Francois Ntone

Fundamentalism in the United States

Historians generally link the rise of the Protestant fundamentalist movement in the United States to the Bible conferences of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  The conferences were interdenominational, usually annual gatherings that brought together evangelical ministers, Bible teachers and missionaries to provide Christian education to participants.  They occurred in a resort atmosphere where recreational activities were offered along with the learning sessions.  The theological content of the conferences was often dictated by the organizers’ desire to respond to what they saw as liberal attacks against Christian orthodoxy.  But in addition to beliefs that were generally accepted by the mainline denominations, the conferences emphasized some truths that had, according to them, been neglected by the Christian community.  Specifically, five fundamental beliefs were identified as critical to the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the virginal conception of Jesus, the substitutionary atonement of the death of Jesus, his physical resurrection and his bodily return to earth.

While the second, third and fourth items had been widely accepted throughout Christian history, the emphasis on Jesus’ bodily return reflected a new focus on biblical prophecy.  This emphasis was seen in the promotion by the fundamentalists of premillennial theories of Jesus’ return to earth.  The term “premillennial” meant that Jesus’ return was imminent and would occur before the one thousand year period mentioned in Revelation 20, during which he is to reign on earth with his saints.  The dominant form of premillennialism, introduced by John Nelson Darby, claimed that the history of the world was divided into seven periods called dispensations.  The current era corresponds to the sixth dispensation, and precedes the final one during which the “great tribulation” is to occur.  During the great tribulation, true believers will be “raptured” to heaven by Christ, thereby escaping persecution from the antichrist.

Inerrancy of the Bible, Literal Interpretation and the Assumption that All Parts of the Bible Are Equally Relevant

The first of the five fundamental beliefs, the inerrancy of the Bible, is the main topic of this article.  It states that the Bible was written under divine inspiration and is without errors.  This of course leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible that leaves no room for any critical analysis: the Bible must be treated as the final authority not only on theological and ethical matters, but also on matters of science and history.

In the twentieth century, after a slow start, fundamentalism grew in importance and influence in American life.  The Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909, helped popularize the dispensationalist version of premillennialism through annotations added in its margins.  Later, fundamentalism became a major political force with the rise of the so-called Christian Right.  But the fundamentalist emphasis on a literal interpretation of the Bible gained influence even among the mainline Christian denominations.  Indeed, in recent years, Bible studies such as the popular Bible Study Fellowship (BSF) have been providing instruction to church members from a variety of denominations, even the more progressive ones.  When I was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), we once tried to introduce a weekly Bible study which had been developed by ELCA scholars.  Church members who attended the early sessions of the study complained that there was too much emphasis on understanding the various sources of scriptural material, identified by scholars with letters such as J, E and P, etc., and not enough emphasis on promoting faith.  Therefore the Bible study was cancelled and replaced by a more conservative one from the Missouri Synod.  One important reason for the cancellation, in my view, was that the most influential voices in the discussions came from individuals who had received prior biblical instruction from BSF.

BSF is a lay ministry whose articles of faith can be found in the organization’s official website.  The first article of faith is reproduced here:

“We believe that the 66 books of Holy Scripture as originally given are in their entirety the Word of God verbally inspired and wholly without error in all that they declare and, therefore, are the supreme and final authority of faith and life.”

It would be difficult to find a stronger expression of the belief in biblical inerrancy.  Most Christians, including myself, believe that the Bible was written under divine inspiration.  However, there are substantial variations in the way the word “inspiration” is defined.  Obviously the above statement of faith vehemently asserts that the expression “Word of God” must be taken very literally, even though the Bible is far from being a divine monologue.  An obvious corollary from such a belief is that every part of the Bible has equal importance, an assumption that can be problematic as we will see below.

When I attended BSF many years ago, I was struck by a statement made by the main teacher to his large audience.  He declared that the Old Testament and the New Testament had to be treated as equals, and those who found that difficult to accept simply needed to pray about it.  Even though I was not a Bible scholar, my immediate, unspoken reaction was: “How can this possibly be right?  How can I love my enemy and pray for him, how can I be as forgiving as Jesus wants me to be, while at the same time preaching ‘an eye for an eye’?”

In my interactions with other Christians, I have found that the assumption that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant is quite pervasive.  Many Christians will gladly say with pride: “I believe every word of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.”  But it often turns out that some who express their faith in that manner have not read much of the Bible beyond the passages their preacher selects for them on Sunday morning.  Therefore when they encounter for the first time the violence and atrocities present in some of the more obscure Old Testament stories, they are unable to hide their surprise and uneasiness. Some may choose to remain silent simply because they do not want to give the impression that they are questioning God’s Word.

Ironically, atheists who want to discredit the Christian faith also point to the violence and the atrocities in some parts of the Old Testament.  From their perspective, if the Bible is God’s Word, then God fully owns those atrocities, and they do not want to have anything to do with such a God.  Any meaningful response from Christians would have to start with the admission that the atrocities do exist.  However, Christians are often trapped by the assumption of inerrancy and simply prefer to avoid the discussion.  Since it is clear that many penalties mandated by the Law of Moses to punish violations of the law (e.g. capital punishment for prostitution, homosexuality, violation of the Sabbath, etc.) are not considered acceptable today, atheists also accuse Christians of hypocrisy since they claim to believe God’s Word but fail to execute God’s more controversial commands.

Navigating Back and Forth Between the Old Testament and the New Testament

One consequence of the belief that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant is the freedom some Christians think they have to conveniently navigate back and forth between the New Testament and the Old Testament.  During the first Iraq war, I heard some fellow church members, whom I considered as good Christians, justify the war by quoting the example of King David, a man after God’s own heart, who was a warrior.  They did not seem to realize that the God of the Israelites did not want David to build a temple for him precisely because David was a warrior who had spilled much blood.  Instead, he wanted David’s son, “a man of peace and rest”, to build his temple (1Ch 22:6-9).  I also watched a televangelist justify the war by reading Numbers 2, where instructions are given regarding the arrangement of the Israelite tribal camps around the Tent of Meeting while the Israelites were on their way to Canaan.  The televangelist concluded that such military formations were proof that God himself had provided a “blueprint for war”, which to him was a sufficient reason for going to war.

In November 2015, we heard about a fundamentalist preacher who proclaimed the appropriateness of capital punishment for gay people, as prescribed in Leviticus 20:13.  Amazingly, this man was an organizer of a presumably legitimate Christian conference, the National Religious Freedoms Conference, which was attended by some Republican presidential candidates.  While real followers of Christ should unequivocally reject such a position, we must admit that this preacher’s statements are consistent with his belief that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant.  We can only hope that such Christians will not attempt to further express their hatred by inciting or carrying out acts of violence such as the recent ones in Orlando, Florida.

Different Views on the Bible as a Divinely Inspired Document      

The assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired is often justified by looking within the Bible itself.  For example, the author of 2 Timothy writes:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Ti 3:16-17)

Most Christians who consider the Bible as authoritative will readily agree with these verses.  They will also be inspired by the words of the author of Hebrews:

“For the word of God is living and active.  Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Heb 4:12)

There is no doubt that numerous Christians, throughout the centuries, have promoted benevolence towards their fellow human beings and have held themselves to a very high moral standard as a result of instruction from the Bible.  I am not, by any means, questioning the positive influence of the Bible.  I even count myself among those who seek biblical wisdom.  However, it is also true that a great deal of evil has been done on earth in the name of religion, and specifically in the name of Christianity.  One reason for that is that some Christians chose to distort the message of the Bible in order to further their own interests or justify their own prejudices.  But another reason is that there is real confusion about some of the content of the Bible itself: if all parts of the Bible are equally relevant, and if God appears to order violence against those who are against his people in some parts of the Bible, then certainly God will have no objection when Christians perpetrate violence against non-Christians in his name.  This logic has, in a very real way, influenced Christian behavior for two millennia, even though the New Testament clearly emphasizes love, forgiveness and peacemaking.  But it is incorrect and has remained unaddressed.  When Jim Wallis, whom I respect as seen in other writing of mine, appeared on Bill Maher’s show, Maher relentlessly brought to his attention the atrocities ordered by God in the Old Testament.  Wallis tried to focus on the good things in the Bible, such as the emphasis on helping the poor and the disenfranchised.  He left Maher’s question unanswered and Maher did not let him get away with that.  On the other hand, when former president Jimmy Carter appeared on Bill Maher’s show and faced similar questioning, he told Maher without hesitation that his focus was Jesus Christ, and that he had found from experience that such a focus eliminated the contradictions Maher was referring to.  Maher did not seem prepared to probe any further.  Carter gave the right answer because his answer correctly incorporated the biblical understanding that the promised Messiah was to be an ultimate teacher who would bring true light from God to mankind.  Once the Messiah has come, any teaching that violates his teaching must be discarded.  The assumption that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant is erroneous, as I intend to show below.

Jesus and the Law of Moses

As far as I can tell, the strongest argument made by those who assume that the Old Testament and the New Testament are equally relevant is Jesus’ statement about the Law and the Prophets:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 5:17-20)

The difficulty with the above statement is that it gives the impression that the Law and the Prophets have permanent relevance since heaven and earth are not expected to disappear while humans continue to exist.  However, to conclude that the Law and the Prophets are permanent is to disregard the part of the statement that actually provides a deadline for their validity, “until everything is accomplished”.  The most straightforward interpretation of this deadline is to link it to Jesus’ own words on the cross: “It is finished” (Jn 19:30).  These words obviously relate to the well accepted idea that Jesus, with his atonement sacrifice, is the fulfillment of the law, and his death and resurrection represent the beginning of a new age.  In the new age, a new covenant replaces the old one, an idea that is so pervasive in the Bible it does not need to be debated.  As for the reference to heaven and earth, it is merely language that can be traced back to Isaiah:

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth.                                                                          The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.                                 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.” (Isa 65:17-18)

In the above, Isaiah is talking about the restoration of God’s people under God’s rule, which corresponds to a new era where the people will behave in ways that are pleasing to God, an idea that is pervasive in the writings of the prophets.  These verses are a reference to the kingdom of God established on earth as well as in heaven, a goal that is at the center of Jesus’ message.  Jesus builds on Isaiah’s words when he says: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mt 24:35).  This statement implies that his own words, which provide the rules of the kingdom of God he ushered in, are the only thing that is truly permanent.  The Law and the Prophets as described in Matthew 5:17-19 are part of Isaiah’s old heavens and old earth.  They are to be replaced by Jesus’ kingdom of God, which represents the new heavens and new earth when “everything is accomplished.”

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus actually recognizes that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees are legitimate guardians of the Mosaic legacy:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

So Jesus encourages those who live under the Law of Moses to pay attention to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, even though he criticizes their hypocritical behavior.  In Matthew 5:19, he is expressing a similar thought, but in Matthew 5:20 he makes it clear that the rules put forth by those who represent Moses are merely a minimum requirement in the kingdom of God.  In the kingdom of God, one must surpass the righteousness of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees not only because they do not do what they preach, but also because the standard of the kingdom of God is higher than theirs.  Indeed those who follow Jesus’ own teaching are held to a higher standard, and he makes that point quite clear in the verses that follow Matthew 5:20, where he begins to contrast Old Testament requirements from his own teaching.  That contrast appears in his recurring use of the form “You have heard … But I tell you…”  Therefore, to assume that Old Testament teaching is equal to Jesus’ teaching is a serious misunderstanding of the Christian Bible.  Of the commands from Jesus listed in Matthew 5:21-47, the command to love one’s enemies seems to be one that stirs a tremendous amount of resistance among self-professed Christians who have, for two millennia, done their best to circumvent it.  It is easy to see that affirming the permanent authority of the Old Testament is a very convenient tool for that purpose.

Biblical Theology is not Static

The assumption that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant implies that biblical theology is static, which is obviously incorrect.  Mosaic teaching assured the Israelites that they would prosper in every aspect of their lives if they obeyed the law (Ex 23:25-26, Dt 28).  The book of Job questions that notion when Job, after losing all his wealth, his children, and being afflicted with disease, proclaims his innocence as he is presumably being punished by God even though he has remained righteous.  Jesus himself later explains to his disciples that blindness is not punishment for sin as they had been led to believe under orthodox theology (Jn 9:1-3).  Later Paul brings a new perspective with his doctrine of justification by grace through faith which undoubtedly obsoletes the Mosaic focus on the law.  The author of Hebrews adds to that by making it clear that Jesus’ authority is definitely above that of Moses (Heb 3:1-6).

Therefore one must acknowledge the theological changes that occur within the biblical narrative.  These changes occur because God’s messengers, while experiencing God in very real ways, only had partial knowledge of his nature and character.  Indeed, while Moses was only allowed to see God’s back (Ex 33:21-23), Jesus says “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”  For that reason, Paul is the first to recognize that his words are not equal to Jesus’ words when he says “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord) …”(1Co 7:10) and then “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) …” (1Co 7:12).  There is nothing controversial about the idea that biblical theology progresses towards its culminating point, which occurs with Jesus.  Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew about the biblical expectation that the Messiah, when he comes, would explain everything to the people (John 4:25).

As far as I am concerned, the assumption of divine inspiration of the biblical message is sufficient and is supported by the Bible itself.  Unfortunately different people will have different ways of understanding it.  But the assumption of biblical inerrancy is unnecessary and is frankly not well defined: does it mean that God, not men, wrote the Bible?  Does it imply that every little detail in the Bible should be treated as historical?  Does it mean that every theological statement and every moral statement in it must be accepted as fully reflecting God’s character?  Does it mean that the prophets were infallible and as authoritative as Jesus?  Does it imply that all believers should go back and read the original Hebrew and Greek documents instead of the various translations which obviously show some differences?  As for the assumption that all parts of the Bible have equal relevance, it is clearly simply wrong and misleading.