the future of faith: Globalization vs. fundamentalism, Yoda vs. al Qaida

“Give us this day our daily faith, but deliver us from beliefs.”

-Aldous Huxley, Island

Opening his last chapter of The Future of Faith, Harvey Cox offers this eccentric quote from Huxley’s sketch on the future of religion in a science world.  It is overstated to be sure, but the quote captures something that, like it or not, we are seeing in the world of religions today.  The growing emphases on Spirit and Justice are disrupting the preeminence which dogmatic belief has held on the religious landscape, especially in the last century.

—-

Part 1: Creeds crafting orthodoxy and the Gospel of Thomas

Part 2: 20th Century American Fundamentalism

Globalization: Humility, or pluralism and fundamentalism

Globalization breeds crisis of faith as contact with the Other suggests we may not understand as much as we previously thought.  A mature reaction is humility and a desire to dialogue and learn.  But more commonly a reaction of ambiguous syncretism or reactionary dogmatic fundamentalism is taken instead.  This is the history of the late 20^th century, as earlier 20^th century trends of theological liberalism and fundamentalism reached a crux to the point that people took sides without realizing they were even doing so..

To explain this, Cox highlights the remarkable resurgence in Islam over the last century.  There are a variety of explanations for this trend: the rise of education and low job market in the middle east, the world’s oil addiction, the failure of either socialism or free market capitalism to satisfy needs.  But the most likely reason, Cox argues, is the way in which change (i.e. globalization) breeds in people a need for stability (i.e. tradition, religion).  To take it a step further, Islam has always had a care for the poor as a central pillar, and so the growing humanitarian obsession merged well with a religio-political system that required the poor to to be taken care of in order to reach paradise.

The rise of lay leadership, to the hierarchy’s chagrin

On top of this, we see a phenomenon in Islam that has congruent strains in every major religion: the rise of the lay semi-clergy.  Notably, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are showing trends toward less ordination, less officiation, and more work outside the bounds of the dominant system.  In American Christianity, we see this in para-church ministries such as Young Life, the Passion conferences, the Salvation Army, or churches planted without denominational support or seminary-schooled clergy.  There is no longer an assumed need for official sanction.  The reaction from the religious systems of the world loosing control is violent.  A brand new Buddhist temple, beautifully constructed into the side of Mt. Fugi is destroyed because it houses a lay sect.  Christian priests are excommunicated.  Muslim’s have been killed for stepping outside the watch of the imams.

Education breeds doubt and atheism

Cox goes on to describe a far more hidden fact, a truth that philosophers and theologians have known since Plato but that few choose to articulate: people want a solid, unquestionable narrative with which to frame life and ethics.  Faith does not do well if its subscribers do not feel absolutely sure of their fundamentals.  Even in the highly functional societies of northern Europe need a common, almost religious, framing ethic regardless of the success of atheism.  In the Bible churches of the US south, we see an example of this in the way that pastors are reluctant to teach their congregations of the contradictions and problems with Biblical inerrancy that they learned in seminary.  People hate that sense of not being sure.

History inarguably shows that a society’s rise of education corresponds to a rise in atheism.  Even when atheism does not dominate, a rise in intellect still threatens the clergy-class because the lay become aware of problems in the faith.  People learn, and then they doubt.  There doubts can no longer be assuaged with pompous assurances from a cleric, because the doubter can google the question on his mind and know more about it in a short 10 minutes than the cleric learned in 5 years of grad school.  So at best, education threatens the religious establishment, if not religion itself.

Crisis point: liberalism leads to fundamentalism leads to emergence

The last trend Cox sees in the future of faith is the sharpening and marginalization of fundamentalism.  To look at this, Cox highlights al Qaida, a group that emerged in response to what it saw as the secularization of governments founded in Islam.  Intelligence analysts tell us that al Qaida’s goal is not first and foremost to hurt America and non-Muslim states.  Al Qaida wants Islamic renewal, and after witnessing the trend of impassioned young Muslims rising whenever a foreign state intervenes in domestic affairs, al Qaida saw an opportunity to coax America to attack.  Hence 9/11; we each needed the other to attack.  For a few years, their desire for the US to attack worked well and surged their ranks.  Fundamentalist movements are well equipped to draw true believers.  But the plan backfired, as fundamentalist tactics warped by a good guys vs. bad guys worldview tend to do, and by 2005, we saw al Qaida’s plummeting esteem in the Muslim world.  The became the laughable sideliners, angrily fighting a loosing battle.  An American national intelligence agency reported in 2008 that al Qaida was being alienated from the broader Muslim world due to its “indiscriminate killing and inattention to the practical problems of poverty, unemployment, and education.”

Cox makes a startling comparison to Islam’s extremist wing to what he says is the American Christian version: the Religious Right’s desire for a “Christian nation.”  In Africa, it comes in the form of bishops splitting communions over women and gay clergy.  In Israel, it is the formation of a religious “Torah State.”  In India, the Barata Janata party wants to “Hinduize” India.  It is a consistent fundamentalist reaction we see in every major religion to discomfort with globalization.  At some point, globalization and growing literacy/education forces a community to a crisis point at which they will choose either mechanistic and reactionary fundamentalism, or a rupture into faith beyond the traditional bounds of beliefs they have known.  My fear for the Church is that so many choose fundamentalism because they mistakenly feel doing so is loyal to Jesus and the Bible.  It is a very deceptive myth that shrouds fear and misinformation as loyalty.

Jedi Prophet Yoda

The great sage Yoda once said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side.  Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate… leads to suffering. “

There is much fear disguising itself as loyalty in all the fundamentalist movements.  It thrives on misinformation and an unwillingness to learn from anyone outside its own camp.  And it is a losing battle.  Fundamentalism will never die, but it will continue to be marginalized, screaming from the sidelines that somebody else stole their things and they want them back.

The Future of Faith

In the end Cox is very hopeful for the future of faith, as am I.  A growing emphasis on Spirit and Justice is on the rise, and fundamentalism is on the decline.  Faith, with its loyal prophets of education and atheism, are growing strong.  Just as creeds emerged from the spheres of authority over a vast body that could have cared less, we see less emphasis on lists of beliefs for inclusion (and theologians like myself are far more interested in a wider sphere of learning).  There is less hierarchy, patriarchy, and dogmatism.  Faiths are rediscovering their founder’s philosophies.  The Church is rediscovering “Gospel” as Jesus defined it (“the Kingdom of God is at hand”) rather than the way 20^th century fundamentalism defined it (“believe these things and you will get to heaven”).  As Rabbi Gamaliel once urged the Sanhedrin to cease oppressing an emerging Jewish sect called “the Way of Jesus” because if it was from God it could not be stopped, I am convinced this new turn of the Spirit and Justice will not be stopped.  It will be excommunicated, slandered, oppressed, and martyred, but it will not be stopped.

Do Christians and Muslims believe in the same God?

A week ago, I linked to an article that stirred up some discussion on the subject of gods represented in Christianity and islam: are they separate gods or one in the same? I wanted to comment further on this.

As a partial response, I posted on a (dis)belief towards a/theism. In that post, I tried to point to the reality that any theological discourse carries the idea of god somewhat lightly, reshaping god as an object to be discussed. But as this flies in the face of our claim towards god’s trascendence, we can assume that there exists, in a theological speculation, a faithful betrayal of god. We demote the divine to an object to be speculated on, and must realize that we are then partly (and likely significantly) erroneous in our conclusions 100% of the time.

So when we speak of god, as C.S. Lewis famously put it, we speak not of god, but of an idol. However much we wish to accurately know of god, the divine is something that cannot be colonized.

Which brings us to this question of whether or not Christians and Muslims and Jews worship the same god. I remember this being the trendy question following the violence of 9/11. There sprung up a cadre of Christian apologists who pounced on the attack as an avenue to prove a difference, and another cadre of Mulsim apologists sprung up to explain the difference between extremist Wahabism and more moderate Muslim doctrine. The rhetoric of the question gave a tacitly playful acknowledgement of the existence of two gods, but the question was understood as not asking about the existence of two actual gods, but whether or not Christians and Muslims were imagining the same being; the entity who would be the one true god. But it is not that simple either, because I could say I believe in the one true god, who happens to be a toasted cheese sandwich sitting behind Neptune. I can speak of the “one true god” and mean the same thing as you as far as the term itself goes, but that says nothing of the characteristics we would not agree on.

So the question should not be phrased childishly as “do Christians and Muslims worship the same god?” (as we can agree there could only be one god), but instead, “do Christians and Muslims worship a god with either identical or similar enough characteristics to be called the same entity?” To continue to insist otherwise, to rhetorically insist that Christians and Muslims actually worship different gods, becomes a bit childish and incoherent at best. We cannot dispute these cousin monotheisms both trace ancestry to a singular god of a man named Abraham, but we can certainly dispute whether or not the god represented by each has markedly different characteristics.

It is no secret that Christianity and Judaism influenced Islam, and that Islam influenced Christianity back. The god depicted by each came be so remarkably similar. Consider these verses, some from the Qur’an and some from the Bible:

“When God’s help and victory come, and you see men embrace God’s faith in multitudes, give glory to your Lord and seek His pardon. He is ever disposed to mercy.”

“Do not treat men with scorn, nor walk proudly on the earth: God does not love the arrogant and the poud”

“Believers, Jews, Christians… whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret.”

“But the wicked will perish: the lord’s enemies will be like the beauty of the fields, they will vanish- vanish like smoke.

“whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret.”

“I warn you, then, of the blazing fire, in which none shall burn save the hardened sinner, who denies the Truth and gives no heed.”

“He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?”

‘What has brought you into Hell?’

They will replay: ‘We never prayed, nor did we ever feed the hungry. We engaged in vain disputes and denied the
Day of Reckoning till the inevitable end overtook us.’

Which verses came from the Bible, and which came from the Qur’an? Even where we know, we see remarkable similarities in how god is represented and what god’s concerns are. We could quote many more verses to trace more similarities. Each is a god that has commanded war and peace at varying times. Each is a god of the oppressed, who holds those who hoard resources with fiery contempt. Each is depicted as a god who saves men by his grace but will one day judge man by his works and come down to reign on the earth. In our scholarship, we know that both depictions of these gods evolved from earlier concepts of god, that El became Eloh’im who became YHVH in the Bible, and that Eloh’im became al’Lah in the Qur’an.

We cannot deny that the god of the Qur’an and the god of the Bible have differing characteristics. But I think if we are honest with ourselves and resist the temptation to force the Old and New Testaments into a seamless theology, we all know that the god of the OT and god in the NT have differing characteristics as well. Are the gods of the Qur’an and the Bible different? Certainly, at least as much as the gods of the OT and NT are different. This is to say, both texts try to describe the same god, but have attribute to him (well, god even fluctuates on gender in the OT) differences. So how big of a difference does there have to be before we call these different gods?

Many make a great deal of the difference of Trinity, although then we must also say that Judaism worships a different god from Christians as well. In addition, we would have to say any sect of Christianity that rejects the Trinity concept, as well as many or most Christians before the 4^th century creeds, do not worship the same god either. There is the difference of the Christ, but even this is not so clear as we make it seem. It is no secret to historians that it took several hundred years for the idea of Christ’s coequal status with God-Father to become orthodoxy (a la filioque). Just as Christ is only the 2^nd greatest prophet and a messiah in Islam, Christ was no more than a messiah (and not coequal with god) to many Christians in the pre-creedal centuries (and many continue this line of thought today). At what point does the line of exclusion aim its guns at fellow Christians in the same way we exclude the Muslim for differing beliefs? What about particular atonement models which many Protestants unknowingly hold on to and decide who is a “real christian” or not? What about differing concepts of afterlife? Differences on Resurrection? Differences on Virgin Birth? Differences in how we view inspiration? Differences in predestination and god’s determinism? These are all differences which have evolved into creed-level fundamentals over time for some Christian or another (or Muslim), but there is a pervasive myth of orthodoxy within the Church that undermines the key point here. That is to say, every Christian wants to believe he believes the same as the early followers of Christ did, but this myth of consistency and orthodoxy across churches in the beginning betrays in itself an ignorance of history.

At what point do we consider the other an other because his god is too other? At what point are we, rather than looking for insight, merely looking for a reason to label a fellow Christian as liberal or unorthodox, or a Muslim an extremist, misogynist, and racist in a violent religion? Choosing to use rhetoric that encourages the idea that the other is a follower of another god and not my god gives approval that the other 1) is pagan, 2) is ignorant, 3) is not righteous, and 4) will lose in the end to the true god. Which are all things that make rhetorical or physical violence easier to justify.

And a side note for Christians of the more exclusive point of view: what do we say of the fascinating growing trend of Muslim Christians? There is a vast and growing populace of Muslims coming to see the Christ as their savior while staying Muslim, honoring Muhammad, keeping the prayer hours, etc. Would you judge that they are in or out, Christian or Muslim, faithful or syncrotistic?

So again we pose the question: do Christians and Muslims believe in the same god? First answer me this, acknowledging that no two people on the planet have identical concepts of god: do you and I believe in the same god?

And another question: isn’t this a really bad question?

the tad delay lexicon: the words i use that bring lots of confusion on the blog

My wife and I were discussing some of the misunderstandings people take with my blog. She pointed out that a lot of people may think they disagree with me on something, when really they just misunderstand the terminology I use. It’s true. I try to use terms as they are used in academia or good media, but that very often that is greatly different common parlance. So, in hopes of clearing up some confusion, here’s come explaination and where I stand. And although this is a hefty post already, if there is a word I use a lot that might need some clarification, let me know. Here is the Tad Delay lexicon for now:

Atonement

Atonement refers to how exactly the Christ made our peace with God, and is literally a running together of three English words (at-one-ment). It was created by early English translators when no appropriate word could be found for the mystery of what the Incarnation was all about. The most common understanding of atonement in Evangelicalism today is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view, ubiquitous to the point that few Evangelicals have heard anything else. Other versions I may refer to are the Christus Victor, Moral Influence, or Ransom theories. There are many more theories on how Christ’s death saves us- 30-50 theories that I am aware of, though most can be grouped under one of four 4-6 main theories. It is my view that arguments on atonement are esoteric and internecine, and though they can have important implications, differing views of atonement are not worth breaking fellowship over (as is a growing trend in Evangelicalism today). It is important to keep in mind that Scripture does not give us a simple atonement theory to rule them all and one theory to bind them, so we should approach this heated topic with faith and intellect, but still lightly.

Atonement’s most popular theory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

PSA can be summed up as the view that in order for God to be forgiving and just, He required a perfect sacrifice to transmitigate our punishment though sacrificial death. In this view, rather than forgiving sin totally (PSA says this would be unjust or imperfect), our sin is rather transferred to Jesus, and his one sinless sacrifice creates an unbalance such that all people can be forgiven (with the caveat that they ask or “accept” this offering). Though based loosely on a metaphor of sacrifice writers used in Romans 3 and Hebrews, this view is not taught plainly in Scripture as the singular way that Christ is meant to save us. The PSA theory has its roots much more largely in the work of St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 12^th century and the reformers of the 16^th century. As it was built up by the reformers, it is no wonder that most Protestants have heard no other view, as their sect was birthed in this view (it seems only natural to mistakenly assume this has been the normal view of Christ since the earliest church). It my perspective that this is not an accurate or helpful view of God at all, and limits God to being unable to simple forgive because of justice laws that he must submit himself to (and why not worship the justice laws if even God has to submit himself to them?). I certainly view atonement as substitutionary in some sense, but much more in the metaphorical sense I feel scripture communicates it as and less in the technical vein of believing Christ literally took our sins (as if sins are items able to be taken) because God was unable to forgive without a sacrifice. Taking such a hard-line and clear-cut view of atonement is liberal and unorthodox in the worst sense of the words, and absolutely belittling of God.

Conservatives and Liberals

Here we go. Conservative and liberal in politics means something different from when used in religion, which again means something different from use as social groupings. I’m very interested in politics, but I’m much more interested in sociology. Hence, when I speak of conservatives and liberals I am thinking of them as social groups first and foremost, and political or theological theories secondly. As we all know (and yes, I know this is far oversimplified) conservatives hold a time in the past as ideal, while liberals assume that ideals are not yet reached but should be driven towards. I think of it as the difference between Plato (past ideals) and Aristotle (futurist ideals), a classic philosophical smack-down between two brilliant thinkers who really had much more to agree upon than we like to think (much like our political debates today).

Conservatives and Liberals in Politics

Politically, I don’t care much for either label, and here’s why: given similar sets of information, the two sides will nearly always agree so far as I can tell. Liberals and conservatives can each look to each other’s founding idealists and say “I agree with that!” Modern ideologues can find immense common ground and shared perspective, which lends to the idea that we find our differences more in Republican or Democratic parties (which are very different in legislative direction) than in the ideals of founders of systems). This is not to say that the ideological systems have no real differences (they certainly do), but since my interest in politics is far more concerned with social movements than legislation, I just don’t care much for choosing a side to base political theory around. While I’m not a Democrat, I’ve come to view the Republican party with great suspicion recently. The Republican party (*at the national level*) is growing in the South, and only in the South. It is taking it’s shape as a regional party, and it’s pundits are leading the charge into garnering votes with half-truths and whole-lies in severely xenophobic and slanderous fashion as they cater to a demographic which seems surprisingly happy to lend its belief and vote to unfounded emotive rhetoric sans any real rationale to back propaganda. In addition, many of the things the Republican party has come to stand for are severely anti-Christian; a rush to war, defense of torture, resisting legislation lowering abortions in favor of appealing to an unreachable goal of repealing Roe v. Wade, a favor for the rich, a fierce loyalty to laissez-faire, a manipulation of patriotism for the party’s own ends, and most disturbing of all a claiming of God as its cheerleader. These things appall me in ways that, quite honestly, the Democrat party has not come close to. I’m a reserved, but still very hopeful fan of our current President, and I view him as very centrist in the conservative-liberal spectrum (although that is quite different from the Republican-Democrat spectrum, as there is less emphasis on political conservatism in the current Republican party). I am very happy he is a Christian and not a christianist, and represents very Biblical values on a range of issues unlike so many politicians we have seen as of late. Much confusion over the liberal and conservative terms comes from the fluidic way we use the terms. For example, though President Bush was far from ideologically conservative, we still call him that. Or consider how a judge who sticks very close to the law may seem liberal to some just because the judgments see far from what a Christianist may have desired. It is true that I find very little ideological common ground with national-level Republican ideals as the party stands now, although I will find a massive amount of common ground with a political conservative (or a political liberal for that matter).

Conservatives and Liberals in Theology

Theologically, conservatives and liberals are much more different. Conservative theologians tend to want to talk a lot of Bible; liberal theologians want to talk a lot of “how did we get the Bible?” Conservative Christians view liberal Christians as not caring for Scripture and the Gospel, while liberal Christians view conservatives as not caring about scholarship or action. There is truth in each claim. It is true that the average conservative pastor will know his Bible very well. It is also true that the average liberal pastor will be much more aware of the history and scholarship and problems behind those pages which the conservative tends to ignore. The modern conservative Christian movement arose (contrary to the myth that they conserve ideals of the early church) largely tied to the rise of fundamentalism in reaction to Darwinism, new political philosophies, and late 19^th and early 20^th century scholarship that was demolishing many conservatives faith. It is my opinion that what theological conservatives are very often conserving an ideal from 20^th century American Christianity (or 16^th century Protestant theology), which in the grand scheme of Christian theology is very often quite liberal in the sense of being new and unfounded in earlier Christian theology. Hence, people who view themselves as theologically conservative often take, unbeknownst to themselves, very progressive (or regressive, but nonetheless new in the grand scheme) positions. I think of myself as theologically post-liberal/conservative, that is, while I think there has been and will continue to be much to learn from both sides (I have been enriched by thinkers from both), we need to move beyond our reductionistic and modernist tendencies to pick sides and only learn from people who already believe like us.

Evangelical

Evangelical refers to a cultural group. It is not the same as little “e” evangelicals, who wish to spread their picture of reality to others. All Evangelicals are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are Evangelical. I’m an evangelical, but I’m not much of an Evangelical anymore. Big “E” Evangelicalism refers to people who are often fundamentalists, and as such tend to be fairly exclusive in doctrine. In a statistically significant bloc, Evangelicals tend to vote for Republicans, have similar views on social, economic, religious issues, listen to similar bands and political pundits, use similar verbiage, etc. Evangelicalism is a subset of Protestantism, which in turn is one sect of Christianity. Evangelicals as a whole tend to be unaware of church history and the emergence of doctrines, but highly (probably more than any other subset of Christianity) educated in the Bible.

Emergent Village, or big “E” Emergent.

Emergent Village, is a 501c3 non-profit group that networks emergent (little “e”) Christians, promotes conferences, and publishes books and audio for the furthering of the kingdom of God. Material produced by EV tends to be highly philosophically, culturally, Scripturally, and historically educated, which produces a feeling of suspect with Christians less so schooled. Emergent Village is a group that pushes a particular voice, and has helped many Christians along in their faith (myself included). That said, they do not speak for the broader emerging church, they do not speak for emergent Christians, and they do not speak for me. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking with several of the founding members of EV, and I can tell you that they are Godly men with heart to see the kingdom of God come to earth. But unless you think the Acts 29 Network speaks authoritatively for all Calvinists or that the Family Research Counsel speaks for all Evangelicals, please understand that EV speaks for themselves, and does not try to do otherwise. Again, they do not speak for me.

emergent (little “e”), emerging, and Emergence

Confusing and hopeless, I know- I think so too. Actually, I think the whole debate over “are we emergent, Emergent, emerging, etc.?” is as internecine and ridiculous as it comes within the emerging Church today. Are we so self-absorbed within our emerging ghetto that we have to create new denominations over subtle nuances? But nevertheless, people do use the terms to mean different things, so let me try to explain. Little “e” emergent comes from an adjective borrowed from ecology, where new plants on the forest floor often emerge under straining conditions (such as the burning of a forest which becomes vital for new life). It is said that if you want to measure a forest’s vitality, you look not at the centuries old trees, but at the small saplings unnoticed underneath. The emergent conversation is approximately 30 years old, and though starting in Europe, has spread globally. Those insisting on the term “emerging” are generally Evangelicals none too interested in revisiting any doctrine but desiring to change the way they do church. Those preferring “emergent” tend to want to revisit doctrine and practice, and while emergents are often characterized as caring little for truth or orthodox doctrine, this view usually comes from (if not simple hearsay) a misunderstanding of church history and the history of beliefs. For example, since very few emergents are Calvinists, if you assume John Calvin was simply reclaiming the beliefs of the early church, you will see emergents as revisionists playing fast and loose with their theology. The “Great Emergence” is a term I borrow from Phyllis Tickle, and refers to a natural socio/theological shift that has been occurring on a 400 to 500 year interval in the Judeo-Christian tradition for at least 3000 years now. Though Emergent Village has taken a liking to Phyllis Tickle’s work, nobody is claiming that Emergent Village (the 501c3) is the next Protestant Reformation. The misunderstanding comes from the greatly frustrating fact that some variant of “emerge” is being used to describe, albeit related, a multitude of distinct groups, conversations, people, and movements.

Fundamentalism

Christian Fundamentalism is a specific historical term that arose out of ideological battles with liberal Christian scholars in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. **It is a specific word with a specific, lexical definition, and though I don’t hide my disdaine for fundamentalism, my using of the term does not mean “unthinking, more conserative than me, etc.” It has a particular meaning.** Through a series of councils, fundamentalists (called so because of the emphasis put on this list) declared that for one to be a true Christian, one had to hold to these fundamentals of the faith:

1. The Inerrancy of the Bible

2. The Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ

3. Penal Substitutionary Atonement of our sins via Christ

4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion

5. The Second coming of Christ (generally including a rapture, tribulation, millennial reign, and then disembarking earth to go to a Heaven)

When I use the term fundamentalist I reference a social group still very much alive today, particularly within Evangelicalism. A Muslim or Jewish fundamentalist would have a differing list of core beliefs, but very similar undergirding ideology and perspective on the world. The term itself is in no way derogatory in itself, although it is true that I view fundamentalism as stemming largely from a unhealthy psychological worldview as well as a lack of education of one’s faith (due to perspectives considered essential which, in history, took time to develop, were not present in the early church, and have never been present in Scripture). I find Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalism to be a very dangerous thing, with a universal psyche element that seeks to purify a system by forcibly (and violently) removing those who will not become clones of the fundamentalist. Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are not subsets of each other, but are highly related. Since in practice fundamentalism is one part belief and one part worldview, I would not fit the definition of Christian fundamentalist even if I held all 5 tenants to be true. On top of this, I cannot with integrity say I belief in several of those fundamentals, and have questions about one or two others. Therefore, a fundamentalist Christian will not view me as a Christian at all, and likely a false teacher.

Inerrant

When used in reference to Scripture, inerrant means literally without error. Though thousands of errors are known to exist in modern Bibles, an inerrantist presumes the earliest manuscripts were without error. Even if this could be known, there is still the problem that many of the books were not written down by the prophets who authored the content, as much of the Old Testament was not finally written down until it had passed through hundreds of years of oral tradition (in other words, those original manuscripts did not always exist at all). I have not been able to learn what an inerrantist believes in this case or if this fact is even acknowledged. Inerrancy seems universally tied to a Verbal Plenary view of inspiration, neither of which are claimed by a single book of the Bible, but each of which nonetheless have fierce adherents who see it as disrespectful to the Bible if you find an error in it. Believers in inerrancy often claim even such things as the six days of creation were literally a six day creation period, although other inerrantists will allow for a high level of allegory. The idea of Biblical inerrancy is something I find to be neither intellectually honest nor Biblical.

Infallible

This is a view of Scripture that used as a softer version of inspiration without total inerrancy. It is a view I generally sit pretty well with. Infallibility assumes that, while the Bible contains errors, it is nevertheless inspired by God and will not teach falsely. I still think it can be weak in its explanation. For one, Jesus clearly sets up examples where he points to Jewish beliefs that come, not from the Pharisees, but from the Scriptures themselves (“You have heard it said…”) and then offers a new and contradictory teaching instead of a reinterpretation (“But I tell you that…). In another example, regardless of the charge of misinterpretation, it is still true that reading the Bible leads to all sorts of differing beliefs, most of which will be false. I also have questions about portions of Scripture that seem simultaneously out of line with God’s character as generally presented, and also a propping up of a nation interest typical of ancient tribal mythologies (i.e. God telling Israelites to slaughter enemies). It is my opinion that an infallible view of Scripture, rather than total inerrancy, is required of a mature believer educated in the disturbing realities of a very good Book.

Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God is anywhere God’s reign is spreading in a life or in the world at large. The prophets and poets have always pointed toward a day when this will be the case for all creation. Many assume that when you see the term Kingdom of God in Scripture, it means “Heaven, after I die” or “the church;” this is a profound and massively detrimental view of the Kingdom, and a misunderstanding of the core of Christ’s message. If you miss this point, you cannot understand the driving message of Christ.

Non-violence

Non-violence is an active alternative to non-resistant pacifism and sinful violence. I believe the way exulted by Jesus was always resisting the sinful and violent (meaning forceful, regardless of bloodshed) ways of the world. Anything bathed in violence is not of God, as taught by the Christ. Anything bathed in uncaring pacifism is also not of God. We are to be agents unsettled by injustice, and we are called to care deeply about fixing the world; but not through participating in the very systems of destructive sin that the world seeks to rectify itself with. So in the tradition of great thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Ghandi, and the man they founded their thoughts on, Jesus Christ, we are not to lend ourselves to violence. Violence can mean bloodshed, but I use it more in the way of the philosophers, meaning any time were an outcome is forced or a detractor is harmed. Even shutting out a different viewpoint forcefully is a form of violence, and violence is a short path to heresy. I believe a follower of Christ must never put himself in a situation where he may be commanded by men to do violence, and should resist, if at all possible, using violence to solve a problem. There will always be great numbers of people in the world willing to solve problems with violence, but followers of Christ are specifically called to not be among that number.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical school interested in the way in which we construct our suppositions about reality, or about how multifaceted ideas or entities emerge with the confluence of independent yet interrelated memes. Though largely out of philosophical vogue today, it is still useful here, and I often use it interchangeably with little “e” emergence, as any idea emerges from a variety of sources to supplant a previous paradigm. For a religious example, we often assume that we believe something simply because “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.” In reality, this is never the case, as the phenomena of a doctrine has arisen over much time, with many influences working independently yet interrelatedly, and has arrived in your psyche via particular vehicles. If any singular change were made to your history, the phenomenological construct by which you interpret a text (or the text itself, or the popular interpretation of that text) would be completely altered. Theologies always have an interesting phenomenological backdrop; though we beg to differ, theologies and beliefs are never simply handed to us by the gods.

Pro-life (or consistently pro-life)

This is one term out of the bunch which I use quite differently than the common media. I believe it is tradgic that so many pro-life (or anti-abortion) Christians are not pro-life across the board. I believe abortion is a serious tragedy. I also believe killing of any kind is sin: whether called capital punishment, terrorism, war on terrorism, or even hard-capitalism when it forces people into situations where killing is the easiest option (a la the 85% of abortions which are economically related). I feel that Christians should be pro-life, that is, regardless of how they view Roe v. Wade, we should be appalled, as Jesus said, with continuing the eye-for-eye, life-for-life practice of capital punishment. We should be appalled at when a political party resists legislation that would lower abortion rates (like easier health care or funding) just because we have a fiercer loyalty to capitalism (or a desire to garner voting blocs) than innocent lives. We should do as the early church universally did, and not participate in violence and a rush to war. We should not call abortion providers murders until we adopt every unwanted child, and if we have room left in our hearts to call people murderers afterwards, we should examine our hearts. We should be pro-life, but we should transcend the political niche and take a truly consistent ethic of being pro-life.

Religious Right/ Christianists

When I say Religious Right, I strictly mean socially conservative Christians who have aligned themselves with the Republican Party (though very often registered independent) and attempt to reform government towards a more (as they see it) Christ-like entity, in the same form as the early Puritans. With manipulative rhetoric, the various organizations of the Religious Right have convinced a large (though blessedly shrinking) percentage of the population that real-commander-in-chief (R) Jesus Christ would always vote Republican on [fill in whichever issue the party would you’re your support on today]. Christianist is a term I adopted from Andrew Sullivan to describe the kind of extremist Christians we are coming to see more of with the clash of religions and resurgence of marginalized fundamentalism. It is my view that christianists and much of the Religious Right’s work really is hurting the name of Christ and standing in the way of the Kingdom of God. Not only are the goals and political ideologies very often anti-Christ, so too are the means employed with a barrage of misinformation, slander, xenophobia, and the general promotion of mass-anger over concocted fears. I know most of them are well meaning, but don’t be surprised at my poking fun at the ridiculous religious right.

Religion and Christianity

Though we find it trendy and pithy to say otherwise, Christianity simply is a religion, as opposed to terms often offered in faux diametric opposition, such as “faith” or “relationship.” Christianity can be those things, but it is a religion too. So, when I say Christian, I use a broad latitude and refer to anyone claiming to be of the Christian faith. I find it fruitlessly internecine to argue about who is or is not a “real” Christian based on certain beliefs which differ from sect to sect. The Bible itself does not define the word Christian in such exacting terms, and so I try not to either (which in no way means I don’t think beliefs matter).

Third Way

A third way is a way between extremes. The world is full of dualities, and concordantly full of people, teams, political parties, etc., who will ask for you to see their conflict as an either/or. Do you want to be a liberal… or a conservative? Do you want to be a Christian… or a pagan? Do you want fight for the good guys… or let the bad guys win? These dualities are offered all the time. Some have somewhat correctly pointed out that I like to take a third way anytime there is a duality. While this is not strictly the case (I often take sides), and while this misunderstands what a third option is all about (not a mere moderation in the middle of two sides), it is true that I don’t like the “lesser of two evils.” I don’t think it’s very much like Jesus to take the lesser of two evils. When you are presented a duality of two poor options to take, do, or believe, I say find a third way altogether.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration

This is a technical doctrine that assumes Scripture was dictated word-for-word by God. It is one of many views on the inspiration of Scripture, although you wouldn’t know that from its popularity. “Verbal” refers to God speaking it; “Plenary” means the whole of the Bible; “Inspiration” means coming from God. It is the view that might say “Paul wrote Galatians, but it was if God was guiding the pen or giving him the words.” Though VPI has a few quite fierce proponents among educated Christians and some Orthodox Jews, it is generally considered an elementary view of Scripture that most people arrive at by default until further study is made. It is made further complicated by lack of original text sources, and the large degree of variation we see in the manuscripts we have. Though I view the Bible as an inspired work, I cannot with any personal integrity believe that it was written word for word from God. Most importantly (and a fact seldom acknowledged by VPI believers), the Bible never makes this type of claim for itself in the first place in any verse of any book.

—

is there anything else i needed to clear up?