Tom, I would love to hear more about your path from fundamentalism to where you are today. And most of all what caused you to change.

Nicely put, Tom.

It would be fun to do a rhetorical comparison sometime of the two different kinds of fundamentalist.

Tom,

Extremely well stated.  As you know this is a big concern I have. The brand of fundamentalism you describes seems to find people who carry an unusually high anxiety burden concerning the world we live in. In some cases this fundamentalist point of view can be present among clergy who find the pressures and complexities of pastoring almost too much to bear. Instead of seeking a wider perspective they retreat into a very narrow black and white understanding of the world that allows them to simplify matters. And in some cases, they impose this point of view on others from the pulpit.

I think we all have to experience a conversion of sorts away from fundamentalism.  Actually, Fowler’s faith development model suggests such a movement.

Nonetheless, the real danger of fundamentalism occurs when someone declares.. “I have the right to tell you what the truth is and what error is, listen to me and you won’t go wrong.  After all, I am the final arbiter of truth and the Bible is on my side.” Claims of this nature are often followed by exclusive calls to follow the true faith filled with ominous warnings of coming wrath and judgment if you don’t.

Anyway, thanks for addressing this issue.  I’m interested in comments on this topic.

Some interesting thoughts Dr. Oord.  Something that gives me pause in your discussion is the lack of a definition for the word “inerrancy”.  Since you offered no definition for the term, I am left with my own which places us at odds since we would not share an understanding of that term—which seems to have some cachet in many circles even within our own denomination.  I understand you disagree with the “fundamentalist’s” definition of inerrancy, as do I, but is theirs really the only viable definition (I think not).

I also struggle with scientific fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists when their belief systems seems to commit suicide (if not self immolation) if dissected.  The scientific fundamentalist claims that empirical science is the only viable method for determining “truth”.  Yet, this claim itself is not capable of being supported by empirical science.  Science, devoid of its philosophical basis, is unable to hold any epistemological ground. 

Likewise, the Christian fundamentalist who proclaims “Sola Scriptura” ignores the historical basis for our accepted scripture.  While it would be easy to over emphasize the role that various bodies such as the Council of Carthage had in defining canon, the role of the church in recognizing scripture cannot be completely dismissed either.  If one too thoroughly asserts that only scripture provides revelation of and from God, then we completely negate the work of the Holy Spirit both individually and communally.  And that position seems as untenable as the position of empirical science alone. 

Just some thoughts from a still somewhat hard-headed sometimes former sometimes still fundamentalist…  Just depends on which fundamentalism we are talking about…

Tom:

Thanks for your comments…they represent the best approach to deal with both kinds of fundamentalists.

I confess that I do not share the same hope you do, however. The conversion of a fundamentalist to a more open, yet still passionate Christ-follower, is extremely rare. My experience over almost 6 decades in the evangelical church have drained that hope for me.

Fundamentalism, as you describe it, is armored by a belief system that allows it to exhibit the most abhorrent and internally inconsistent characteristics possible…all the while dismissing them as non-existent in themselves while being pronounced in all who disagree.

Fundamentalists of both kinds, religious and scientific, commit the gross sin of placing their own God before the true God—and neither one can or will see that fact.

Keep up the good fight, however. Even small wins are good ones!

Chuck

I concur with your view on these two streams of fundamentalism. And yes science and ignores one of the biggest themes the world has to offer. Love! 1 Cor. 13
Still it tries to cover this with any means necessary to convert people from the “awful Christian religion”...

Tom,

I appreciate your discussion of scientific fundamentalism. They are much the same, and your thoughts can help frame a discussion.

The arguments for or against ‘global warming’ seem to fit this topic. What is considered valid evidence for or against is based largely on one’s predisposition going into the discussion.

And, as I am a former “fundie” myself, there is hope. However, there are people that used to be in the camp in which I now reside, that have vacated to another camp. We can pray for them, but they are praying for us too.

Okay, I’m not the prolific blogger like Tom, but a few months back I blogged about fundamentalism and how humility not arrogance addresses these issues. My article was based on some material from Earl Creps.  Here is the short-link: http://wp.me/pCVKA-c

As a casualty of the “Battle for the Bible”, I have some observations about the “definition” of inerrancy.  I appreciate the passion and desire that I find in those who want to use the term “inerrant” for the Bible.  They have a valid concern about taking the Bible seriously.  Some who use “inerrant” have discovered that the term is not completely appropriate but still want to use the term.  This task is many times accomplished by a re-definition of the term or by changing the object to which it applies.

I think this is a mistake.  The plain simple definition of inerrant is “free from error”

You may define inerrancy differently.  So be it.  If so, the average layman deserves to know the facts that contradict the plain, clear definition of “inerrant”.

Some of the facts are:

1.    Mankind possesses approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts that contain part or all of the New Testament, approximately 10,000 Latin manuscripts that contain part or all of the New Testament, and approximately 9,300 manuscripts in other ancient languages.  None of these manuscripts say exactly the same thing.
2.  There are somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 variations in these manuscripts.  There are more variations than there are words in the New Testament.
3.  There have been many accidental copying mistakes and there have been intentional additions, deletions, and changes to the written words by both church members and professional scribes.  Many of the intentional additions, deletions, and changes were theologically motivated.
4.  While the New Testament was largely written in the first century A.D., the oldest manuscript that we have that only contains parts of the New Testament comes from around 200 A.D.
5.  No human alive today has seen the original of the books of the Bible, nor knows EXACTLY, without out any error, what words were in them.

If in the face of these facts, you still contend that the Bible is inerrant. So be it.  However, preaching “inerrancy” when the average layman will think that “inerrancy” means “free from error” is misleading.

Once these facts are faced, some will claim that the “original autographs” are inerrant.  This claim seems to me to be irrelevant.  Who has the “original autographs”?  Who has seen them?  Who can read them?  To claim that the Scriptures are “inerrant” when you are really talking about something that we do not have is misleading to the average laymen who only has one of the modern English translations in his hand to read.  So all the textual critics make no mistakes?  The translators make no mistakes?  The readers make no mistakes?  The preachers make no mistakes?  Your understanding of the Scriptures has no mistakes?  Even if we had Scriptures without errors, by the time we got done translating, reading, preaching, and understanding, there would be plenty of errors.

So, the claim of inerrancy for the Scriptures is misleading.  It is also inappropriate.  A description of “free from error” is not appropriate to apply to the wide diversity of literary types that are in the Scriptures, types that include poetry, narrative, parables, prophecy, apocalyptic, and history.  The description of “free from error” is sterile, rationalistic, and exacting.  It is more applicable to some sciences and mathematics.  It is inappropriate to apply it to literature that is so passionate, so full of life, and so applicable to the very heart and soul of man.  “Inerrant”, a very misleading, irrelevant, and inappropriate description that seems to imply a pedestrian and low view of Scripture.

Lets stop using the term “inerrant”.

Respectfully,
Grace and Peace
In God and Jesus Christ

Very interesting article.  Fundamentalism does seem more natural than philisophical thought; when belief is rigid and axiomatic, and those axioms cover “relevant” experiences, it is easy to keep one’s mind petrified in the comfort of percieved success.  This raises the question; “what are the thresholds of fundamentalism?”, i.e. when does one cease to have a fundamentalistic epistemology?  Can one have strong epistemic claims without appealing to the superiority of a certain epistemology?

I agree that when people of opposing views clash, that there has to be some guidelines followed, at least for someone who is a professing Christian. To keep a scientific fundamentalist from completely discrediting someone from someone who holds another view point, that person should be able to have a humble attitude and be intelligent on at least his own position, and hopefully able to understand and respond to the fundamentalist’s arguments. It does no good to fake knowledge in a subject and in an attempt to not “lose” the argument, fall on the Bible as the final and only source of truth.

This blog seems to be about a how to deal with people who claim to know everything. Whether that is to know everything through science (scientific fundamentalism), or special revelation (Christian fundamentalism). I can see how you would have a problem with both. It does seem that both science and religion have a portion of Truth, but not the whole picture.

What I am wondering is how your view deals with peoples’ accusations of your theory being a “know-it-all” theory? I can see how some people may say that just by saying that, ” both science and religion encompass Truth” does not solve the problem brought up by the fundamentalists’ narrow view of truth.  It just seems to move it back one step.

Tom-
Your piece is well-written and interesting.  I had never considered the comparisons between religious and scientific fundamentalists.  Thank you for offering pragmatic talking points with which to engage “Brites” in dialogue. 
As a pastor, however, I encounter religious fundamentalism far more often.  It is difficult at times to know how to engage people in dialogue about their hot-button topics like Biblical inerrancy.  This difficulty is magnified when I engage them as their pastor.  On one hand, I want to encourage them to consider a more comprehensive view of Scripture.  I know, first-hand, the benefit of embracing Scripture for what it is and not what I once hoped it was.  On the other hand, I don’t want to damage the faith of my parishioners.  I can be two-faced and agree that the original manuscripts of Scripture are inerrant precisely because it is an irrelevant claim.  I want to value the person above the fundamentalism. 
At what point is the most loving action to not press a person toward growth and to allow them to remain comfortably naïve?

Justin

I am the type of person who likes one good question more than a thousand answers.

I must say you have a very good question; and , I will be the first to admit that I do not have the answer.  I can only say what I do.  First, context determines my action.

1.  In a congregation that is fundamentalist/literalist, speak truth that can open some minds without arguing the point.  For example, “this word in the Bible is different depending on which copy of the Greek New Testament that you read”
(Be prepared to show proof of the fact, but never argue for a conclusion).  However, I must say that I am going to avoid being part of such a congregation in any permanent way.

2.  With individuals that have a “natural naieve first century worldview”, I try to support their faith as they have it.

3.  With individuals that have a “conscious first century worldview” and who want to absolutize their view by belittling/purging/excluding those who have other ideas, I have with them what I call “the talk” in love if they are willing to listen.  You need to have your version of “the talk” prepared so you have it ready when it is necessary.  Only you can really determine what you say.

4.  There are those who are “not willing to listen”.  I avoid them like the plague.

I know, not a very good answer.  However, Justin, I have a luxury that pastors do not have.  As a laymen, I have no bonds but of love.

Dr. Oord,
I find this entry fascinating but am really curious as to why you changed your views and what exactly lead to the change? What was something or someone that made you stop and think and not just follow the masses? I am also curious as to exactly what you classify fundamentalists as… I have a vague idea as to whom are you are referring but would love a more through explanation.

Within my life I have seen incredible things, had conversations with people that I thought, at the time, that I had nothing in common with. Through it all I discovered that humans have faults and no one has the answers to every question except Jesus. Growing up in a more conservative home I found that I used to believe in truth and only truth. As I was forced to go out and experience the world and partake in these dialogues I have discovered that that no human, fundamentalist or other has all of the answers. In my mind the answer to this dilemma is just to love them and dialogue with them praying that something gets through. Love is the way to reach them and the action of Love allows for them to experience and know.

Great post Dr. Oord, thanks for writing it.

AMEN!!!
As a fellow e-inerrantist and bible thumper, I know that most people don’t respond to facts. I often feel like a religious version of the prisoner in Plato’s allegory of the cave who tries to go back to his old perspective and enlighten others. Some will not and some cannot understand some of the truths surrounding the bible or science and the criticisms of their beliefs. I think there is a lot of truth in number 4 and 6. As the old saying goes “you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” It’s terrifying to let go of these fundamentalist views, at least I felt that my world might lose all meaning or I would not longer be a christian (scientist). It is important to continue teaching these individuals the truth in love. This is why I love schools like NNU.

Dr. Oord,

As a theologian and a Brazilian Lutheran Christian, I have to confess that your paper is insightful on many points. I don’t know if you know, but Brazilian Protestantism was founded on missionary fundamentalism, especially that coming from the USA. Fundamentalism here is a serious problem and extremely challenging, mainly because we do not know a real alternative to this problem. Certainly your paper has much to contribute to our situation in Brazil.

Best regards,
Fábio Abreu.

I also deal with both kinds, but my dealings with Christian fundamentalists are more frequent. I remember the theology classes in my first two years at NNU and was completely blown away by the hostility toward rationality and the fear of new ideas that some underclassmen exhibited. I tend to come from a viewpoint further to the left, but Intro to Christian Theology and Biblical Studies managed to challenge both mine and the fundamentalists’ worldviews. I find that the discussion in the higher level classes is much more healthy. Take comfort that NNU is doing a good job!

I’ll admit that in my journey I have struggled with some of these issues.  I was at one point what I would consider a Christian fundamentalist, but through more experiences I have broadened my views.  However, I often find myself reverting to my old beliefs because I struggle with finding the balance between fundamentalism and relativism.  I believe that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, but I don’t like the idea that each individual can interpret it however they want to.  There is no clear-cut list of “do’s and don’ts” in the Bible, but there has to be at least some kind of absolute truth that we can all grasp from it.  There are a number of gray areas, which is why I struggle with this so much.

It may not be certain if answers are to be found, but our conduct is something that can be controlled. “One characteristic of a wise person is her capacity to engage a wide variety of knowledge in a respectful and appreciative way.”