Monday, November 26, 2007
On Fundamentalism, the Southern Baptist Convention, Choctaw missions, prayer, Christian liberalism, Fosdick, loving Islamist radicals, &c.
If you wonder if I'm bitter and impatient -- ha, ha, if! -- regarding Christian Fundamentalism, it's because it destroyed the last vestiges of comity in the Southern Baptist Convention.
I was 15 in 1979 and paying full attention at the 1979 Fundamentalist Takeover. It really did turn people against one another -- for one purpose: power.
Not the wonder-working power of the Blood (of the Blood) of the Lamb (of the Lamb) -- a beautiful metaphor, probably, if you grew up with it, but pretty ghastly, perhaps, if you did not, (and it makes for a catchy tune either way).
But no. Worldly power.
I learned the confrontation had been a long time coming and that it stemmed -- as does Christian Fundamentalism today -- from the fear-based reaction of some in the Church to the advances in science and biblical studies of the 19th century.
Read The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which informed the teaching I heard in Sunday school and from the pulpit. Read about the Scofield Reference Bible, THE Bible in my church when I was growing up. Read about dispensationalism, the ideological framework for it all.
I thought 1979 was the beginning. It was not. It sure wasn't the end. It was just a milestone -- it was big, but it seemed, and seems, bigger to me because I was 15 -- with not only my naughty bits, but my brain and heart, my hopes, my sense of myself and my place in the world, all blood-engorged and tingly.
I knew -- I knew in my soul -- that the controversy would wreck "Bold Mission Thrust" -- the Southern Baptist's stated goal in 1976 of taking the Gospel to every person on earth by 2000 -- because I knew, even then that cooperation was the engine of the Southern Baptist Cooperative Program -- not doctrinal tests!
Read it and weep, Southern Baptists and fellow recovering Southern Baptists: "We have an International Mission Board that would kick Lottie Moon off the field," a South Carolina Baptist pastor writes. (Read about Lottie Moon.)
CONSENSUS, not total agreement, and not majority rule, historically, has been the secret to the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Southern Baptist Convention is too far gone, I think. At least for me.
In the wider sphere, I don't know any liberal Christian who wants to see Fundamentalists banned from the Church. It is the other way around -- and that's what gets me, a recovering Fundamentalist turned liberal Christian, riled.
It's not what they believe, but that they demand that I believe it, too, in order to wear the Christian label.
Here, let me echo Harry Emerson Fosdick, from 1922, (and you can be sure I didn't hear of HIM in Baptist Training Union [something else long gone from Southern Baptist practice]):
"If a man is a genuine liberal, his primary protest is not against holding these opinions, although he may well protest against their being considered the fundamentals of Christianity. ... The question is: Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? The Fundamentalists say that this must be done. In this country and on the foreign field they are trying to do it. They have actually endeavored to put on the statute books of a whole state binding laws against teaching modern biology. If they had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope’s.
"In such an hour, delicate and dangerous, when feelings are bound to run high, I plead this morning the cause of magnanimity and liberality and tolerance of spirit. I would, if I could reach their ears, say to the Fundamentalists about the liberals what Gamaliel said to the Jews, “Refrain from these men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be everthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.”
Read all of Fosdick's sermon, "Shall the Fyndamentalists Win?"
Well, I didn't mean to go off on a lamentation. But it all ties together with what I did mean to write about.
On words, the Word and "the Word of God." Some things to think about.
The Choctaws had no words for such concepts as "sin," "salvation," "redeemer" and so on until Christian missionaries introduced them. More importantly, the Indians had no written language. The introduction of writing alone put them under the control of Euro-American Christian culture:
"In what language should either (preaching or teaching) be done? Was it more important for the missionaries to teach the Choctaws the English language so that the Indians could could hear and read the Gospel and be saved or for the missionaries to learn the Choctaw language so that they could translate the Gospel, preach to the people in the Choctaw language, and teach the Indians to read the word of God?
"If language is a basic aspect of cultural idetnity, the transformation of an exclusively spoken language into a written one is one of the most profound changes that its speakers experience. Literacy objectifies the words and their meaning and gives them permanence. Attempts by missionaries to reduce native languages to written systems is testimony to a profound Christian belief in the metaphor of Logos, the word made God."
-- from Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818-1918 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 83.
Too much emphasis on words rather than the Word, does more harm than good!
Finally, there's this, which is firmly in the evangelical tradition but wonderfully free of the taint of Fundamentalism (they are not interchangeable words) -- and like no concept of prayer I heard growing up (although I did get chastised for talking about similar albeit ill-formed concepts as a teenage Vacation Bible School teacher's helper!)
It starts with the concept that the Kingdom of God is neither in the future nor "out there" somewhere. It's right here, right now:
"God is looking for a beachhead of presence in the world -- a body, we might say, and indeed that is the very image Paul seizes upon in his letters. We 'the Body of Christ' have formed a partnership to dispense God's love and grace to others. As we experience that grace, inevitably we want to share it with others. Love does not come naturally to me, I must say. I need prayer in order to place myself within the force field of God's love, allowing God to fill me with compassion that I cannot muster on my own.
"This way of viewing the world changes how I pray for others. Crudely put, I once envisioned intercession as bringing requests to God that God may not have thought of, then talking God into granting them. Now I see intercession as an increase in my awareness. When I pray for another person, I am praying for God to open my eyes so that I can see that person as God does, and then enter into the realm of love that God already directs toward that person. ...
"At its best, my prayer does not seek to manipulate God into doing my will -- quite the opposite. Prayer enters the pool of God's own love and widens outward. ...
"On a trip to Russia in 1991 I participated with a group of Christians who actually prayed with officers in the KGB. 'We invited you because we need to learn the meaning of the word repentance,' said the presiding colonel. ... With shame, I realized that during the Cold War not once had I prayed for Russian leaders. Perceiving them as mere enemies, I never took the step of bringing them before God and asking for God's point of view.
"What about Islamist radicals who now oppose the West with violence? What effect might it have if every Christian church adopted the name of one Al-Qaeda member and prayesd faithfully for that person?"
--from Philip Yancey, Prayer: Does it Make Any Difference? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 303, 308-310).
What effect, indeed.
--ER
I was 15 in 1979 and paying full attention at the 1979 Fundamentalist Takeover. It really did turn people against one another -- for one purpose: power.
Not the wonder-working power of the Blood (of the Blood) of the Lamb (of the Lamb) -- a beautiful metaphor, probably, if you grew up with it, but pretty ghastly, perhaps, if you did not, (and it makes for a catchy tune either way).
But no. Worldly power.
I learned the confrontation had been a long time coming and that it stemmed -- as does Christian Fundamentalism today -- from the fear-based reaction of some in the Church to the advances in science and biblical studies of the 19th century.
Read The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which informed the teaching I heard in Sunday school and from the pulpit. Read about the Scofield Reference Bible, THE Bible in my church when I was growing up. Read about dispensationalism, the ideological framework for it all.
I thought 1979 was the beginning. It was not. It sure wasn't the end. It was just a milestone -- it was big, but it seemed, and seems, bigger to me because I was 15 -- with not only my naughty bits, but my brain and heart, my hopes, my sense of myself and my place in the world, all blood-engorged and tingly.
I knew -- I knew in my soul -- that the controversy would wreck "Bold Mission Thrust" -- the Southern Baptist's stated goal in 1976 of taking the Gospel to every person on earth by 2000 -- because I knew, even then that cooperation was the engine of the Southern Baptist Cooperative Program -- not doctrinal tests!
Read it and weep, Southern Baptists and fellow recovering Southern Baptists: "We have an International Mission Board that would kick Lottie Moon off the field," a South Carolina Baptist pastor writes. (Read about Lottie Moon.)
CONSENSUS, not total agreement, and not majority rule, historically, has been the secret to the Southern Baptist Convention.
The Southern Baptist Convention is too far gone, I think. At least for me.
In the wider sphere, I don't know any liberal Christian who wants to see Fundamentalists banned from the Church. It is the other way around -- and that's what gets me, a recovering Fundamentalist turned liberal Christian, riled.
It's not what they believe, but that they demand that I believe it, too, in order to wear the Christian label.
Here, let me echo Harry Emerson Fosdick, from 1922, (and you can be sure I didn't hear of HIM in Baptist Training Union [something else long gone from Southern Baptist practice]):
"If a man is a genuine liberal, his primary protest is not against holding these opinions, although he may well protest against their being considered the fundamentals of Christianity. ... The question is: Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? The Fundamentalists say that this must be done. In this country and on the foreign field they are trying to do it. They have actually endeavored to put on the statute books of a whole state binding laws against teaching modern biology. If they had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope’s.
"In such an hour, delicate and dangerous, when feelings are bound to run high, I plead this morning the cause of magnanimity and liberality and tolerance of spirit. I would, if I could reach their ears, say to the Fundamentalists about the liberals what Gamaliel said to the Jews, “Refrain from these men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be everthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.”
Read all of Fosdick's sermon, "Shall the Fyndamentalists Win?"
Well, I didn't mean to go off on a lamentation. But it all ties together with what I did mean to write about.
On words, the Word and "the Word of God." Some things to think about.
The Choctaws had no words for such concepts as "sin," "salvation," "redeemer" and so on until Christian missionaries introduced them. More importantly, the Indians had no written language. The introduction of writing alone put them under the control of Euro-American Christian culture:
"In what language should either (preaching or teaching) be done? Was it more important for the missionaries to teach the Choctaws the English language so that the Indians could could hear and read the Gospel and be saved or for the missionaries to learn the Choctaw language so that they could translate the Gospel, preach to the people in the Choctaw language, and teach the Indians to read the word of God?
"If language is a basic aspect of cultural idetnity, the transformation of an exclusively spoken language into a written one is one of the most profound changes that its speakers experience. Literacy objectifies the words and their meaning and gives them permanence. Attempts by missionaries to reduce native languages to written systems is testimony to a profound Christian belief in the metaphor of Logos, the word made God."
-- from Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818-1918 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 83.
Too much emphasis on words rather than the Word, does more harm than good!
Finally, there's this, which is firmly in the evangelical tradition but wonderfully free of the taint of Fundamentalism (they are not interchangeable words) -- and like no concept of prayer I heard growing up (although I did get chastised for talking about similar albeit ill-formed concepts as a teenage Vacation Bible School teacher's helper!)
It starts with the concept that the Kingdom of God is neither in the future nor "out there" somewhere. It's right here, right now:
"God is looking for a beachhead of presence in the world -- a body, we might say, and indeed that is the very image Paul seizes upon in his letters. We 'the Body of Christ' have formed a partnership to dispense God's love and grace to others. As we experience that grace, inevitably we want to share it with others. Love does not come naturally to me, I must say. I need prayer in order to place myself within the force field of God's love, allowing God to fill me with compassion that I cannot muster on my own.
"This way of viewing the world changes how I pray for others. Crudely put, I once envisioned intercession as bringing requests to God that God may not have thought of, then talking God into granting them. Now I see intercession as an increase in my awareness. When I pray for another person, I am praying for God to open my eyes so that I can see that person as God does, and then enter into the realm of love that God already directs toward that person. ...
"At its best, my prayer does not seek to manipulate God into doing my will -- quite the opposite. Prayer enters the pool of God's own love and widens outward. ...
"On a trip to Russia in 1991 I participated with a group of Christians who actually prayed with officers in the KGB. 'We invited you because we need to learn the meaning of the word repentance,' said the presiding colonel. ... With shame, I realized that during the Cold War not once had I prayed for Russian leaders. Perceiving them as mere enemies, I never took the step of bringing them before God and asking for God's point of view.
"What about Islamist radicals who now oppose the West with violence? What effect might it have if every Christian church adopted the name of one Al-Qaeda member and prayesd faithfully for that person?"
--from Philip Yancey, Prayer: Does it Make Any Difference? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 303, 308-310).
What effect, indeed.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Man! You're banning your own stuff now?
Have I told you about my SBC conference story?
Actually, it's my pastor's story.
She went to the Convention in New Orleans sometime in the mid 80s, I reckon, whilst we were still affiliated. In the meeting, the leaders were pulling their dirty tricks - doing things like turning off the microphone if you were a perceived "liberal" and wanted to take part in the debate. They literally took away our voices.
That was the convention where it became clear to many of us that the SBC was too far gone to the dark side.
Later, Cindy (my pastor) passed by Rogers and some of the SBC leadership who were out celebrating the takeover at an al fresco restaurant. Cindy was so outraged to see them laughing in their delight of the takeover that she got up on a chair, pointed her finger at them and shouted, "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!"
Slowly and repeatedly.
I love my pastor.
Have I told you about my SBC conference story?
Actually, it's my pastor's story.
She went to the Convention in New Orleans sometime in the mid 80s, I reckon, whilst we were still affiliated. In the meeting, the leaders were pulling their dirty tricks - doing things like turning off the microphone if you were a perceived "liberal" and wanted to take part in the debate. They literally took away our voices.
That was the convention where it became clear to many of us that the SBC was too far gone to the dark side.
Later, Cindy (my pastor) passed by Rogers and some of the SBC leadership who were out celebrating the takeover at an al fresco restaurant. Cindy was so outraged to see them laughing in their delight of the takeover that she got up on a chair, pointed her finger at them and shouted, "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!"
Slowly and repeatedly.
I love my pastor.
Good for Pastor Cindy!
(Long headlines obscure the first comment on the comment page, so I put a comment in there and delete it, to keep some real comment from being hard to read. Yea and verily, I am a Kind, Benevolent and Thoughtful Blog Host.) :-)
(Long headlines obscure the first comment on the comment page, so I put a comment in there and delete it, to keep some real comment from being hard to read. Yea and verily, I am a Kind, Benevolent and Thoughtful Blog Host.) :-)
Let's see, you've dumped about 10 years worth of arguments and commentary into one small blog. So I'll start by just saying Amen, Brother.
Praying for those who hate you, who would kill you, and who would use you for their own spiteful ends. What a novel idea. Have I heard of that before? Of course should we not torture them first like we did back some years ago? Like in the inquesistion?
Of course the problem with praying for the Islamo-fascist radical terrorist is that you would also have to pray for their American counterparts Bush/Cheny et. al. as well.
As for the Southern Baptist.....bother not yourself about them. God's sense of humor is already at work there.
Praying for those who hate you, who would kill you, and who would use you for their own spiteful ends. What a novel idea. Have I heard of that before? Of course should we not torture them first like we did back some years ago? Like in the inquesistion?
Of course the problem with praying for the Islamo-fascist radical terrorist is that you would also have to pray for their American counterparts Bush/Cheny et. al. as well.
As for the Southern Baptist.....bother not yourself about them. God's sense of humor is already at work there.
I like the year that they voted Jesus out of the SBC (when they voted against ANY imbibing of alcohol). Dang, when even Jebus isn't holy enough for you, you know there's some good humor there.
Re, "10 years worth of arguments and commentary into one small blog ..."
Hey, I've been distratced lately. But pent up!
On praying for Cheney: I literally gritted my teeth earlier today and prayed for his health since, apparently, his heart really is three sizes too small.
Hey, I've been distratced lately. But pent up!
On praying for Cheney: I literally gritted my teeth earlier today and prayed for his health since, apparently, his heart really is three sizes too small.
I shall echo what has already been said, and responded to - you certainly let out a whole lot of pent-up stuff with this one post. Not being a part of either the Southern Baptists, and only dimly aware of something called "fundamentalism" (it was mostly a phenomenon I saw on TV), I have only encountered it recently in full force here on the internet. Your description of the liberal reaction to fundamentalists demands that we either conform or no longer call ourselves Christian is spot on - and the reason I know longer believe dialogue with them is possible. They are not interested in it. I was, but as I got no respect, I decided that it was better to save myself the aggravation.
Your description of the rise of Fundamentalism is also spot on - it was originally an intellectual reaction to the introduction of what was called in the 19th century "the higher criticism" and has since been known as historical criticism. Based around Princeton Theological Seminary, the reaction was a surprised anger that, for example, the first of the two creation stories in Genesis was actually a slightly doctored version of a Sumerian creation myth. This kind of thing is shocking when you first hear it, but once one sits and ponders it, it makes sense.
If we were reliant upon the words of Scripture alone for our faith, we would be poor indeed. It is the Spirit that gives life to faith. It is the Spirit that gives life to the dead words on the page. The Truth is not a proposition, but the dead and resurrected Christ; not a thing to have as a source of control and power, but a Person to be loved and worshiped and followed.
Criticism of fundamentalism is not rejection either of communion within the Body of Christ, or a rejection of Christian teaching. I have repeatedly stressed that, and it just never seems to register. Criticism is just that, something that has been going on since Peter and Paul jousted over the latter's mission to the Gentiles. The Spirit is large enough to embrace us all because no one has a monopoly of truth. I have been accused of being "passive-aggressive" in a misapplication of the term, because I cheerfully admit that while I stand by what I believe, I also am convinced I am most likely wrong on 90% of it. For some reason, that just confuses and confounds the hell out of some people.
I think I've taken up far too much space here to say, "Right on, brother!"
Your description of the rise of Fundamentalism is also spot on - it was originally an intellectual reaction to the introduction of what was called in the 19th century "the higher criticism" and has since been known as historical criticism. Based around Princeton Theological Seminary, the reaction was a surprised anger that, for example, the first of the two creation stories in Genesis was actually a slightly doctored version of a Sumerian creation myth. This kind of thing is shocking when you first hear it, but once one sits and ponders it, it makes sense.
If we were reliant upon the words of Scripture alone for our faith, we would be poor indeed. It is the Spirit that gives life to faith. It is the Spirit that gives life to the dead words on the page. The Truth is not a proposition, but the dead and resurrected Christ; not a thing to have as a source of control and power, but a Person to be loved and worshiped and followed.
Criticism of fundamentalism is not rejection either of communion within the Body of Christ, or a rejection of Christian teaching. I have repeatedly stressed that, and it just never seems to register. Criticism is just that, something that has been going on since Peter and Paul jousted over the latter's mission to the Gentiles. The Spirit is large enough to embrace us all because no one has a monopoly of truth. I have been accused of being "passive-aggressive" in a misapplication of the term, because I cheerfully admit that while I stand by what I believe, I also am convinced I am most likely wrong on 90% of it. For some reason, that just confuses and confounds the hell out of some people.
I think I've taken up far too much space here to say, "Right on, brother!"
The freedom to maintain the Baptist doctrine of the Priesthood of the believer, the Baptist tradition of the locally autonomous congregation, to maintain the longstanding Baptist notion that we ought interpret the Scriptures through the teachings of Jesus. For starters.
That, and not being considered a heretic merely because we might disagree on one relatively minor topic or the other.
We weren't challenging Jesus' divinity, his death and resurrection, our need of salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the Trinity or any other basics of historic Baptist beliefs. We just wanted the freedom to disagree within the Body of Christ on lesser topics.
In our case, we were given freedom - freedom to leave the Southern Baptists or adapt our beliefs to match that of those in charge. Leaving the Southern Baptists was a great thing for us, and for that, I am truly thankful.
That, and not being considered a heretic merely because we might disagree on one relatively minor topic or the other.
We weren't challenging Jesus' divinity, his death and resurrection, our need of salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the Trinity or any other basics of historic Baptist beliefs. We just wanted the freedom to disagree within the Body of Christ on lesser topics.
In our case, we were given freedom - freedom to leave the Southern Baptists or adapt our beliefs to match that of those in charge. Leaving the Southern Baptists was a great thing for us, and for that, I am truly thankful.
Fundamentalism, a.k.a. the Literalist are like the poor they will be with us always. They go back to the beginning of everything as do the Librerals a.k.a. the Open Minded.
Mom2 what did the "other side" want? All I saw them ask for was the tolerance they extend to others.
An Example: The Baptist Fellowship, the moderate open minded churches formerally of the SBC, allow any Baptist church to affiliate even SBC churches. The SBC has declared the Fellowship churchs to be an anathama and will not allow them to remain in the convention.
The SBC has withdrawn from the Baptist World Alliance because it is too inclusive.
Mom2 what did the "other side" want? All I saw them ask for was the tolerance they extend to others.
An Example: The Baptist Fellowship, the moderate open minded churches formerally of the SBC, allow any Baptist church to affiliate even SBC churches. The SBC has declared the Fellowship churchs to be an anathama and will not allow them to remain in the convention.
The SBC has withdrawn from the Baptist World Alliance because it is too inclusive.
That. And power.
The fundamentalists wanted the power to EXCLUDE, and they worked until they got it.
Traditional Southern Baptists realized too late what was at stake: their own power to INCLUDE and COOPERATE.
The fundamentalists wanted the power to EXCLUDE, and they worked until they got it.
Traditional Southern Baptists realized too late what was at stake: their own power to INCLUDE and COOPERATE.
As for the Choctaw alphabet and written language, you can't be a good literalist until you have literature. You can't have literature until you have a written language to be literal in.
Otherwise you are bound by images. Images and writting use different side of the brain to function. The male side, the left side you read with. The female side, the right side, you understand images and imagry, such as metaphors.
Otherwise you are bound by images. Images and writting use different side of the brain to function. The male side, the left side you read with. The female side, the right side, you understand images and imagry, such as metaphors.
Each of the preceding three posts, in response to the honest question of Mom2, shows the reality - the liberal (in the best sense of the word) Baptists were reluctant to flagrantly use power to push their agenda, whereas the fundamentalists have never been so reluctant. I think this is a failing of both secular and sectarian liberals - they are uncomfortable with power, and do not like to use it, seeking consensus rather than confrontation. Precisely because they are truly inclusive, they did not and do not see a reason for schism; those on the right, however, as possessors of Truth see no reason for consensus with error, or communion with apostates.
One of the things I remember from the SBC wars was when my mentor who was one of the SBC Trustees of the old school told me he had received "After Death Threats" from his literalist "friends".
After Death threats? Were they going to beat him up on the gold streets? Such people are to be laughed at, because they are poor souls, indeed.
"After Death Threats", the kind of things that ER often gets said about him. You know that his soul is in danger and he won't go to heaven.
Like this (and I really like this):
"Now I see intercession as an increase in my awareness. When I pray for another person, I am praying for God to open my eyes so that I can see that person as God does, and then enter into the realm of love that God already directs toward that person. ..."
Very cool. No Santas in the sky.
"Now I see intercession as an increase in my awareness. When I pray for another person, I am praying for God to open my eyes so that I can see that person as God does, and then enter into the realm of love that God already directs toward that person. ..."
Very cool. No Santas in the sky.
Don't know too much about the SBC. I read the article on Lottie Moon, and I did not understand why the IMB would kick her off the field. But that's ok.
All about the comment on the Choctaws. It is time for Christianity to stop destroying cultures and start promoting them.
Post a Comment
All about the comment on the Choctaws. It is time for Christianity to stop destroying cultures and start promoting them.
<< Home
