one biblical intervention:

• The Methodists made such an impact on their nation that in 1962 historian Elie Halevy theorized that the Wesleyan revival created England’s middle class and saved England from the kind of bloody revolution that crippled France. Other historians, building on his work, go further to suggest that God used Methodism to show all the oppressed peoples of the world that feeding their souls on the heavenly bread of the lordship of Christ is the path to providing the daily bread their bodies also need. (Mission Frontiers, Sept-Oct 2011, 6)

• Coming to Christ through the Methodist movement changed the loves of a million people in Britain and North American in the eighteenth century….most of these people and their children moved from the desperation of hand-to mouth poverty to the security of middle-class life as they made Christ their Lord and experienced the impact of His power on their economic lives. As these people moved up the social ladder, they began to influence the political life of their nation. They helped to transform Britain from an eighteenth-century kleptocracy – where the powerful fueled their lives of indulgence by exploiting the poor into a nineteenth century democracy – which abolished slavery and used its empire to enrich the lives of every subject of the crown. (9)

Before this glorious movement of the Spirit, England had been in turmoil. White explains:

• The police were also overwhelmed by the fighting and killing of the mob. The law executed people for 169 capital crimes, but the regular march to the gallows did nothing to make the streets safe at night. Sexual immorality was common at all levels of society, and the nation was overwhelmed with illegitimate children. (7)

What made the difference? Wesley formed people into small groups where they would pray, confess their sins, and pledge to follow Christ in all His teachings or fundamentals (Matthew 28:19-20)! No mention was ever made of entitlement programs.

According to God’s revelation to the Prophet Jeremiah, the fundamentals of biblical instruction are essential – the one thing that is worthy of boasting:

• This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

According to the Apostle Peter, the knowledge of the fundamentals is the basis for all forms of blessing:

• Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2-3)

Let us therefore not be ashamed when others attempt to shame us as “fundamentalists.”

Are “Fundamentalists” all the same?

My Response to a Progressive Christian who opposes criticism of Islam:

Thanks again for your willingness to cross the isle to engage in substantive dialogue. You wrote:

•  “What you're writing is that reading the Quran literally always leads to the sort of extremism that is causing so much harm.”

Just about always! However, as you correctly point out, there are also peaceable verses in the Koran. However, the imams – the teachers – correctly understand that these were the earlier verses given before Muhammad had an army, and these have been replaced by the jihadic verses. Therefore, all of the Western commentators that I know of observe that as Muslims get deeper into their holy writings, they become more radicalized.

•  “Reading the Bible literally, fundamentalist Christians have pushed for the teaching of the Creation story in science classes instead of evolution, justified the prejudice and discrimination of gays and lesbians…”

I certainly grant you some of this, but I don’t see how you can compare legitimate political democratic persuasion to Islamic rape, kidnapping and genocide!

As I tried to argue before, perhaps without sufficient clarity, we are all fundamentalistic about certain things. You are fundamentalistic against extremism and violence, as you should be. I would also assume that the principles of justice and love are also fundamental non-negotiables for you.

Admittedly, we derive our values from the Bible. However, is the source for your values any more trustworthy than ours? And what if the Bible is actually God’s Word, as many of us believe? Shouldn’t we devote ourselves to it?

You will probably point out that the Muslims also believe that their own holy writings are God’s Words. Of course, this is a critical issue. Has God spoken to humanity, and are there ways to know this? I think that there are many ways – both subjection and objective (miracles, fulfilled prophecy, changed lives/societies, internal and external consistency…).

•  “A literal interpretation of any holy book … naturally leads to an extremism that you find in fundamentalist Islam and in fundamentalist Christianity.”

“Literal” is not an accurate word. Instead, we try to interpret the Bible as it was intended to be understood. Some of it is highly figurative and some isn’t. More importantly, it depends on what one is fundamentalistic about. As a Christian, I follow the New Testament, which teaches me to put the needs of the other before my own. Although I fail badly at this – and this continues to humble me – I trust that the Lord forgives me and is delighted when I get off my butt and reassert myself to love others.

Love also demands that I cry out about the victimization of the innocent. In our world, the vast majority of these are Christians, as the jacket of “The Global War on Christians” by CNN writer John L. Allen Jr. states:

• From Iraq and Egypt to Sudan and Nigeria, from Indonesia to the Indian subcontinent, Christians in the early twenty-first century are the world’s most persecuted religious group. According to the secular International Society for Human Rights, 80 percent of violations of religious freedom in the world today are directed against Christians.

Allen writes:

•  “The Open Doors” estimate, based on decades of tracking the realities of persecution in some of the darkest corners of the earth, is that roughly one hundred million Christians today suffer interrogation, arrest, and even death for their faith, with the bulk located in Asia and the Middle East. The overall total makes Christians the most at-risk group for violations of religious freedom. (37)

I would love to turn my back on these painful realities, but I cannot. I also fail to understand how others who call themselves “Christian” can be so dismissive of these realities.

If you Believe in Biblical Fundamentals, you are Mentally Ill!

Every day seems to bring us closer to the implementation of one State religion - a monolithic secular one. Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, said that soon society will be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness. She informed The Times of London:

• "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated. Someone who has for example become radicalized to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance."

We are progressing quickly from a high regard for religious conviction – even from the view that it’s essential for democracy - and the First Amendment guarantees to religion as a form of mental illness. And if we are mentally ill and deemed destructive to society – already, we are demeaned as “bigots,” “haters,” and those who deprive others of their civil rights – then why not medicate us, forcibly treat our mental disease, or just put us away as the media has already done!

This raises an interesting question: “Who is to decide who’s mentally ill?” If the Democrats decide, then it is the Republicans who are mentally ill and need to be silenced. If the gays are to decide, then everyone who is opposed to their agenda is mentally ill. If the atheists are to decide, then all people of a traditional religion are mentally ill.

Taylor is not limiting her comments to Jihadists:

• "I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness. In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm."

We are becoming very intolerant even as we pride ourselves as the quintessence of tolerance. Are these beliefs really “very harmful?” Taylor is not simply talking about parents who send their kids to the hospital, but of any corporal punishment. In contrast, many express thanks to their parents for the firm discipline – even a good whack to the butt – they received.

Perhaps Taylor might have a case if she could statistically demonstrate how the termination of school corporal punishment has produced better schools and students, but she can’t. What then does she base her “very harmful” assessment on? Perhaps nothing more than the permissive, secular religion of today!

Dialogue with a Gay Pastor Friend: Scripture must Remain Preeminent

My response (below) continues an on-going dialogue. To see it in its entirely, please go to David’s blog or to my blog.

David,

Thanks for your predictably thoughtful response. This was my favorite line:

• Treat us [gays] as an anthropological challenge! Better than treating your friends like a condemned herd of goats.

I must say I certainty appreciate that you don’t call me a “bigot” or a “hate-monger” as so many do. I’m glad that we can cut through all of the degrading labels and jargon.

There is some truth that I treat you as “condemned.” (And, on one level, I deeply regret this!) But I know that you realize that we are convinced that God regards everyone who refuses to repent of their sins as condemned (John 3:18). And I think that you also understand that, for us, it would represent the supreme cruelty to extend a false hope of salvation to someone who refuses to repent.

To deal with your first sentence: I am not free to assess the gay lifestyle from strictly a pragmatic assessment - an “anthropological study.” Fundamentally, I am mandated to regard this lifestyle through the lens of Scripture. If I am a disciple of Christ, I have no choice but to submit to His Word – all Scripture. And this unequivocally informs me that gay sex is wrong.

While we both agree that our interpretations of Scripture are highly vulnerable to our psychological and cultural baggage – and a lot of it we can’t seem to shed – this awareness has warned me to take greater care. Although I may never be perfectly objective, I do think that it is possible to “achieve” a high degree of objectivity (or perhaps I should say, “receive”) and certainty about many of our interpretations.

In contrast to the Christian understanding of the centrality and authority of Scripture, you exalt “experience” and “faith” in your experience. You write:

• Scripture and theology only provide the categories that such experience takes on.  If we deny our experience in the service of abstract argument, we risk becoming eventually soulless.

Consequently, you make your experience more authoritative than Scripture. For those who reject Scripture, this is certainly understandable. However, you call yourself a “Christian” and even a pastor – a shepherd. However, Jesus had affirmed the supremacy of His Word in many ways:

• If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you…If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. (John 15:7, 10)

In addition to this problem, you face other difficulties. Experience does not speak on its own. It too requires interpretations before it can say anything. You have argued that a fulfilled gay relationship proves that it is a good thing. However, many claim the same thing about their adulterous relationships or even their “Bonnie and Clyde” lifestyle. Are these too therefore good?

Morality can be difficult to assess using pragmatic measures. Often, sexual relationships start out with a flurry of good feelings. Do these temporary feelings mean that it is the right thing? The adulterer often claims that his lover is the “love of his life,” while his four children are waiting for him at home.

Even more fundamentally, do good feelings always equate with the right thing to do? Often the right thing to do is to do the emotionally costly thing, like being a whistle-blower. In short, we are easily led astray by our feelings.

Besides, if you want to evaluate the gay lifestyle on the basis of experience, you also have to look at the frightful stats. They consistently reveal that this lifestyle is fraught with great costs – suicide, depression, substance abuse, STDs, and a greatly shortened life-span. If you want me to do an “anthropological study,” I cannot disregard these costs.

   

You conclude that,

• Fundamentalists [that’s me!] are idolaters, mistaking the letter for the spirit of the scripture.

If we are making an idol of God’s Word, then aren’t you making an idol of your experience and feelings? It cuts both ways. However, if God is our supreme worship, then His Word must provide the guidance.

Wahhabism, Koran, Israel and Fundamentalism

Are all fundamentalists made of the same wool? The Jewish Voice (Jan. 2010) reports about a Sheik Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi who teaches that “the land of Israel belongs to the Jews.” How refreshing! Instead of equating Israel with Satan, Palazzi claims that the real culprit behind the hatred and warfare is Saudi Arabia, which has “funneled huge sums of money to extremist Islamist institutions”:

• “The Saudi brand of Wahhabi Islam has distorted the real Islam and must be stopped.”

• “Wahhabism is a totalitarian cult which stands for terror, the massacre of civilians, the permanent war against Jews, Christians, and non-Wahhabi Muslims. The influence of Wahhabism in the contemporary Arab world is such that many Arab Muslims are wrongly convinced that, in order to be a good Muslim, one must hate Israel and hope for its destruction.”

• “Israel exists by Divine Right, confirmed in both Bible and Koran.”

• “As a Muslim who abides by the Qu’ran, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree.”

Palazzi cites Sura 5.21 in support of his position:

• “O my people [Israel]! enter the holy land which Allah has prescribed for you and turn not on your backs for then you will turn back losers.” (He also cites Sura 17:104, which he claims teaches that Allah will bring the Jews back to their rightful home!)

How popular is Palazzi’s message in the Muslim world? Let’s not be blind to the fact that there is another, less irenic side to Koranic teaching that seems to always trump the peaceable Suras:

• [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

• [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

• [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

• [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

If only Muslims would take these Suras figuratively, but it is clear that many don’t! For instance, the highly esteemed The Khan Noble Koran comments on Sura 47:4:

• “Then Allah revealed the order to discard the obligations [imposed by earlier Suras] and commanded Muslims to fight against the Mushrikun (Polytheists and Trinitarians) as well as against the people of the Scriptures of they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. At first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory against them that start the fight against you and against all those who worship others along with Allah (Trinitarians).”

Even in view of these chilling revelations, many modern commentators throw all fundamentalists into the same Jihadist bag, citing the Biblical mass annihilations ordered by Jehovah. However, there are critical differences between what we encounter in the Bible and what we find in the Koran. While the Koran issues standing orders to fight “against all those who worship others along with Allah,” in the Bible, God orders specific instructions for a particular time and place – for the protection of the theocratic State of Israel. Nowhere had Israel been given a blank check to annihilate unbelievers. Instead, these battles were ordered as God’s holy judgment, and not according to our human assessment of who deserves it. It is like the difference between a court of law and a lynch mob.

Now, in Christ and His New Covenant, we no longer need to remove the heathens from our midst in order to protect our faith. Instead, we are directed to lovingly go out among them, for our God is with us! This is Christian fundamentalism – light-years away from other brands!