Fundamentals...light on fun, heavy on the mental

I was reminded of why I left the rotting, decaying, self-righteous lump of rancid flesh known as the Bible Belt today. I ran into a "fundamental." There are less of them up here in the mountainous West. And I left the bosomy comfort of the Bible Belt to escape their evil grasp. O.k., I might be exaggerating their negative attributes a bit, and I take back the evil part. But man, fundamentalism is strangling authentic New Testament Christianity in America. They are, indeed, modern day Pharisees.

I used to call myself a fundamentalist. That was, until I pastored a fundamentalist church. And until I began to read authentic fundamental literature and propaganda. It was then that I realized, much to my surprise, that I was no fundamentalist. Growing up, fundamentalist as a descriptional tag meant one that believed in the infalibility and authority of the Scripture, held to traditional Christian beliefs and polity, and opposed political correctness and theological compromise. Therefore, I've always said that I am proud to be a fundamentalist.

When you meet real fundamentalists, you realize that regardless of what they claim, they do not believe in the authority of the Scripture, do not hold traditional Christian beliefs and polity, and they do compromise theologically. Let me explain.

Fundamentalists define "fundamental" in terms of their own memories, going back only as far as the faith of their parents. Fundamentalism is not, contrary to popular belief, traditional religion. Fundamentalism is the religion of tradition. Fundamentalism worships tradition, and their God's name is Status Quo. Instead of Hallelujah or Amen or Selah they say "that's not the way we've ever done it." That is the mantra to their God. They serve God, but Status Quo is one notch higher in their echelon of gods.

Fundamentalists certainly don't believe in the authority of the Scriptures. The Scripture approves the use of women deacons - fundamentalists don't care. The Scripture does not mandate congregational rule, and explicitly institutes elder rule - fundamentalists do not care. The Scripture tells us to lay on hands and anoint with oil - fundamentalists do not care. The Scripture tells us to dance in praise to our God - fundamentalists do not care. The Scripture tells us to exercise church discipline - fundamentalists do not care. To fundamentalists, higher than the Scripture is the Baptist Faith and Message, church by-laws, and the almighty tradition.

Also contrary to common belief, fundamentalists don't believe in real tradition. Oh, they believe in tradition if you define it as "the last sixty years" or "within my ma and pa's lifetime." But they do not believe in authentic, New Testament tradition. Who cares if Philip baptized the eunuch without the blessing or vote of the church! That's not how we do it! And that is but one example. I can't believe those crazy liberals who go do Spring break ministry and baptize kids in the ocean, how horrible! Who cares about the protocol and polity of the New Testament Church? Those are all nice stories, but that's not how we do it!

So anyway, about my conversation with a fundamentalist. He was a character I met out at the county fair. He was a member of a Bible Baptist Church. I asked him about denominational affiliation and he said, "oh, we're independent."

Ah, yes...independent. That is a buzz-word among fundamentalists. They're "independent." And they are proudly independent. That means they can't get along with anyone else. That means they do very little missions because they're all mostly tiny little churches of dying old people that are bitter at the world, skeptical of "them big fancy circus churches" and don't cooperate on any level to go into the uttermost parts of the Earth. It pretty much means they argue so much with churches that "aren't' right" that they have no choice but to be independent.

So then I said, "let me guess - fundamental."

"Oh yes, fundamental" he said.

"KJV only?" I asked.

"Of course."

"Soul-winning?"

"You know it!" he exclaimed.

These terms, "independent, fundamental, KJV only, Soul Winning" are all popular terms used among these people. And at first I didn't understand the "soul-winning" term. It's kind of like the "Full Gospel" churches, as if the rest of us have half the gospel. What, are we not soul-winning, too? In real truth, statistically, fundamental churches do very little soul-winning (as if it's not an act of the Spirit anyway). In fact, they're dying at rates far higher than the rest of us.

I picked up on their jargon from a rag of a newsletter called The Sword of the Lord, which even in it's subtitle explains that the purpose of the publication is to "oppose modernity." After all, modernism is bad, right? If only we could convince the world not to change we could be relevant again! Any attempt by a church to be relevant to the culture, communicate with the culture, or penetrate the culture is seen by fundamentalists as being liberal, compromising, or politically correct. This magazine was mailed to the church and to my people, and I called the editor personally and told him to quit sending his trash to my people, that it was corrupting their hearts and minds.

So back to the KJV thing. The fellow told me that he didn't care what people said about the KJV being hard to read. His exact words..."so what if it's hard to read, is it easy living the Christian life?"

What the heck? Yes, it is hard to live the Christian life. Why make it any harder than it should be? Of course fundamentalists do actually make it harder than it should be, creating a list of a million thou-shalt-nots that aren't' scriptural, everything from teetotaling on alcohol to prohibiting dancing. Hey, it's hard enough without making it more difficult! And it's the same way with Bible translations. It's hard enough to get the concept, so why struggle on the words?

His second point was this. He said, "Furthermore, it doesn't matter if it's hard to read because it's really the Holy Spirit that explains it to you. Uh-huh. I agreed with him completely. "Amen," I told him.

"So what kind of Bible do you all read?"

I told him, "Greek and Hebrew. Only Greek and Hebrew."

His eyes got wide and his mouth fell open. He asked, "wow, do they understand it?"

"Nope, not a word" I told him. "But it's o.k. because the Holy Spirit explains it to them.

He didn't like my humor. "That's a bad example," he shouted. "And unfair, too!"

"Let me ask you a question, brother. What does "wherefore" mean?"

"What," he asked, "what do you mean?"

"I'm asking what wherefore means."

"Well," he struggled, "it means 'where'."

"Nope," I told him. "It means 'why'. Romeo, romeo, [why] are you Romeo." In other words, "why does my love interest have to be Romeo of all people."

And he just kind of looked at me with a "so-what" look on his face.

"Here's the point," I tried to explain to him. "You're the expert. You're the Sunday School teacher. You're the one who's being reading it your whole life. And you don't even understand King's English. Why in the world would you tell a young believer, who with our public school system is probably barely literate to begin with, to start out reading the King James. That's insane."

And then he mumbled, "it's not supposed to be easy" and then walked off in a huff. Jordan one, fundamental zero. It's sad that's what it takes to make my day, but another one bites the dust.

Here is my favorite quotation about the translation issue from DA Carlson:

"The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians. The words of Edwin H. Palmer are not too strong: 'Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible. . . . For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' "

And so, as I watched my fundamentalist friend walk away I decided that they really aren't that bad after all. They're good for a great laugh. They're good to look at and say, "man, I'm glad I'm not that guy." And it makes you look at your church that strives to imitate the New Testament above all else, puts the authority above all man-made doctrine and dogma, and seeks to be relevant to a world lost without Jesus, and be very, very grateful.