Literalism, fundamentalism, and exclusionism
I’d like to follow up with the thread from a previous post about “literal” interpretations of the Bible. As I alluded to before, Rob Bell (futuristic Megachurch superpastor) says that our theology needs to be strong enough to stand up to inconsistencies in the Bible. Also, the sermon that got me writing this blog included a straightforward statement that the Bible was not literally spoken by the Lord God’s angels unto the ears of men to transcribe. (That’s the story behind the Koran as I understand it, though.) The Bible is called “the Good Book” for Good Reason, but holding it up as such does not require one to insist that the world is only a few thousand years old, that the world’s population really was wiped out by a Great Flood, or that Seven Trumpets will signal the end of the world.
By stating all of this, I don’t really expect to change the minds of so-called fundamentalist Christians. (I think the term’s a misnomer because, as A.J. Jacobs points out by following all the “rules” of the Bible in a year, you don’t see most fundies keeping kosher or growing out their beards. A better term might be “self-appointed fundamentalists,” thought that’s unwieldy. Maybe “exclusionist Christians” would work better, as what we consider fundamentalism is really just about picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that seem best suited to declaring that other people aren’t good Christians. Fred Clark calls this misguided fundamentalism “illiteralism” because it totally misunderstands what is literal and literary about the Bible. But I digress.)
So, no, I don’t expect to change the minds of exclusionist Christians. Rather, I’d like to change the minds of secular liberals — especially intellectuals, academics, and personal friends. I’d like to get people to stop equating “Christian” with exclusionist Christians, to stop using it like a bad word. I think I could find some use for a loaded word in opposition to “Christian,” as we might use “scientism” in opposition to “science.” But I’m not particularly interested in becoming the politically correct language police.
The way that I have been hoping to change the minds of secular liberals is to discourage the same kind of faux literalism that the so-called fundamentalists practice. Pardon me for invoking his name so frequently, but I appreciate what Fred Clark had to say on this matter:
Both the lazy reporters and the sectarian atheists tend to hold similar beliefs, based on the same reasoning, as the illiteralist fundies. All three groups believe things like:Agreed.I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists who made such claims. It’s still somewhat jarring to me when I encounter non-fundies who accept their logic, if not their conclusions.
- If there was not an actual, flesh-and-blood man named Noah who actually, historically built an ark when he was actually 700 years old before a flood that actually covered the entire surface of the planet, then God is bunk.
- If there was not an actual, flesh-and-blood man named Jonah who actually spent three days inside the belly of a giant fish in the Mediterranean, then all religious belief is foolishness.
- Proof that the world is more than 6,000 years old is proof that God does not exist.
At the same time, I recognize a certain hypocrisy on my own part here. What was it Paul said in one of those Letters? Something about not being divided into little warring Christian factions. Maybe we can read that as “denominations.” Not sure. Still, I have to be honest with myself (and you) here. I could say that I don’t like “Christian” being equated with illiteralist, exclusionary, self-appointed fundamentalists because it undermines the efforts of more Gospel-focused Christians who are actively trying to make the world a better place. But, no — if there’s one thing the Bible should teach us, it’s that to truly do Good, you can’t back down even when the world seems to repay you with Bad. No, that’s not why the current, negative use of “Christian” bothers me. It’s because it hurts my feelings.
I should say it again just because I’m having a hard time admitting it to myself: I don’t like when you use “Christian” as a bad word because it hurts my feelings. It sounds like you’re talking about me, even though we both know you’re not really. I can’t make you stop, but I’m hoping I can encourage you to help me reclaim the word. Maybe try believing me more than you believe them when we call ourselves “Christians.”
And then I feel guilty that I make any claim to words at all, as language belongs to each of us and to us all. I don’t want to be the politically correct language police. I don’t want to be the thought police. Sometimes, I don’t even know if I want to be Christian, as I feel like I can’t lay claim to what I really want to believe it means.
