Christian Fundamentalism

In my last book review, I referred to Christian Fundamentalism twice, and I thought I would post some reflections on the Christian Fundamentalist movement that have been inspired by Thomas Oden’s book “Agenda for Theology”.

Briefly put, Christian Fundamentalism holds 5 doctrines at its core, as found in their conferences and creeds:

1. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus.
3. The substitutionary Atonement.
4. The literal, physical resurrection of Jesus.
5. The literal, physical return of Christ.

Now, I myself have no problems with any of the above doctrines. I believe they’re all true, and vital for Christian spirituality. But at the same time, I find it is an odd list, isn’t it? The bible contains a lot of content, why single these articles out? Compare for example, the above Fundamentalist “doctrinal standard” with the Epistula Apostolorum, (150 A.D.) one of the earliest Christian creeds:

“In the Father, the Ruler of the Universe,
And in Jesus Christ, our Redeemer,
In the Holy Spirit, the Counselor,
in the Holy Church and Forgiveness of Sins.”

Quite a different ring to it, doesn’t it? Imagine if you were involved in a committee which churned these creeds out. All writing finds its inspiration from somewhere: grocery lists are for food needs, laws are written for the needs of lawyers and judges, blogs are written for the needs of people who desperately want an audience for their thoughts. What was it that inspired the above creeds? What need moved them?

I found Thomas Oden's book very helpful when he writes of fundamentalism: “The principle of selection of these 5 fundamentals makes good sense only if seen in the context of nineteenth-century historicism, in which a determined effort was made to establish faith on the basis of objective historical evidence.”

Again, I have no problem with historical evidence: the Christian faith would be a scam if points 2-3 aren’t historically true. But problems arise when the health of a Christian’s faith is measured primarily (and sometimes only!) by the acceptance of a handful of historical facts. To summarize Oden’s criticism of Fundamentalism, it has taken such a keen interest in the fact of Jesus' resurrection, that it has lost sight of what it means to live in fellowship with the risen Lord. It has lost sight of what the early church confessed as the heartbeat of the faith: “in Jesus Christ, our redeemer.” The framers of the Apostolorum simply express what is natural to Christian experience: a living encounter with the Triune God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, through the assembly of believers and the forgiveness of sin.

This life in Christ of course depends upon certain historical facts, but to be consumed with these facts apart from living the Christian life is a Christian heresy. For all of Fundamentalism’s labours in promoting sound doctrine, many fundamentalist believers seem to have lost sight of the fact that most of the time when the apostles write about “sound doctrine”, they are referring to articles of Christian living: provide for your family; work hard; treat each other with love, grace, and respect; do not live in any way that maligns or brings disrepute on the name of God. I really wish that last one had made its way onto the list of “Fundamentals”.

I agree with every point of Fundamentalist doctrine. But, I deeply desire to disassociate myself with this label, simply because while Fundamentalism emphasizes sound doctrine, it seems to display in its attitude and mannerisms a complete loss of understanding of what Christian doctrine is really all about.

In the context of my book review of Sarfati, I don’t mind so much his preoccupation with a literal understanding of Genesis -by all means, defend that view, I think he made some strong points. However, the lack of seriousness he attends to alternative interpretations seems to me to betray that collusion with historicism that is characteristic of Fundamentalism.