Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part 1: What is more fundamental?

Christianity and fundamentalism almost go hand in hand in our culture. For most people who are unbelievers when they mock Christianity or deride the faith what they have in mind is typically a fundamentalist version of religion. I think the reason for this is that for the most part the fundamentalists are active and public. They have no problem going on the news and saying things like, "Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment", or "God hates fags". Granted, I understand that for the most part this is even a fringe part of fundamentalism and in no way can be said of even fundamentalism, itself, but this is the impression people have, none the less.

I do have problems with fundamentalism, regardless. And I feel that public opinion is indicative, though it does not explain what exactly are are issues I have with fundamentalism. But before I get into that, I think it is important to say that at one time I was certainly a fundamentalist. I was also at one time a charismatic. There have been times I have been an atheist, an Objectivist, and an essentialist. Some think that such "adaptability" is a weakness, but my heart has always been to follow the truth where ever it leads me. Currently, I am an existentialist, philosophically, and Neo-Orthodox, theologically. But I am no longer a fundamentalist, and here is why...

The basic heart of fundamentalism is that the most "fundamental" understanding of a document is the correct one, and this is a very virtuous undertaking. But when we come to defining what is actually "fundamental" we come into issues. For me, I always figured that the most fundamental rendering of any document would be the intentions and contexts of the author and the perceptions and culture of the audience. And though I am sure most would agree with me on this, what is often played out in the fundamentalist pool is that "fundamental" often means basic or plain. Hence the fundamental rendering of a document is its plain message. When a text says a "in three days I will rise again" we are to read that with the understanding that the basic wording of the text is the most important, or most pervasive, understanding of the message itself.

In many ways, liberal Christians are just as fundamental as conservative ones. They just disagree as to what is the fundamental interpretation of the text. But for all intents and purposes it is the conservatives who have taken the mantel of fundamentalism, and upon this point I do not disagree. I only wish to point out that even if a person is not a fundamentalist this does not mean that they are not interested in the most fundamental or basic interpretation. In fact, case in point, I came away from fundamentalism because of my desire to read the Bible in the most accurate and correct manner.

Now I will admit that there are liberal Christians who have no concern for the Bible what-so-ever, and to be fair I think the fundamentalist extremists show just the same denial even though they believe their beliefs come from the Bible. So just in the same way that fundamentalists do not want their extreme varieties to be used against them, so too liberals are caricatured and misrepresented. And to be honest, I would not classify neo-orthodoxy as a form of liberal theology. Historically, neo-orthodoxy arose as a reaction to liberalism, in an effort to counter its a-religiousness.

Now there are many things which can be said about the distinctions between liberal and conservative theology, but what stands as the most pressing issue is the interpretive methods of reading the Bible. This is truly the only link between liberal Christians and secular humanists. So if, fundamentalists wants to truly have a pure faith then this task should be as equally important to them. For the liberal the integrity of faith should draw us to a deeper unity with everyone and the disclosure of methods and theology should be just as vocal and apparent as we see for the fundamentalists as well. Both sides have a reason to integrate and converse with the other, and no one does anyone the benefit of isolation. We both believe we are interpreting Scripture "fundamentally". It is time we try yo figure out what that means...

I know for myself, Scripture has opened up wide avenues of spiritual growth for my faith. A more modern exegesis is definitely humbling when it comes to understanding the "supernatural" component, but it is able to elaborate on the human connections that often go unseen in the Biblical narratives and these connections provide much theological insight and clarity to help guide my walk and new pilgrimage. I am not a lukewarm Christian. The Bible is just as important to me now as it was before, and a case could be made that it is more alive to me now. I have not compromised my faith and I have not deceived myself. I am an honest Christian who is simply no longer a fundamentalist.