Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part II: A Modern Invention

The Reformation did an amazing thing. It gave a Bible to every single individual who wanted one, and it empowered them with the thought that they had the right and privilege to read it and apply it to their life. This set Christians on the course of being able to lead their own faith without having to be dependent upon the Church.

Soon after the Enlightenment began. It birthed the democratic spirit. Man was not only spiritually free. He was politically free as well. With democracy came a whole new slew of ideas that had to be integrated into the human psyche. The separation of church and state, for instance. Authority through the consent of the people. And a fair and balanced legal system that was governed by law and order.

Many of these events have benefited humanity and religion in an everlasting way. I would not dare to impugn on the theological depths of the Reformation or the philosophic richness of the Enlightenment, but there is an unchecked reality which most people are unaware of. For the most part because of these developments the religious man is just about separated by an uncrossable chasm from the roots of his religious faith.

The Bible was written in a time and for a people who had no such amenities. Not a single author ever thought that his works would one day be canonized and given to people on an individual basis for them to interpret it themselves without the aid of a deeply rooted and inculcated tradition. The writers of the NT were deeply religious men, and for them that meant community and communities are always established under traditions. The Bible for the most part is not a set of ordinances, but a revelation of traditions.

The ancient mind operated on a more holistic basis. Ideas, precepts, and intuitions were all melded together into one lump whole. It was not until modernity that we began to dissect and separate the different classifications of how we live our lives. The pre-modern devoutee definately understood the difference between religion and politics, but his mode of living life allowed him to seemlessly merge his lifestyle to accomodate any scenario. In the ancient world a triumphant religion was not one that could defy all persecution and survive. The triumphant religion was the one that could adapt to any circumstance and retain the essence of its core beliefs.

The ancient religions had to cling to traditions, because traditions could change and be adapted without controversy or theological dispute. The Jews in the Diaspora had no qualms about modifying the Torah so they could live among the Gentiles. The Jews in Palestine did the same to accommodate Roman rule. Early Christians took on this same religious style. Paul boasts of his chameleon-like faith when it comes to preaching to different cultures and people.

What this reveals to me is that the ancient world related to their faith entirely differently then I do in the modern world. For me, religion is about understanding, believing, and acting in the right manner to please God. It is almost entirely a mental process which guides my actions, but the ancient world had an entirely different conception. I think this way because the modern world has empowered me to be independent and to rely on my own reasoning. It has given me my own Bible to read on my own, and it has freed me from the bonds of tribalism. But at the same time it has alienated me from the authentic heritage of my faith. The pre-modern believer considered his community of faith just as important as the revelation in Scripture. In fact, the two could not be separated. Without the community of faith the scripture was just empty words. It was their lives being poured into each other and through the light of the Biblical narrative that revealed what God's plan was for them. When they read about Moses, Elijah, or Jesus they saw themselves and each others struggles and identified with the stories in their own context. The Bible was not a book to be read. It was a Holy Book. It was meant to be lived! We almost have no idea what that means for us today.

We think that the application of the Bible comes from a right understanding of what the Bible means and says, but this was not how the pre-modern man read the Bible, and it was not how the Bible was written. For them the right application of the Bible came through an immersion in the meditative quality of scripture and the cohesion of the community of faith that was bonded by the same Holy Book. They didn't read the Bible to understand it. They read the Bible to meditate on it. They didn't compare which church "lined" up with the Bible. They interpreted the Bible through and in the Church.

What we have to realize, because of this, is that fundamentalism is just as much of a modern invention as is higher criticism. That is a hard truth for fundamentalists to realize. Justin Martyr admitted that Christian beliefs were just the same as mythological beliefs. Augustine, Aquinas, and most other medieval theologians allowed for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. It was not until the rise of scientific rationalism during the Enlightenment that fundamentalism really took hold.

The Holiness of Scripture was being threatened. Many philosophers and scientists were beginning to see that the world that the Bible painted was not the world which existed in reality. Thus, many were seeing that the Bible was simply a book of myths, like any other religious book. There was no special privilege given to the Bible to make is "appear" as though it came from God. Christians had to rise to counter this new criticism. Scripture had to be maintained as Holy and Sacred, and in this new world that meant that the Bible could never be seen as a myth. Literalism took hold in the Church, and in an odd turn of events Christians began to read the Bible "scientifically" in order to counter the supposed scientism of secular culture. What resulted was a new method of reading the Bible.

Now I believe that one of the most important questions a Christian must figure out is what is the right way of interpreting the Bible. It will become one of those monumental undertakings that will shape everything which follows after it. I cannot stress enough why we must be sure of these things, because this is one of the most unspoken of Christian disciplines. Everyone in the Evangelical community assumes everyone else is a fundamentalist and takes certain assumptions for granted. But if fundamentalism is a modern creation then what ground does it stand on? Why can't there be other ways of interpreting the Bible?

I am no longer a fundamentalist, because one of the first things I realized was that reading the simple plain meaning into the text is not necessarily the historical method of interpreting Scripture. It has been applied in many ways throughout history, and for us in our modern world we should have a spirit of openness to consider what possible alternatives exist so that we can make the most sense out of Scripture instead of limiting ourselves. There is simply no reason to favor fundamentalism, or think that it holds a privileged position as a method of Biblical interpretation.