The Poisoning of the Evangelical Mind: Antidotes

Michael Pahl once wrote:

I've spent my whole life in that strange and wonderful world which is "fundagelicalism" (that nebulous territory inhabited by Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals), and I'm quite content to call myself an "evangelical" - as long as that is not defined in narrow sociopolitical terms but in broad historical theological terms. However, there are many aspects of this fundagelicalism - especially toward the "fundamentalist" side - that I find disconcerting, annoying, or even just plain crazy.

Michael went on to discuss four examples: (1) “Creation” = “Creationism”; (2) Inerrancy Guarantees Orthodoxy; (3) The Eschaton = The "Pre-Trib Rapture"; and (4) The Bible is “The Word of God”. God, how awful, you may be saying. Why bother, you ask.

That’s easy. Fundagelicalism is that subset of Christianity which influences all the others. In my context, a typical United Methodist congregation in the Midwest, the most ardent members are evangelicals by almost any definition. If they have strong views on any of the above topics, the probability is high that they run in the direction of the standard fundagelical position. To be sure, they also know that one can be a Christian without necessarily holding to those positions. But they usually believe that one is a better Christian if one believes as they do.

On principle, I have nothing against the standard positions. I would be happy if it were the case that the world was created in six 24-hour days. That would be very cool. I just don’t know of any compelling evidence, from the Bible or science, that points in that direction. I would happy if it were the case that before things got really bad, God beamed me up so that I might be spared the tribulation. That would be very nice. I just happen to think that way of looking at things has almost zero going for it if God’s past behavior is any guide. As for what to think about inerrancy, Michael Pahl and his friend Michael Bird cleared that up in the following posts: here and here.

I just worry that people who are wedded to the standard positions risk brain poisoning. I know where I turn in the Bible for a doctrine of creation: Psalms 8, 19, and 104. No creationism there.

I know where I turn for an understanding of the unerring Word of God: Isaiah 55. Zero emphasis on what one believes about the word of God. Total emphasis on the fact that that word is effective apart from our beliefs about it.

As for eschatology, the Bible is chock full of it, but a tribulation-free version is hard to find: Isaiah 65-66; Ezekiel 36-39; Daniel 7-12; Mark 13, the Apocalypse of John.

Here are a few antidotes to the unhealthy obsessions to which fundagelicalism is subject. The antidotes come from within evangelicalism and were refined by those whose faith was nurtured in that version of Christianity broadly defined. They capture in music and words almost everything one needs to know about creation, eschatology, and the word of God.

All The Diamonds (Bruce Cockburn; lyrics and background)

Salt, Sun and Time (Bruce Cockburn)

When the man comes round  (Johnny Cash; lyrics)

Hurt (Trent Reznor as sung by Johnny Cash [HT: Charles Halton])

Thy Word (Amy Grant and Michael W Smith 2008 version)

Comments

[Flávio Souza]

It may be a radical point of view, but I think that fundamentalist (any kind of) is a disease.

Everyday, I pray:

GOD, save us from the fundamentalists!

[Justin Richter]

You might have reason and humility on your side John, but fundagelicalism will always rule the world because they Kirk Cameron on their side. There is no stopping it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VpneVzY_U&feature=related

[John Hobbins]

Flavio,

Yours is a radical point of view. A bit paradoxical, too, because fundamentalism experientially turns out time and again to be the antidote to a sense of despair and godlessness, even among intellectuals. One of my college friends, a first-class intellectual, came to Christ through the witness of a Pentecostal truckdriver in Spain. In these last days, the newspapers are full of words of appreciation form very liberal Jews for the witness of Chabad whioh was and perhaps still is, the means by which they connect to the faith of their ancestors.

In short, as T. S. Eliot, we are the hollow men. There is much good in it, but modernity is also an acid bath. I dare say that within fundagelicalism itself there are antidotes to its own excesses.

[John Hobbins]

Justin,

And what about Teebow? Sarah Palin? The variety of role models out there is fascinating. Given the context in which I work, I get to see mind-poisoning of another kind, that connatural to liberal Christianity.

Of course, liberal Christians might as well become Buddhists if they have no faith in model to their neighbors and in the public square, by word and deed.

[David Ker]

This post has affinities with Tim Bulkeley's recent post on metadata.

[rey]

"I just worry that people who are wedded to the standard positions risk brain poisoning."

A Calvinist decrying fundamentalism? Quite funny. Calvinists treat their false view of God (that is a malevolent and petty god who doesn't allow free will because he must selfishly hand on to micromanagerial control of all thins and yet punishes us for what we do even though since he doesn't allow free will, in reality he's the one that made us do it). They are very funamentalist about this doctrine which is by no means found in Scripture and by no means fundamental to Christianity! In fact, it is the opposite of Christianity. And now here's JohnFH, exteremely fundamentalist on the unscriptural blasphemy of Calvinism, telling real Christians that we're too fundamentalist on a doctrine that Scripture actually teaches as a fundamental of Christianity, namely the 6-day creation? This is just priceless!!!! I think its clear who's brain is really the poisoned one and its the Calvinists.

[John Hobbins]

David,

You lost me.

Rey,

Your caricature of Calvinism says it all. Why on earth should anyone take you seriously? Even on an earth created in 6 days, a fundamental belief of Christianity on your view.

[rey]

So you're actually claiming that Calvinism doesn't teach micromanagerial control (mislabeled as Sovereignty) as a fundamental? You're one funny guy.

[Justin Richter]

John,

Teebow and Palin are good romodels in a lot ways. So is Kirk Cameron. I think they are awesome examples of the Christian life lived with conviction. I think that is what kills me about liberalism. It lacks conviction.

Speaking of conviction. Did you solicit Rey as an object lesson for this post? Divisiveness like that is dangerous whether you are Calvinist, Arminian, or Buddhist.

[rey]

You guys are the ones teaching that God makes people sin then punishes them for it and that he just tossed a coin to decide who to save and who to damn, and I'm the divisive one?

[Sue]

I just worry that people who are wedded to the standard positions risk brain poisoning.

And the subordination of women is not permitted to be one of the standard positions which may cause brain poisoning? And yet it causes more real pain and distress than all of the other beliefs put together.

[John Hobbins]

Justin,

I agree with you. Liberal Christianity has an undeniable tendency within it: that of being a way station to nothing at all, or Buddhism (thus Lisa becomes, very aptly, a Buddhist in Homer Simpson).

And I'm happy with role models like the ones we've mentioned. But I'm not happy about the poisons that infect the fundagelical mind.

The creationist one, for example, has been devastating. I know of too many very bright people who are now world-class biologists, chemists, and doctors, some of them the sons and daughters of excellent evangelical preachers, who gave up Christianity because they were taught that they had to choose between creationism (and the junk science that goes along with it) and true belief in the Word of God.

No, I did not ask Rey to show up to prove my point. He did that, as he would say, on his own.

Rey,

You're talking to a Calvinist who believes that the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25; Luke 19) accurately describes the way God works. God's management style might even be described as a hands-off approach. Of course other Scriptures prove that God can and does "micromanage" (i.e., intervene and determine a specific outcome) when such is called for in terms of a plan of salvation.

You will also notice that the parable does not end in a coin toss. It ends in a warning to you and to me from the one who reaps what he did not sow and gathers where he did not scatter. I have every reason to believe that those words accurately describe what kind of person God is, and how he manages the world. That's the trouble with non-Calvinists. They simply cannot accept a high view of God's freedom - which they interpret as caprice.

But there you have it: a God who does not follow the most basic rule of all: you reap what you sow. Since God is also love. I take the fact that God reaps where he did not sow as pure gospel. I don't pretend to know what that entails for those who never hear the Gospel in this life, or hear it only in a distorted fashion. But I despise systematizers who effectively throw this verse out, and the parable's concept of hell, simply because it doesn't fit into their tidy categories.

[John Hobbins]

Suzanne,

Since, as you know, I'm convinced that Peter and Paul did not object to the subordination of women per se but took the patriarchal marriage model as their point of departure and filled it with Christian content, just as they did in the case of slavery, I cannot follow you here.

Furthermore, as you have noted on a previous thread, you are at war with almost all forms of religion, and indeed almost all human culture, insofar as you raise functional egalitarianism to your one and only first principle (if you have others, you might want to specify them).

Any religious formation that genders particular functions incurs your implacable wrath. Thus you cannot but hate what traditional Judaism does to women, traditional Catholics and Orthodox idem, not to mention traditional and neo-traditional evangelicals (your own background).

So far as I can see, however, your campaign is counter-productive and your black-and-white approach unhelpful.

It is better to recognize that, on the one hand, modern feminism, like many other aspects of modernity, has made positive contributions to human culture which we can and should receive with gratitude from God's hand. On the other hand, other contributions and unintended consequences of modern feminism have had a devastating impact.

A nuanced approach of this kind, with a vivid sense for the hierarchy of truth, and a willingness to encourage a positive, life-enhancing exercise of authority on the part of men and women in both hierarchical and reciprocal arrangements, has a much better chance of producing positive results than more polarization and further preaching of the myth of gender equality. Surely those feminists who now emphasize difference rather than equivalence need to be heard, and the differences identified, recognized, and valorized.

For the rest, evangelicalism offers a wide variety of choices in this respect. Traditional, neo-traditional, and egalitarian options are all available. If any of these choices became obligatory for all evangelicals, as some evangelicals seem to think should be so with respect to creation science and a particular version of dispensationalist eschatology, it would be a very bad thing indeed.

[Sue]

Any religious formation that genders particular functions incurs your implacable wrath. Thus you cannot but hate what traditional Judaism does to women, traditional Catholics and Orthodox idem, not to mention traditional and neo-traditional evangelicals

No, actually John, this is you speaking. All of this is you speaking. You put words in my mouth. I do not know whose words they are but above all, they are your words. You have some very odd words and thoughts in your head, and I did not put them there.

In fact, last July I spoke of the doctrine which I felt was damaging to women. I wrote these words directly to you,

"This doctrine teaches that women are created for submission, to function within a submission-authority relationship, and any expression of non-submission is sinful. The fact that a woman makes any decision independently of her husband, can be held up as her sinful rebellion. The husband’s sin is a response to the sin of the wife."

I can honestly say that in the many admirable traditional marriages that I have seen, this doctrine has been mercifully absent, and women are the mistresses of their own home. Sadly, the complementarianism of today, makes the wife have only a submissive role in all domains and arenas and every room in the house, to the authoritative role of the husband in all domains and arenas, and every room in the house."

In fact, I have never spoken against traditional roles, against women staying home with their children, nor against men being wage earners, nor against the mother in the home, nor have I even once commented on the traditional churches, or religions, such as RC, GO, or Judaism on this topic. If I have, then I would ask you to cite these comments.

In fact, I have not spoken to the issue of women in the priesthood or as ministers, more than in a narrative and descriptive way. I have spoken about the fact that those who use the word authentein cite non-existent evidence, but I do not see why you would fault me for this!

In fact, I have only spoken out against the doctrine that women should be in permanent submission to their husbands. I consider this to be physically dangerous, and along with many of those who work with violated women, I ask that the total submission of women in the home be denounced.

You know the examples of women with no power in the kitchen to make basic decisions of any kind. But you mocked these examples. You cannot imagine that some women are so abused that they cannot decide anything. I am telling you that the example of the women who could not throw out a spaghetti jar, was no joke, but was an example of the real life of a real woman. Her total bondage to her husband was held up for others to emulate.

Many other women spoke up to say that their life had been like that.

There are many blogs around now, see my sidebar, where women are testifying to the severe brokenness of women who have suffered under the teaching that marriage is an authority and submission arrangement with all authority for the husband and all submission for the wife.

I protest that Bruce Ware taught this in my hometown, and taught that violence on the part of the husband is one possible response to rebellion on the part of the wife. This is a physically dangerous teaching. It must be denounced.

If people know to do good, and do not do it, ...

You write,

"Surely those feminists who now emphasize difference rather than equivalence need to be heard, and the differences identified, recognized, and valorized."

And I have no argument with this. I have never said or thought that women were the same as men. It is so far from my thinking that I would not even bother discussing it. It is ridiculous and not a thought that has ever crossed my mind.

It is time, John, for you to either cite me or admit that the very many things that you have said about me (and about those who are near and dear to me) cannot be supported by citations from my writing, anywhere, either on or offline.

Yes I am angry. I am angry at a religion which teaches that men and women are in the image of God, inasmuch as men imitate the authority of the sending Father, and women imitate the submission of the sent Son. And the father never submits and the son always submits.

This is what I protest. But it is in the ESVSB.

[Jonathan Bartlett]

With specific regards to creationism, I think most people who are non-Creationists misunderstand Creationism to be fundamentally about Genesis 1. It includes that, but it's actual foundation point is Genesis 6-9 - the flood, whose historical evidence is scattered throughout the history and mythology of nearly every culture worldwide.

For the more general question about fundamentalism/evangelicalism, I wrote a paper on that for my Christianity in the United States class, which might be of interest to those reading here, which includes an addendum as to why I consider myself a part of the "Evangelical Right".

http://www.bartlettpublishing.com/site/bartpub/blog/2/entry/143

In any case, as a historical correction, I should point out that the "fundamentalists" were actually, for the most part, theistic evolutionists. So if any of you use the term "fundamentalist" as a pejorative against Creationists, you are actually using it against the wrong group. Evangelical evolutionists are actually closer the fundamentalists, historically.

Note, however, that the theistic evolutionists were in fact against _Darwinism_, and students of history have often confused the two, not understanding either the philosophical or scientific distinctions within evolutionary theory.

[Sue]

Darwinism was used in some very negative ways, and most authors are very aware that the 1860's introduced a period of intense racism ending only following WWII. Although one should not attribute these damaging social views to Darwin, perhaps more so to Spencer.

The PhD dissertation of Ade Ajayi testifies to this.

So, it is difficult for me to assess which one is more responsible for damage - what the philosophical derivatives of Darwinism did to Africa, or what Creationism does today to who know who.

And yes, my very fundamentalist PB upbringing was mercifully free of Creationism. We often reflect back on yesteryear the views of fundamentalists today.

[Flávio Souza]

I think that we can have an intense and profound religious experience, every day, without being a fundamentalist person. I don´t need to believe in bible inerrance to have an intimate contact with god.

So - to me - the fundamentalist faith describe a paradox - it´s so intense, but at the same time is so weak. It show to us a refuge, a fear, a castle of the religious fundamentalist man. It´s remember to me a kind of the Thomas faith: "nothing can be wrong, everything is correct, the bible is perfect..........."

So naive and so weak faith.

But... the great and real problem is not with the fundamentalism per se, but with the fundamentalists when they got political power.......... Well, I think that I don´t need to show some examples of this! It´s terrible!

[John Hobbins]

Suzanne,

You are famous for your angry, sweeping denunciations. Are you denying that you have said in the past that you see yourself as at war with almost all forms of religion? You did that right on this blog.

Many of your arguments against a particular version of complementarianism logically apply with equal or greater force to traditional Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. Sorry to point out the obvious.

This is what bothers me most about your approach: it is negative from start to finish. If I'm not mistaken, you regard the attack-dog mode as efficacious and suited to your purposes. For my part, I regard it as counter-productive.

Suzanne and Jonathan,

I agree with you about the history, that there were and are evangelicals by any normal definition of the term who can only be described as theistic evolutionists, not creationists in the sense of so-called creation science. But for many in the fundagelical world today, YECism or the like is status confessionis.

Flavio,

It would be easier to make the case, if examples are all that is needed to make the point, that atheists should be barred from public office. Think of what they have done when in power in the last 100 years.

For the rest, you might want to define your terms more carefully. So far as I can see, you apply the term fundamentalist to anyone who has a high view of Scripture. Not a single important figure in the history of Christianity can be quoted as saying the "Bible is wrong" on anything of importance. Are they all guilty, then, of what you call "Thomas faith"? Are they are all fundamentalists? Believe me, on that definition, I too am a fundamentalist, and proud of it.

[Flávio Souza]

it´s a hard task to do - a definition in a little text...

Well, We can find fundamentalists in every place and every kind of religion (even in atheism - remember the french revolutionary practices) - but let´s talk only about the religious fundamentalism and stricly about christian fundamentalism.

A fundamentalist one are mainly focused on the literally interpretation of the bible (he don´t use to see the metaphors and the alegoric passages and neither the cultural and the historical contexts). It can be seen in the case of the creationism, for example. For him, every word, every phrase of the bible was dictated by God himself and the men just transcript the words to a paper. The bible is correct in all texts and there are no contradictions in the texts.

To me, these are some of the central characteristics - I can resume in a phrase - they are uncapable to see another levels of bible interpretations. In judaic terms - they are mainly restricted to a PSHAT level.

Of course, this is not your case - for sure!

[Owen Chesnut]

Nothing to stir up strong feelings like fundamentalism. John, have you read "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll? Just wondering what your opinion of it is, seeing how it ties directly into the debate above.
Oh, and it is great to see another Bruce Cockburn fan out there, he is my dad's favorite artist and has become one of mine as well. Salt, Sun, and Time is my favorite Cockburn album.

[St Ephen]

As for songs, please do not forget 'Too Sick To Pray' by Alabama 3

[Peter Kirk]

John, if there is any one theme of my blogging over the last two years and more, it is the struggle against fundagelicalism. I would add four more examples to Michael's four that you list: (5) atonement = God killed Jesus instead of you and me (6) leadership is male only (7) everyone deserves eternal damnation because of Adam's sin (8) the biblical interpretation of [insert name of favourite denomination or Bible teacher here] is infallible. If you care to take this as support for Rey and Sue's comments above, so be it.

[John Hobbins]

I have a policy of deleting comments whose sole purpose as far as I can see is to cast aspersions on me or someone else.

If in someone's opinion, I have misrepresented their position - it happens on occasion for a variety of reasons - I am happy to retract what I've said, and have done so in the past. If I don't retract, it's because I cannot do so in good conscience. If that is still not good enough, I am happy to pursue the question offline.

[John Hobbins]

Ephen,

Thanks for the music tip.

Owen,

Mark Noll makes a number of excellent points in his classic book-length essay. The monthly he helps edit, Books & Culture, is worth subscribing to. It is a good example of healthy evangelical engagement with the culture and with intellectual trends.

Peter,

No, I don't see eye to eye with you on Augustine, Calvin, and on the history of the church and theology in general. So I would not subscribe to the points you advocate (except for [8] which is self-evident).

Christianity and Judaism in our current cultural context need to move in the opposite direction of what you advocate. There is a great need to recover biblical and traditional concepts of, for example, vicarious suffering, original sin, and atonement. If you have trouble with the way these doctrines are formulated by popular evangelical authors, that's fine, so do I. A good place to start, if you want to understand atonement and vicarious suffering, is the novel by Jewish author Chaim Potok entitled My Name is Asher Lev. Yes, Asher's mother suffered vicariously on his behalf. Immensely. He knew it, and depicted her, in a gut-wrenching painting, as nailed to a cross.

But read the whole thing, or, if you are intuitive enough, you might spend some time with one of Chagall's more relevant paintings.

If that doesn't do it for you, I would recommend the essays by Jewish authors Leora Batnitzky ("On the Suffering of God's Chosen") Steve Kepnes ("Original Sin, Atonement, and Redemption"), and Laurie Zoloth ("A World of Injustice") in the volume entitled Christianity in Jewish Terms (Westview, 2000).

As do Rey and Suzanne, I think it's true that you have a penchant for caricaturing the positions of your opponents. This is the opposite of gentle wisdom.

I've commented in detail about egalitarianism and complementarianism over at compegal. My practical situation, in an egal church, means that my concerns go in the opposite direction with respect to yours. The feminization of leadership has reached the point that it is now urgent to recover male leadership, not knock it. It has also become clear that the real issue is how to make hierarchy and accountability structures work, not how to do without them. On this, too, I know, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Flávio Souza]

John - I´d like to say that your post and commentaries were very instigating to me! And I think that I will write a new text in my blog about this thematic.

And also I´d like to see your presence there commenting!

Thanks for your atention!

[John Hobbins]

Thank you, Flavio. I hope others take a look at what you are doing.

[Mike Aubrey]

My practical situation, in an egal church, means that my concerns go in the opposite direction with respect to yours. The feminization of leadership has reached the point that it is now urgent to recover male leadership, not knock it. It has also become clear that the real issue is how to make hierarchy and accountability structures work, not how to do without them.

I like to think that I am in the unique situation of understanding where you're coming from as well as where Sue is coming from.

My family is egalitarian (and it has been since the work in the Salvation Army in the 1880s) ministering and preaching in a complementarian setting - a setting where there has been no feminization of leadership because the church reacted so quickly to the liberals that it missed the boat on the valid points of feminism. The things I see in conservative churches (as represented by people such as Ware or Grudem) are disturbing to me, where men leave churches because a women is teaching men in a Sunday school class.

But likewise, my wife's family is semi-egalitarian, serving in the PCUSA, fighting to maintain the need for male authority in a church that recently decided it was okay to refer to the Trinity as "Mother, Daughter, Womb."

Our families live a mile apart and when we're home, we attend both churches and hear both our fathers preach.

When I read the way that the two of you go at it, its hard for me to believe that either of you have a comprehension of the position of the other. And would really like to be proven wrong on that.

Honestly, both of you boggle my mind.

[John Hobbins]

Mike,

You are in a position, better than most, to understand the damage that the extremes are doing on both sides. Thanks for speaking of your experience.

I am grateful to Wayne Leman and the blog he supervises, Compegal, for trying at least to create a space for dialogue and understanding. Still, that site has not become a safe place for non-egals. That, of course, is exactly how some people want it.

My point of departure is that most people, traditionalists, complementarian, and egal, are, if they are Christian, willing to let scripture and tradition impact their point of view, and likewise accept the fact that the different frameworks, in marriage and in church life, each have plusses and minuses.

I am egal, but not a crusading egal. Since I am fourth or fifth generation egal (I come from a liberal Republican family), I am familiar with egalism and its consequences in a way that converts to egalism are not.

The important thing, in my view, is that passages like 1 Cor 13, Rom 12, and Phil 2 are the effective touchstones in marriage, church life, and life in general. In talking with those in my extended family and among friends who are convinced that it is helpful, not harmful, to gender particular functions, that is what I look for and encourage: a commitment to a hierarchy of truth in which a passage like 1 Cor 13 is at the top.

I am not afraid to point out that egalitarian experiments rejigger things, but end up gendering functions all over again, according to a new configuration.

Not surprisingly, a demythologized perspective on egalitarianism is not appreciated by recovering complementarians. A black-and-white perspective is what they are after. They will not find it here.

[Richard]

Well put it this way, even if I fall into this camp to some extent, I would have to say I cannot believe in a pre-trib rapture for one thing- the bible just does not teach it, and indeed somewhere in the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks of the gathering of the saints "*after* the tribulation of those days" IIRC.

As regards YEC, though, I have come to the conclusion that it it the soundest interpretation of the Bible, though I am not purely literalist when it comes to things like the Fall (too much stuff that looks like symbolism). As regards the scientific evidence, I agree it might seem pretty awkward, but I must plead ignorance in the main- I simply have not read enough or studied everything, even of the more informed and in-depth apologetics. It seems to me that the views of mainstream science and criticisms of YEC are perhaps less founded than many think, though, and there are limits to what "historical science" can show- one can only hazard informed guesses about the past, based on assumptions which may be wrong (e.g. for dating methods) and cannot recreate the conditions thereof- or the changes of millions of years- in the lab.

Biblical inerrancy? I agree that means the Bible says exactly what the God Who inspired it wanted it to say, but that is not an excuse for ueber-literalism.