Answering Fundamentalists

Sermon for North Hill, July 3, 2010


The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . .”

Most Christians in America happily agree that all human beings are created equal. This is TRUTH beyond reasonable doubt. Most Christians even agree with the claim that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

We assume these “self-evident” truths are perfectly aligned with the clear teaching of the Bible. In reality, these words, however grand and eloquent, set forth a radical departure from the picture of government found in the Bible. In the Bible there is only one form of government recognized as legitimate: monarchy. (Theocracy is not an exception. In a theocracy, God is the absolute monarch.)

When the American innovators challenged the legitimacy of the reign of King George, they did not do so on the basis of the plain meaning of the Word of God. They did it on the basis of “self-evident truth” which contradicted the Apostle Paul who explicitly stated that any earthly authority system was set in place by God and the proper role of Christians was respect and obedience. (Paul did not qualify his statement to make exceptions for “unworthy” monarchs.

In short, the American founders dramatically rejected the claims of fundamentalism. They rejected the Bible as their sole source of authority. American Christians who celebrate their privileges and rights as citizens of “the greatest country on earth” are tacitly embracing a rationalistic, humanistic reading of the Bible. The United States was founded by men who insisted that we must interpret Scripture in line with human need and dignity. In their case, that meant rejecting a thousands-of-years-old understanding of the rightful authority of kings.

So, on this Fourth of July weekend, let's consider the right response to fundamentalists.

First, three stories:

Abraham

God told Abraham he was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. God did not ask Abraham for his opinion. God did not invite Abraham to critique the destruction plan. Abraham did it any way. In fact, Abraham challenged God, accusing him of injustice if God went ahead with his plan.

God did not rebuke Abraham. God agreed with him. God even allowed Abraham to set the conditions that had to be met if the cities were going to be destroyed. When it turned out that the cities met even Abraham's conditions for destruction—fewer than ten righteous people—God honored Abraham's scruples by sending angels to evacuate Abraham's four relatives before the fire fell. At least this is one way to read the story. (Genesis 18, 19).

Moses

God gave Moses a direct command: “Get out of my way so I can destroy these miserable people and start over!”

Moses understood. God was not diffident or ambiguous. God gave Moses a direct, clear, explicit, personal communication, in his own native language. Moses heard what God said, then argued. “God, I don't think you really want to do that.” Later, Moses upped his protest. “I will not step aside. If you insist on taking out these people, you're going to have to go through me. If you're going to kill them, you've got to kill me, first.”

Curiously, Moses the man who defied God to his face, is celebrated as the human being who enjoyed the most intimate access to God. The Bible says no one can see God and live. It also says that in contrast to all other people, God spoke with Moses face-to-face. (Exodus 32; 33:11)

Peter

In Acts 15, the leaders of the church are having an intense debate over how to relate to the crowds of non-Jews who are flooding into the church. Should the church require these new believers to embrace all the rules God had given to the Hebrews? God had been quite explicit: the rules regarding food, clothes, circumcision, sacrifices, sexual purity, the Sabbath, the annual feasts were for all time. They were to last forever. (Multiple references in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. See particularly Dt. 29:29.)

You would think the explicit teachings of Scripture would have ended all discussion. God had spoken. That settled it. But not for Peter. Instead, Peter argued the system of rules should be abandoned, at least for new converts, for two reasons: 1. The system had proved to be an unbearable burden. 2. God had poured his spirit out on believers who did not practice the rules, showing divine approval for them as non-observant believers. Note, that Peter did not attempt to quote other Bible passages to support his views. Rather he advocated overturning the longstanding understanding of God's word by citing the history of God's people.

The church leaders, who were mostly very strict Jews, agreed with Peter. They did not themselves give up their classic Jewish practices. They did, however, agree that many of the specific requirements detailed in the Word of God should no longer be taught as obligatory for new believers.

It was a dramatic rejection of fundamentalism.

Definition of Fundamentalist

What is a fundamentalist? The term is used in various ways in different contexts. In this sermon, when I speak of “fundamentalists” or “fundamentalism” I have two dominant characteristics in mind. First, is a radical commitment to a single text as the only source of authority. In Christianity, this is exemplified by the slogan, The Bible and Bible Only. Or the bumper sticker, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The second characteristic of fundamentalists is their belief that the best religion is that which is most similar to the pure, authentic religion of their spiritual forebears. So Adventist fundamentalists want to “restore” the apostolic church. They want to “return” to the pure faith of the Adventist pioneers. For fundamentalists, any discernible change from the practices or beliefs of their spiritual forebears is necessarily a movement away from God's ideal.

I dissent from both of these convictions. Today, I will examine “The Bible and Bible Only.” Next week, I'll consider “The Faith of the Pioneers.”

Did you understand what God said? Are you sure?

Adventists have always been people of the book. That should always be true. But BBO is not realistic. It is not a prescription for spiritual or moral health. Here's why.

Fundamentalists couch their claim to authority as mere obedience to the plain statements of God. The Bible is God's word. Since God has spoken plainly in his Word, our only proper response is unhesitating acquiescence and obedience. But the examples of Abraham and Moses flatly contradict this approach to spiritual life. God spoke. Abraham and Moses argued. And God changed his mind!

God gave rules in Scripture. A thousand years or so later, Peter stood up in church council and said, “Let's change the rules.”

If Abraham and Moses honored their friendship with God by arguing with his direct, explicit, personal communication, why would we think the children of Abraham ought to be less active in their engagement with the written word of God. If Moses and Abraham advanced the cause of God by arguing with his direct, personal communication, surely we would do well to argue with the text, which given the passage of time, the change of culture, etc., is far more susceptible to misunderstanding. Mindless obedience is not what God desires.

If Peter demonstrated his sensitivity to the leading of God and the mission of Jesus by calling for the annulling of centuries-old rules, why wouldn't contemporary disciples raise questions about elements of the biblical text or its classic interpretation that appear to interfere with the present work of God?

When fundamentalists quote the Bible in support of ideas that contradict the wisdom that flows out of church history, science or mature human experience, our first question should be, “Why are you so sure you understand what God said?” This question is given a sharp point when we consider the relationships among fundamentalists. If the Bible was as unambiguous and clear as fundamentalists claim, we would expect BBO to produce unity. Au contraire.

BBO and Religious Conflicts

One curious feature of fundamentalism is the fierce conflicts that commonly characterize its proponents. Sunnis and Shias, both of whom regard the Quran as the inerrant, infallible revelation of God's will, bomb each other. People from Weimar and people from Hartland anathematize each other for misreading Ellen White. Southern Baptists and Adventists condemn each other for misinterpreting the Bible.

Koranteng-Pipim and Ratzlaff, a case study on the limits of The Bible and Bible Only (BBO)

Dale Ratzlaff used to be an Adventist academy Bible teacher. He was a devout, conservative Adventist. Then he changed his mind. Now he has a large ministry with a congregation, a web site and print journal all devoted to helping people “escape” the erroneous theology and unwholesome culture of Adventism. Dale proposes to help people shackled by Adventism by pointing them to a true theology that is based on the Bible and Bible Only. (This BBO theology just happens to be the theology of classic evangelicalism.)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim earned his first degree in engineering. Later he earned an M. Div. and a Ph. D. in theology from Andrews university. His mission is to help Adventists rediscover the truthfulness and profound value of traditional, classic Adventism. The key to this discovery is BBO.

So both Dale and Samuel believe the remedy for all that ails Adventism is the radical embracing of BBO. Each believes that a genuine commitment to BBO will lead all Adventists to agree with him. Yet a devout commitment to BBO has led them to emphatically contradictory positions. Instead of leading to unity, BBO has fueled their mutual rejection. (I, of course, think Samuel is far closer to a "whole-Bible" theology than is Dale. But my point is, unless I'm willing to dismiss one of them as dishonest, I cannot distinguish between them by their relative commitment to BBO.)

Goldstein and Patzer, a second case study on the limits of BBO to produce unity.

Clifford Goldstein is a popular voice among Adventist fundamentalists. He bombastically calls for the preservation of the Church's classic teachings regarding Creation. Any theologian or church-employed scientist who denies the truth of the classic Adventist understanding of 6 days/6000 years should have the courage to resign. Clifford does not take this stand because he wants to be mean or harsh. He is fighting to protect the integrity and purity of his church. He is fighting to defend the single point source of truth—the Bible.

Goldstein's reverence for Scripture was shared by the late North Pacific Union president, Jere Patzer. Patzer wrote more than one editorial in the Gleaner detailing his convictions regarding creation. In one (March, 203), he gave special attention to “the fourth day.” On that day, God created the sun and moon and stars. This is the plain meaning of the text. Patzer was aware that some Adventists disputed this and instead believed God created the solar system billions of years before the events of creation week. Patzer worried that such a view was a dangerous compromise of Bible authority.

While I do not recall seeing Goldstein defend this view in the pages of the Adventist Review, I have personally heard him (and Davidson and Rodriguez) defend this “dangerous view” as the correct view. In fact, no conservative Adventist theologian I know of agrees with Patzer. So much for unity based on a commitment to BBO.

If Not Fundamentalism, Then What?

So if we don't define our view as BBO, what is our stance in regard to the Bible and living a godly life?

Mercy not Sacrifice

We who are not fundamentalists insist we are actually more faithful to the Bible than they are. We argue the continued pursuit of truth and justice is more in line what the Bible is about than attempting to impose in our world all of the specific strictures and ideas voiced in the Bible. We gladly honor the Bible as the Adventist constitution and case book. We never conduct our arguments in the absence of the Biblical text. But we deny that there is a single, incontrovertible meaning that all devout, reasonable people will recognize. Our interpretation of the text is shaped by our own histories and cultures, our temperaments and education. This does not remove the Bible from its privileged place as the greatest authority among us. It does make us hesitant to make our understanding of the Bible the basis of harsh action toward others. We unabashedly give priority to the Bible passages that highlight compassion, justice and humility as the greatest considerations of all. When obedience to the “plain meaning” of the text conflicts with compassionate regard for persons, we choose compassion over rigorous enforcement.

To quote Jesus (and Hosea): God prefers mercy not sacrifice (Matthew 12:7).

Our response to fundamentalists is to claim partnership with Abraham, Moses and Peter who discerned God's will by paying attention to what brought health, hope and healing to people. Abraham, Moses and Peter trusted more in their ability make sense of human need than they did in their capacity to understand the infallible word and will of God.

If our first response to fundamentalists is: How can you be so sure you understand perfectly what God has said, our second response is to cite Abraham and Moses as our case studies and declare, “Even if you do understand what God said, you are going to have to go through us to get at the people you wish to hammer.”

When fundamentalists clamor for the firing of professors, for the subjugation of women, for the spanking of children, for the demonization of homosexual orientation, we ought to stand squarely in their path. If Moses would interpose his own body between God and the miserable rebels in Israel, the least we can do is interpose our bodies between the devout fundamentalists who are concerned for the purity of the church and the various people groups who are their targets.

But we must not stop with merely interfering with the destructive aspect of fundamentalism. We must cooperate with its positive themes. All fundamentalisms strongly affirm the importance of morality and compassion. While this devotion to compassion may be obscured by other harsher elements, it is always there. And we who protest against the negative elements of fundamentalism must vigorously, actively engage in the very acts of compassion and creative love that fundamentalism's best people and ideas call for.

We who are not fundamentalists have our own proof texts: Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:37-39. And if we do not actually live out the ideals voiced in these texts, our critiques of fundamentalists will be tragically misplaced.

Our final answer to fundamentalists is to invite them to join us doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly with God. Or as Jesus put it, loving God with our entire being and our neighbor (including the fundamentalist) as ourselves.