cogito

This past week on The Huffington Post, Philip Slater published an article entitled The Great Fundamentalist Hoax. I have devoted alot of time and energy reminding people that there is a difference between fundamentalism and radicalism, and just as I anticipated, this article serves to propagate the confusion of the two. Yet, like many articles that are critical of the “Religious Right”, this one makes some very solid points about “followers” of Christ. Unfortunately, the majority of the points are couched in misunderstanding, or used to draw an erroneous conclusion. That said, I’m just going to reply directly to Slater’s article below.

Thoughtful Americans have long wondered how it is that fundamentalist Christians–followers of someone who preached pacifism and tolerance–became the poster boy for hate speech, touting “moral values” indistinguishable from those of the Taliban.

From the very first sentence, the comparison of “fundamentalist Christians” to the Taliban illuminates the misunderstanding of fundamentalism vs. radicalism. Consider the two concepts with me momentarily. Fundamental is defined as “of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary.” As a noun, we all know that it is “something that is an essential or necessary part of a system or object” (American Heritage Dictionary). Radical, on the other hand, is “departing markedly from the usual or customary” or “favoring fundamental changes.” These two words are used almost interchangeably in the mainstream media, yet in most senses, they are essentially opposites. If the words were used correctly, Slater’s introductory statement would make more sense - i.e. - fundamental Christians do follow someone who preaced pacifism and tolerance. On the other hand, radicals spout hate speech, making them not unlike fundamental muslims (that is, those that actually follow Mohammed’s fundamental doctrines). See how subtle (and dangerous) the confusion of these two terms can be? Slater continues…

Christian homophobes, for example, carry signs saying ‘God hates fags’, which they justify by claiming that Leviticus 18:22 (condemning male homosexuality as “abomination”) is the ‘word of God’ … Why doesn’t God hate those who fail to make offerings in the exact manner He so carefully spelled out in chapter after chapter? … (God must also hate people who eat lobster, shrimp and pork, which are also “abominations” according to Leviticus).

This series of statements stems from another common misunderstanding and misapplication of the scriptures. That is, that the Old Testament is called the OLD ONE for a reason. Christ came to establish a new convenant, “nailing [the old one] to the cross” ( Colossians 2:13-14). Does this mean that the Old Testament is now “obsolete”? Yes and no. Colossians 2 tells us that as a binding religious law, it has been abolished. Yet, Romans 15:4 tell us that the old writings were written for our learning; 2 Timothy 3:16 says that the scriptures - ALL of them - are “given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Knowing this, thoughtful Christians recognize that our understanding and application of spiritual principles from the Old Testament must be applied wisely; that is, in their proper New Testament (Christian) context.

Consider that the Old Testament was structured as a specific law to follow. Certain things were “abominable” simply because God said not to do them. To eat shellfish was a sin precisely because the law said it was a sin; the law did not denote any inherent “wrongness” in the eating of shellfish (Consider the historical context; the Hebrews were God’s chosen people - a physical race. Many of the Mosaical laws were provided for the health and preservation of His people. In an era without refrigeration, consuming shellfish was a risky move. Hey, it still is.) Much different are laws based on the nature of things. Homosexuality, for example, was (and is) an abomination to God because it is a behavior that goes against the natural, created order of things ( Romans 1:26-27).

It’s startling, in fact, how rarely fundamentalist Christians mention the sayings of Jesus. … In the four Gospels there are only four statements about sexuality, and these deal with adultery and divorce rather than sex per se. That is, with relationships–with causing injury to another.

He’s right; it is unfortunate how little Jesus’ teachings are taken into consideration in this day and age, by Christians and non-Christians alike. What’s worse is when Jesus’s doctrines are denied, misapplied or willfully ignored. Consider how short of a time Jesus walked the earth. Even shorter was the length of time in which he performed his “ministry.” With a message from God to preach and a very condensed period in which to preach it, should we not consider the weight of every single word and phrase? Why would Jesus (or anyone, for that matter) waste considerable time detailing the millions of things NOT to do, when all of those things are naturally excluded when he tells us what TO do.

Those that desire to reconcile sexually immoral behavior (hetero- or homosexual) with the teachings of Christ can’t have their cake and eat it, too. The truth is clear; when Jesus said what he said about marital relations, he covered everything we could ever need to know about human sexuality. Consider Matthew 19:4-6: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” One has to wilfully close his/her ears to what Jesus said here to distort it into some allowance for homosexuality or any other perversion. From his concise statement we learn the following:

1. God made human beings male and female.
2. The male is made to join with a female and vice-versa.
3. Marriage and sexual relations cannot exist independent of one another.
4. Marriage is for life. Regardless of man-made “laws”, God is the only one who can deem two married or “divorced.”

Those are exclusive truths. They logically exclude homosexuality, fornication, polygamy or divorce for any reason other than adultery. Those are the sayings of Jesus. I’m mentioning them.

It is correct to say that Jesus was quite tolerant. If he wasn’t we would have no hope. Yet, the term as we know it is entirely changed into a politically correct vehicle for moral change (alongside other terms such as “diversity”). We are to love everyone, regardless of their sins - even our enemies. Yet Jesus, with love in his heart, told a woman accused of adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Love is not a license ( Romans 6:1).

Slater is sadly accurate in describing the bulk of “evangelical Christianity” when he said:

It’s all about faith–about believing the story. The underlying message seems to be: you can behave any way you want as long as you believe the story and say you’re sorry before you die. Following the teachings of Jesus is much too demanding…

We need to be careful when we describe religious people as “fundamentalists” when we actually mean “radicals.” The difference is huge, and so are the implications. At the same time, Slater is correct - we all need to pay more attention to the teachings of Jesus. We must, however, be careful not to pick and choose what we want to hear from him.

Share This