"The real issue between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists is not biblical literalism (who wrote what and when) but inerrancy. Fundamentalists believe that 'all scripture is inspired by God' (2 Tim 3:16) and that 'no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,' but is instead uttered under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Fundamentalist interpreters of the Bible are not so much concerned about the historical accuracy of these two passages (whether, for example, 'all scripture' means only the Old Testament) as they are about their theological inerrancy. They argue that something 'inspired,' can never be false. Their interpretive (hermeneutical) key to Scripture is not the modern historical-critical method, but the rational harmonization of inspired inerrant truth with the faulty reading of sinful persons. Such harmonization rests on the assumption that biblical truth is 'supernatural' even though its communication is 'natural.' Thus, by attempting to reconcile supernatural biblical truth with the variety of literary data, fundamentalist biblical interpreters are caught in a peculiar tension between literalism and non-literalist harmonization...
What then is the distinction between the authority of the Word of God and that of the Bible? Does the latter guarantee the former, or vice versa? Is it the work of the Holy Spirit when I become converted by reading passages of the Bible? Or are the passages themselves so inspired that they overwhelm me to the point of submitting my life to the 'truth' that Jesus is resurrected and in charge of my existence? The answer to these question depends on the kind of theological and philosophical decisions one makes concerning 'authority.'
If God is to be identifiable with words, idea, concepts, and world views disclosed in the Bible, then the Bible is truly divine and the highest possible authority. If God is to be identified with a specific tradition, then that tradition is absolute in relation to other traditions. If God is to be identified with a particular way of thinking such as Aristotelian syllogism, then that mode of thinking leads to God. As one Roman Catholic theologian is reported to have replied to an observer who thought there was no difference between him and a famous Anglo-Catholic: 'We are the opposite pole from X. He holds every doctrine we hold, but he holds them all for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks them true.'
Those who are aware of the difference between God (who cannot be reached through any human enterprise) and the human mortal existence in space and time, will not have ultimate trust in the Bible as a book. They will agree with the best ecumenical insight that God's revelation in Christ is self-authenticating. The 'Word of God,' which has become the code name for God's revelation, is a force in which one can participate, but which cannot be controlled...
... the Word of God is always a living voice, a message which creates a gathering of people held together by the speaking, hearing, and enactment of the good news of divine care for God's creatures. The gospel, therefore, gives authority to the Bible, not vice versa.
The issue is not whether biblical studies are faithful to certain doctrines, such as inerrancy or infallibility, but whether biblical study liberates the student from the straitjacket of original sin, that is, the desire to control the object of study and ultimately God, and so to become idolatrous... Those who confuse the Bible's authority of law and promise confuse creaturely humanity with divine power."
Eric W. Gritsch, Born Againism: Perspectives on a Movement (Fortress Press, Philadelphia: 1988) 53, 58-60
Conversations with Fundamentalists can be a challenge for me. I know that most cultural understanding of Protestant Christianity is tied deeply to fundamentalism in the American context, I value ecumenism and long for a unified Church (or at least a church that can be united at least in things like poverty relief), and many of my parishioners admire fundamentalists. It's part of my job. And yet - some of the fundamentalist readings I've come across seem, well, fundamentally at odds with Christ as he was preached and given to me; not to mention scripture as it was passed on to me. And not just in arcane and dense ways, but in "That's Shift and Puzzle dressed in a lion's costume talking nonsense, not Aslan" ways (I'm aware of the irony of making a deep-cut CS Lewis reference in describing "not arcane") (come back some other time for hot-takes on problematic elements of 63 year old allegorical high fantasy literature for children that I'll always be fond of) (Sometimes I'm ambivalent about the battles I choose and sometimes I fight everyone) (don't hold your breath for "some other time).
Gritsch roots this struggle in biblical authority - not so much about whether the Bible has or doesn't have authority (it does for both Fundamentalist and Lutheran), but what the nature of that authority and truth is/are.
Fundamentalism begins with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant and accurate in supernatural terms, which is to say it is independent and superior to critical analysis posed "against" their understanding of the scriptures. The Bible is, in and of itself, accurate and truthful. And when we read the Bible and think like the Bible wants us to, we become faithful and special and holy. Our search for the truth within scriptures' pages is vindicated and our journey is complete - because we come to possess the truth.
But Gritsch, myself, and I would argue the wider Lutheran tradition, finds this understanding of the Bible's authority to be somewhat disingenuous and inaccurate. In fact, it comes to look a lot more like a spiraling authority grab. The argument starts off like this: "The Bible is true, and it tells me that xyz." And perhaps the Bible does. But the claim goes a bit further as soon as it's brought into question. Because as soon as the content of the verse come into question or nuance (say someone were to ask "What does that mean?" "What did the author intend?" "How does this relate to another verse that says something different?"). Once the Bible, which is supposed to be authoritative and clear is brought into question, a matter of interpretation has to come in and a great deal is at stake - indeed one's entire righteousness can depend on "possessing" the correct biblical interpretation. So the fundamentalist will have to resort to favored interpreters who they are confident hold the correct doctrine - usually ones who are confident and part of the in-crowd to their preferred cultural setting. This can mean a personal pastor, or a successful mega-pastor, or a smart-ass theologian who writes on the internet for a dozen or so people to read.
... But do they know best? How do we KNOW they have the right interpretation? How do WE know we believe in the right things about the Bible? Why should should we trust their instincts and their so-called certitudes - especially when we've seen many of the pious authorities fall into disgrace? There's a real vulnerability in fundamentalism towards authoritarianism, and when the authority isn't up to snuff - the consequences can be dire for their followers.
Gritsch's response, and my response, is that when we focus on Biblical authority in this way - we will only focus on our selves. In doing so, we will never truly take comfort in a God who loves the world, and a God who has saved us. Because the Christian faith isn't about what WE think, it is about what God has done. It's not about our decisions, it's about God's grace. The alternative is to imagine walking up to Jesus and saying "Yup, you sure are savior" as though he didn't already know, or as though he had no love or authority without you recognizing it.
Gritsch encourages us to find comfort and strength in God's exercised authority to save. We don't have to worry about getting the Bible "right" because we believe that God gets the Bible right. The Bible's authority is then a derived one - it testifies to Christ and Christ bears the burdens of our doubts, our struggles, and our burdens in the mystery of his life, death, and resurrection.
We are then liberated from the need to be "right" or to make ourselves "righteous" through works of brainpower, assent, cultural inheritance, or our teachers. We are liberated from trying "control" what God says or doesn't say in scripture. We can only testify to a God who puts an end to sin, and brings about new life - all through Christ - all through the Church - all through the Gospel, through baptism, the Lord's Supper, through those things that create faith.
I'll add my own comment here that Fundamentalism isn't limited to Evangelical Christianity. You'll find it wherever people are more concerned about taking control of certain "fundamentals," and seeking assurance in those fundamentals as opposed to what those fundamentals are truly "about." You'll find it getting really bad when those who hold authority over said "fundamentals" get their priorities out of line. Now, there is in fact time and space for authority, and discerning what belongs to and what doesn't belong to an organization - the Church can self govern in the same way that baseball league should to play baseball as opposed to soccer. But there can be an awful lot of extra and arbitrary rules in churches that don't exactly hold up to rigorous theological study, biblical scholarship, or ethical conduct in the light of Jesus' cross and resurrection.
It's worth noting that the text I'm bringing you today contains a great deal more content - not all of which is critical - of the born again movement in its assorted forms, and to a lesser extent the charismatic movement as they were prominent in the 1980s. It provides a good historical overview of the hows and whys and groundings of its thought - and a more nuanced appraisal of the two (particularly the latter).
Read Eric Gritsch if you've encountered a ton of Christians who make you kind of raise your eyebrow. Read Eric Gritsch if you... kind of disagree with a how fundamentalists talk about God but don't really know how to articulate it? Read Eric Gritsch because he finds hope in Jesus and wants to share that hope with you in a fairly accessible but academic way.
No comments:
Post a Comment