Wasn’t it just a matter of time? Heretic Brian McClaren, Donald Miller, Leonard Sweet, et al have collaborated with a bunch of other folks to give us The Voice. This is the result of the vision of Emergent Chris Seay. The site says,
As western culture moved into what is now referred to as postmodernism, Chris struggled with a deep desire to preach the whole story of God. Much like the Hebrews at the time of the New Testament, emerging generations today connect with story rather than isolated facts. Too often, preaching is reduced to articulating truth statements somehow hidden in a complex, powerful, and redemptive story. Jesus taught through parables and metaphors; modern Christians have attempted to translate His teaching into a system of irrefutable fact statements and something seems to be getting lost in the translation.
Hence, a group of writers, poets, scholars, pastors, and storytellers have committed to work together to bring the Scriptures to life in a way that celebrates both beauty and truth.
“Chris struggled with a deep desire to preach the whole story of God.” Is he implying that preachers up until this “now” generation have not been so preaching? Was Martyn Lloyd-Jones not preaching the whole thing? Are RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Mark Dever and so on not preaching “the whole counsel of God?
But I digress.
Well they have released the Gospel of John in a PDF format for us all to read. To say I am unimpressed is a huge understatement. Here is a comparison of John 1:1-5 from this new emerging paraphrase with the same passage in a translation (ESV).
John 1:1-8 (The Voice)
1 Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God. 2 This celestial Voice remained ever present with the Creator; 3 His speech shaped the entire cosmos. Immersed in the practice of creating, all things that exist were birthed in Him. 4 His breath filled all things with a living, breathing light. 5 Light that thrives in the depths of darkness, blazing\ through murky bottoms. It cannot, and will not, be quenched.
6 A man named John, who was sent by God, was the first to clearly articulate the source of this unquenchable Light. 7 This wanderer, John who ritually cleansed,* put in plain words the elusive mystery of the Divine Light that all might believe through him. Because John spoke with power, many believed in the Light. Others wondered whether he might be the Light, 8but John was not the Light. He merely pointed to the Light; and in doing so, he invited the entire creation to hear the Voice.
John 1:1-8 (ESV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, [1] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Amazing. Do you see the problem? You can see the whole “problem” here.
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
Thanks to Stan at Just After Sunrise for the tip.
November 19, 2008 at 5:12 pm
This is absurd in every respect.
November 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I have a new name for it:
NUT
Nebulous Uncommitted Translation
November 20, 2008 at 10:23 pm
What is your issue exactly with the translation? Please explain.
November 20, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Where to start. First, it is not a translation. It is a poor paraphrase. They should not call it a translation.
Second, look at the Greek and it is easily seen what the problem is. This thing is so much opinion.
1Ἐν ἀρ.χῇ ἦν ὁ λό.γος, καὶ ὁ λό.γος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θε.όν, καὶ θε.ὸς ἦν ὁ λό.γος.
2οὗ.τος ἦν ἐν ἀρ.χῇ πρὸς τὸν θε.όν.
3πάν.τα δι’ αὐ.τοῦ ἐ.γέ.νε.το, καὶ χω.ρὶς αὐ.τοῦ ἐ.γέ.νε.το οὐ.δὲ ἕν ὃ γέ.γο.νεν
4ἐν αὐ.τῷ ζω.ὴ ἐ.στιν, καὶ ἡ ζω.ὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀν.θρώ.πων.
5καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκο.τί.ᾳ φαί.νει, καὶ ἡ σκο.τί.α αὐ.τὸ οὐ κα.τέ.λα.βεν.
6Ἐ.γέ.νε.το ἄν.θρω.πος, ἀ.πε.σταλ.μέ.νος πα.ρὰ θε.οῦ, ὄ.νο.μα αὐ.τῷ Ἰ.ω.άν.νης·
7οὗ.τος ἦλ.θεν εἰς μαρ.τυ.ρί.αν, ἵ.να μαρ.τυ.ρή.σῃ πε.ρὶ τοῦ φω.τός, ἵ.να πάν.τες πι.στεύ.σω.σιν δι’ αὐ.τοῦ.
8οὐκ ἦν ἐ.κεῖ.νος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ’ ἵ.να μαρ.τυ.ρή.σῃ πε.ρὶ τοῦ φω.τός.
Third, I did not mention it in the post, but see what they did to 1 Cor 6:9:
“Do you need reminding that the unjust have no share in the blessing of the Kingdom of God? Do not be misled. A lot of people stand to inherit nothing of God’s coming kingdom, including those whose lives are defined by sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, sexual deviancy…”
Sexual deviancy? What happened to homosexuality or sodomy?
This effort is pathetic.
November 21, 2008 at 6:33 am
Another problem is the hypocrisy of these people creating a “translation” in the first place. They find truth to be so nebulous yet they create a “translation” of the truth. Sounds like the ultimate exercise in futility.
November 21, 2008 at 8:03 am
So, I checked out the The Void, I mean Voice, and I was struck first by how its format is set up like a play, which I think shows immediately the author/editors presumption of what the text is. Second, the sheer lack of textual power was like sinking into a bog of epistemological humility, frustrating but inevitable. It boggles the mind why individuals turn to poor products such as the Voice, rather than intellectually rigorous translations, such as the ESV? Is it laziness? Do they not like the exactitude with which the ESV was formed? I just don’t get it, Why do people trade-in their good translations for paraphrases that carry so much editorial twisting of the text? I’ve said many of the same things about The Message, so I guess this isn’t a new phenomenom.
November 21, 2008 at 8:31 am
tg,
Here’s the answer to your question…from a true translation of God’s holy, infallible and inerrant Word…from 2 Tim 4.
“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
November 21, 2008 at 8:41 am
Tom,
I think Romans 1 can help us better understand why someone would prefer a manipulated paraphrase rather than an accurate translation of the original texts of Scripture.
Either they know the truth and believe it, but, unlike Paul, are ashamed of it (vs 16), or they’re among those still under wrath who actively seek to suppress God’s revealed truth in Scripture by exchanging it for a lie (vs 18, 25).
November 23, 2008 at 10:03 pm
That paraphrase makes me vomit. I’ve read the paraphrase of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Similar stuff, different twist.
November 24, 2008 at 4:28 am
I don’t believe the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is a paraphrase. Rather it is a “translation” that deliberately mistranslates certain verses or words to adhere to its false teaching. They insert words with no justification from the original manuscripts in order to deceive their members. Truly a word of the devil.
November 25, 2008 at 12:38 am
Stan,
I believe you are right. I also believe this version or whatever it’s called, The Voice, is similar in that it will be used to deceive.
November 25, 2008 at 4:03 am
christianlady,
Very true.
I just noticed I typed Truly a word of the devil. I meant to type Truly a work of the devil. One of those rare occurrences where with or without the typo it fits either way.
November 26, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The Bible has been meticulously translated into a number of faithful versions that are quite easy for contemporary readers to digest. By all means let’s create fiction inspired by Scripture, but turning Scripture into paraphrase seems like a completely daft waste of time to me.
Les et al, take heart about the rising generation: my own brother, who attends Memorial (an orthodox PCA church that is full of young, culturally savvy Christians from all walks of life) prefers the Old King James version. There are others like him. That’s not to say the KJV is the best (I prefer ESV myself), but my point is that there are many, many young Christians who believe in taking back social justice from the liberals, and who have a deep, abiding respect for history and liturgy.
November 26, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Ironically, the notion that we “lost” the social justice issue by leaving the playing field is not truly accurate. It is well documented that before, during, and after the mainline-fundamentalist split, church giving allocations to mercy ministries amongst the “fundamentalist” churches equalled or exceeded the giving of the mainline, liberal denominations in percent of total church allocations. This has continued to be true all the way up through the present. So, in reality, its not that conservative Christians lost or gave up on social justice, it’s just that their giving isn’t as noticeable, possibly because they don’t publicize it or flaunt it as much as some in the ECM. I think one could link that back to seeing mercy ministry or social justice as subserviant and secondary or tertiary in regards to the importance of the gospel and orthodox teaching.
Les, you often point this out, and I think it needs repeating (mainly because we all tend to be so thick skulled) that the church’s role in mercy ministry doesn’t really have a biblical basis beyond dealing with those inside the church. I think the Emerging Lurch, or The Ooze as Al Mohler calls them, have a somewhat intrinsic understanding of this (despite not liking it), which gives them great cause and impetus to create things like the above paraphrase or “The Green Bible” which allows them to editorialize on things they find important, yet have little to no biblical basis. Oh our itching ears.
November 27, 2008 at 5:57 pm
My two cents, gentlemen.
1. Fundamentalism was a retreat from matter of social justice and cultural engagement. I did a full year of research on this in college, and I think its pretty much a historical fact without much subjectivity. I would recommend the best historical treatment of this subject by George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture. This book has made it on my top ten books that influenced my theology and practice.
2. Since the church=God’s people, then it follows that the church needs to be showing mercy to people in and outside the church. If this is a common position on this blog, I would recommend that the authors of the blog do some miniature studies in Scripture to prove the point. I think that would be beneficial to all.
Since we’re all thick-headed, we need to continue going back to Scripture to find the way, the truth, and the life. A good reminder for us all.
November 27, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily make the same conclusions, Wes, that you make. While I certainly wouldn’t go head to head with Marsden, there is quite a lot of evidence from sources that are certainly Marsden’s equal. In fact, in his book, “Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation”, UVA sociologist, Dr. James D. Hunter does quite a lot of sociological and statistical analysis that says differently. In fact, one interesting figure I found was that conservative, fundamentalist giving to mercy ministry outstripped liberal, mainline giving by more than 47% for the period from 1900-1960. Now, that really doesn’t seem like fundamentalists retreated from “social justice” issues. In fact, Hunter draws the conclusion from a large number of polls conducted amongst fundamentalist college and seminary students in the first half of the 20th century, that an overwhelmingly large number saw social justice as very important for individual Christians. Yet, Hunter also concluded, again based on polling information, that these students held issues of social justice far subservient to the spread of the Gospel. Lastly, Hunter concluded that for this reason, fundamentalists were branded as uncaring of peoples’ physical needs. However, a far more accurate characterization would be that they care most for peoples’ spiritual needs, but yet still care for their physical needs. We can see this in the fact that four of the longest running mercy ministries were all founded out of the fundamentalist tradition, and not the liberal tradition: World Vision, World Relief Commission, Compassion International, and Medical Assistance Programs. In light of all this verifiable data, can one really conclude that fundamentalism abandoned or neglected “social justice”, or, did it merely take second place in emphasis to the Gospel? As Hunter concludes, “since social ministry was not performed for its own sake, it was rarely noticed”.
As to point 2, I’ll let Les or Randy take a crack at that one for now.
November 28, 2008 at 8:21 am
Wes,
Point #1: TG said well.
Point #2: We have made the case before already and see no need to repeat ourselves.
See this previous post citing Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s study of this issue with which I agree.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/04/23/what-about-the-poor/
Thickheaded? Far too guilty.
November 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Wes, I seriously doubt that you and I will ever see eye to eye on fundamentalism. I consider myself a fundamentalist but frankly have no time to develop new Bible studies on this subject. I just got back from serving parents of sick children at the Ronald McDonald House with my flock and need to get back to the books as I prepare to teach my class on the need to stand ready to fight aberrant theology.
November 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm
It seems there may be some nebulosity in this conversation surrounding the various definitions of “fundamentalism/ist” out there. I am interested in how some of you would define fundamentalism. Perhaps we don’t all define it in the same way. For me, I see three, rather than two branches of evangelical (I use the term loosely) Christianity that have developed over the past century or so: liberal, fundamental, and orthodox.
There are plenty of Christians who, being fallen persons with varying amounts of knowledge and personal peccadillos, lean toward a liberal bent in some ways or a fundamentalist bent in others, but are largely orthodox because they genuinely place the authority of Scripture and the example of Christ before any other ideology or entity. I won’t split hairs for this group of believers who are more or less orthodox.
I would characterize (Christian) fundamentalism as a bad thing. In short, it is the retreat from societal influence for the sake of Christ’s kingdom and is driven by a form of legalism that requires adherents to be as separate from the world as possible, not only in spirit as commanded by Paul, but physically as well (this is one of their main errors). The result is professing Christians who are out of touch with the world, regardless of whether they open their wallets for mercy ministries. They lose the ability to converse with the lost. At the extreme end of the fundamentalist spectrum are the militia and commune types who may or may not drink the special Kool-Aid.
Now Randy, I would in no way consider you such a “fundamentalist”, so perhaps you and I define the term differently. I’m curious how you would define it. If your characterization is different, then I would also like to know what you would call the group of people I describe above.
Also, some of us have discussed Jerry Falwell in the past. If he was not a fundamentalist (legalist, etc.), then who was/is?
Finally, Tom: I haven’t read Hunter’s work, but I did note that there was no mention in your last post of Fundamentalist involvement in mercy ministry beyond the opening of wallets. Giving is of course a good thing—ministries cannot succeed in a fallen world without funding—but I am curious to know what other ways Fundamentalist groups meet the needs of the downtrodden, in the words of James: “to visit orphans and widows in their affliction”.
November 29, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Matt, as you have correctly observed, it is possible to define any group in such a manner as to demonize them in some mutant form.
It is possible to find some ultra-pietistic/separatist version of just about every theological orientation.
I am clearly one who prioritizes Gospel proclamation over social reclamation/transformation. I suggest you listen to Lig Duncan’s excellent tratment of apostolic Gospel proclamation inActs for all the details. Please see the Expositors Conference in 2008 for details. Lig developed material by Dr. Knight, one of CTS’ very, very finest.
I hold to a Reformed soteriology completely. I like all the petals on my tulip.
I am premil (and yes, pre-trib). But I do not see each and every effort to impact our world as “polishing brass on a sinking ship”. This is one of the caricatures of the eschatological orientation I hold (as does my alma mater, Dallas Theological Seminary, whom many would correctly see as pretty fundamentalist in orientation). I believe in and pray for the imminent return of Jesus for His Church.
I am more disposed to separation than “big tent” efforts. I don’t recall even hearing separation being discussed in 20 years of being in the PCA…other than separating from the PCUSA. I don’t think Rome has a biblical view of justification at all, and I am fine with being called anathema.
I think Machen was a hero.
I am not enamored with the preoccupation with the cultural mandate. I am not aligned with Neo-Calvinism. I think there’s way too much emphasis in some circles on Politics being the answer to our ills. I oppose almost all of what our President-elect stands for but pray for his salvation as the real answer to his very misguided and sinful perdispositons. Government is not the ultimate answer but it can and should curb egregious sin…at least it is supposed to.
I am a staunch complementarian.
I believe in genuine inerrancy. I need to do more reading of the Word , even if it means reading less about the Word.
I believe in literal 24-hour days of creation and think other views are downright wrong (I don’t care how many degrees their advocates have).
I believe polemics have gotten a bad rap by those who seek the kinder, gentler but more compromise-prone version of evangelicalism. I think Paul would be called “contumacious” in today’s circles, maybe even some PCA circles.
I don’t see what the big deal is with orthopraxy and orthodoxy (It’s a false dichotomy)…much ado about nothing. Real believers behave as such and seek to honor Christ in thought, word and deed.
I believe in miracles. I just don’t live and pray like I believe in miracles all the time unfortunately.
I care about lost people. I care more about their souls than their social needs but I genuinely care about both.
That’s my version of fundamentalism.
November 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Matt, I think my mention of the 4 mercy ministries founded by fundamentalists fits the bill of concrete action rather than mere giving. Hunter also outlines in his short section on this issue the number of “rescue missions” that were formed in the period from 1900-1940 by fundamentalist individuals and churches for everyone from sailors to “wayward mothers”, which seems like pretty concrete evidence of action as well as giving. You see, the problem is that individuals’ actions and participation is hard to quantify from a statistical and sociological perspective, which is most likely why Hunter provides more statistics from the giving end, rather than the participatory aspect. But, it is important to note that giving is an important aspect in ones participation. I forgot exactly who said this, but, “one can tell a lot about an individual’s faith by looking at his/her checkbook.” So, if an individual or church gives a significant amount of money to mercy ministries, one could conclude that the party in question values mercy ministries, and thus likely participates in them as well. Hopefully that clarifies any confusion.
As to the fundamentalist, liberal, orthodox question you posed, Matt. I think your labeling is a little off, especially when applying the label “orthodox” to a set group of individuals, as opposed to the labels of “fundamentalist” or “liberal”. Orthodoxy specifically should be applied to the specific “correctness” of ones theology, and not really as a defining label differentiating a theological framework. Really, every denomination would exclusively claim their framework as the truly “orthodox” view. This is true amongst Calvinists and Arminians, Credobaptists and paedobaptists, cessationists and Pentecostals. So, applying the term “orthodox” doesn’t really fit well to specific church movements, but rather, the whole of ones theology. Now, I am not trying to say that everyone is orthodox, because that of course is not possible. What I am trying to say is that there is orthodoxy and there is heterodoxy, and one’s view on theological view x is either orthodox or heterodox, and thus cannot be applied effectively as a label, such as “liberal”, “conservative”, or “fundamentalist”. It is really a question of who is MORE orthodox in their views, and not a “trichotomy”, as you suggest Matt, between liberal, fundamentalist, and orthodox.
I think a proper definition of “fundamentalist” does perhaps include some aspect of separatism from modern culture, albeit, that may be warranted in light of the garbage that our culture puts out. But really, is that something that really should be a concept of a proper orthodoxy. Matt, correct me if I’m wrong, but your only complaint against fundamentalism is a lack of cultural engagement. No critique on their views on God’s sovereignty, soteriology, Trinitarian beliefs, or stance on eschatology is really presented in your arguments, and yet all of these things, at least in my mind, are tied to whether one could be considered orthodox or not. Are there other things besides how one interacts with culture that you would critique the archetypal “fundamentalist” on? Also, you throw the term “legalist” around several times, and yet you don’t really fully define it. I think it is important to understand and affirm that stringent and exclusive doctrine is NOT the same as legalism, but rather, legalism placing a set of rules as the means unto salvation, and thus creating an idol out of them. Could you define what you mean by legalist then, since you imply that Falwell is a legalist, and yet I don’t see him fitting that definition?
December 1, 2008 at 10:33 am
rk/tg: I’ve briefly read your replies and will address them after work, either tonight or tomorrow night.
Best,
M@
December 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Matt, with all due respect, if you spend more than 15 seconds on my comment, you have woefully mis allocated your time.
My comment was strictly one data point with the intent of hopefully showing how generalizations are prone to mischaracterizations.
December 2, 2008 at 1:27 pm
That may be true Randy, but you threw out a few five-dollar words that—having neither an MDiv nor a strong appetite for theological writings—are unfamiliar to me. My interests lie more in fiction and poetry. My idea of a good treatise on theology is Frederick Buechner’s “The Alphabet of Grace”. For example, I had to look up the definition of soteriology, and I have no idea who Machen is. I didn’t really pay attention in worship services, Sunday school or Bible classes between 6th grade and my final year of college, nor did I attend a Christian college like Tom. Sometimes you guys toss words around that are unfamiliar to me, but when I look them up it sometimes turns out I already knew the definition. I wanted to spend more than 15 seconds on your post because I have a genuine interest in how people define fundamentalism and liberalism. As promised and requested by Tom, I’ll flesh out my position and answer his questions when I have more time.
December 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“…already knew the definition.”—i.e., growing up in a Christian home, as a PK, I became familiar with many of the concepts but not all of the terms. It took me 24 years of living in a Christian household before I came to true saving faith. It was only about 4 years ago that I decided I’m not Presbyterian by accident or default, but by choice.
December 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Matt, I have a proposal for you to consider!
I have long wanted to get some men together to discuss biographies and writings of some of the stalwarts, both “ancient” and more “modern”.
If you’re interested, I promise it will be edifying and challenging. You are in for a real treat!!!
For an appetizer, we can start with Machen. You really need to know about j Gresham Machen, brother.
And then we can go to Whitefield, Simeon, Owen, Edwards, Manton, Bunyan, Spurgeon and the like!
December 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Matt, here’s a great short bio of Machen, brother. Piper’s bios are excellent reading.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1464_J_Gresham_Machens_Response_to_Modernism/
December 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I would look forward to such a “gathering” to discuss, for us locals.
Now how did we get down this fundamentalist road anyway?
December 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm
BTW, I am a fundy to the extent that I hold to the tenets of Fundy theological non-negotiables. I like some associated with early fundamentalism such as Machen and Francis Schaeffer.
I am not at all a retreatist, though I do think that far too many of us have bathed in the culture that we are nigh indistinguishable from it. There are surely areas where Christians need to do a little more “retreatin” and less “engagin.”
December 2, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The blame for this disastrous derailment should lay at my feet.
By the way, Christianbook.com has a complete collection of Spurgeon’s sermons in a 5 vol. hardcover set for only $40.00.
December 2, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Randy, I’d also be interested in the proposed group.
December 2, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Matt, if you’re looking for a quick and dirty fix, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gresham_Machen
If you are looking to cut your teeth on some Machen, I couldn’t recommend a greater classic than his book: Christianity & Liberalism - http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/1019/nm/Christianity_and_Liberalism_Paperback_
Also, you mentioned:
I think this would be interesting to further explore as I struggle concerning how we are to live in this world as an alien and pilgrim (Heb. 11:13-16).
As Les said above, I’ve also seen this attitude at seminary where guys are so into culture, they end up not being much different than the world. Instead of engaging the culture, they are engaged by it. I am considering doing an indep. study this spring in Hebrews trying to wrap my arms around this concept of “Pilgrim Theology.”
This article by Jonathan Edwards may also be worth discussing: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/pilgrim.htm
Blessings,
exo
December 12, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Tom, I promised answers to your questions, and though long overdue I’m a man of my word. If you want further discussion after this, let’s dig into it next time we see each other. Anyone who’s not local, feel free to email me if you’re compelled. As some of you know I’m breaking my blogging vow of silence by posting in this thread, which I now regret because I find blogging at length to be terribly tedious and time consuming—it always leads to more blogging. But that being said, I always try to answer questions that people ask me, especially if it seems they misunderstand my position on a subject.
I suppose my “trichotomy” of liberal, orthodox, and fundamental theology is a bit of a mischaracterization. I guess what I meant was that we have seen the development of liberal theology; we have seen the development of fundamentalist theology; and we have seen people who don’t really lean hard to either the left or right, who are not card-carrying members of the Moral Majority but who fervently seek an orthodox theology as seen in Scripture. This latter “group” is not so much of a group or a movement, as the broad swathe of Christians who for some years now prefer not to carry either the label of liberal, nor the label of fundamentalist.
I had a conversation with Les recently where he clarified for me the beginnings of the fundamentalist movement with the likes of Machen et al. It seems Machen’s list of five orthodox points were definitely in line with Scripture. That being said, many Christians who carried the term “fundamentalist” in the subsequent decades became characterized as both physically and socially separate from the world. This does not of course apply to ALL who would call themselves fundamentalists, but there were/are enough professing Christians who retreat from the world and are best described by the things they DON’T do, rather than the things they DO. So, like it or not, to most people the meaning of the word “fundamentalist” has changed for the worst over the years. I am probably a fundamentalist in the strictest sense described by Machen, but let’s face it: Machen is long gone, and while his ideas of orthodoxy are timeless, the meaning of words change. If you don’t like the postmodern sound of that, just think about how the term “evangelical” has been beaten, abused and jellified beyond the point of recognition. So, I shirk from the term fundamentalist as much as I shirk from the term liberal. Call me an orthodox Christian, or call me Shirley.
Most non-Christians, and most Christians I meet under the age of 40 (with all due respect to my august hosts) define fundamentalism as legalism. Now, legalism is a very slippery term, which I find ironic because the more legalistic folks I know see the world in high-contrast black and white.
Legalism as I see it, and I think Scripture concurs (See Christ v. Pharisees), is the adherence to the LETTER of the law over and above the SPIRIT of the law. Great, wonderful Matt, how nice and vaguely philosophical of you to choose a definition we can all agree on. I doubt any legalist would say outright that they consider letter to be more valuable than spirit. OK so what does that really mean? Legalism says that it’s a sin for anyone to consume alcohol in any quantity. Legalism says that rock ‘n roll is the Devil’s music, not only because of lyrics but because the very sound itself is “evil”. If anyone has ever seen “Hell’s Bells: The Dangers of Rock ‘n Roll” you know what I’m on about. Legalism was the driving motivation—according to my parents who have since matured in their walk—when they told the teenage me that I could have long hair or a piercing, but not both. As I say, they have since changed, but they were at the time so worried about me making a bad impression, particularly making THEM look bad as parents, that they were willing to set moral fences around the subjective fields of hairstyle and ornamentation.
Legalism is an attitude that places red tape around every tree in Scripture, while being blind to the forest. Legalism is the paradigm from which Jerry Falwell saw fit to blame the 9/11 attacks on feminists, gays and liberals. Sure, God judges us in this life AND the next (emphasis on next) for our sins, but is that a productive, loving thing to say in a public setting? I think not.
Legalistic, doggedly literal reading of Scripture, and maybe plain craziness, prompted Falwell to tell an evangelical conference in 1999 that the anti-Christ was a male Jew who was probably already alive. In later crazy news, Falwell informed people via the National Liberty Journal that Tinky Winky, the Teletubby, was “a gay role model and morally damaging to children.” I could go on further about Falwell, but I think that’s enough for now.
Legalism is what prompted Bob Jones University to let in garbage educational texts because the authors were all card-carrying Baptists (not that there’s ANYTHING wrong with being a Baptist per se, Les
). I’ll never forget the 7th grade science text book I read at my Christian school that told me “Christians do not get stomach ulcers, because they do not worry.” Legalism compelled Bob Jones to strictly monitor dating among students to unreasonable lengths, and somehow made it acceptable to not accept black students until fairly recent times (WHAT?!?!?).
Tom, upon reflection I think I can agree with you that “It is really a question of who is MORE orthodox in their views, and not a “trichotomy”, as you suggest Matt, between liberal, fundamentalist, and orthodox.” So forget about my trichotomy. I hope I’ve made myself clear.
I hear a lot of talk on this blog about the woes of liberalism, and I sometimes agree with the diagnosis. But does anyone call out the fightin’ fundies like Falwell and the Bob Jones crowd? I think we should, to be fair and to distance ourselves from heterodoxy in both the far left AND the far right corners.
Tom, my main problem with fundamentalism/legalism/separatism etc. is that it neglects the gospel message in favor of a neo-Pharisaic code. It runs away from the living arms of love into the grave of law. Legalism leads one away from Christ and seeks to lessen our sinful load through piety. What I described before—the retreat from culture—is one of the side effects, but not really a root problem.
I think it is possible and even necessary for Christians to shape culture through writing, the arts, and everyday endeavors in our careers and relationships with the lost. Why is it necessary? Because the redemptive work of Christ is ultimately in heaven, but it begins now. It is a cop-out to believe that because Christ could come at any moment, we shouldn’t waste our time trying to transform culture. During and for a couple hundred years after the Renaissance, Christians were at the forefront of culture in terms of science, art, music, philosophy and other literature. Many fundamentalists have abandoned those playing fields because they think it’s useless, and because when they read Heb. 11:13 “…strangers and exiles on the earth” they believe we are called to literally retreat from the world. They gloss over passages like 1 Cor. 5:9-11: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.”
Brothers and sisters, this should not be. We should follow Jesus example of fellowshiping with the spiritually sick, with the goal of introducing the gospel. I believe that the gospel must be shared, both verbally and in action through our deeds. I believe that because we have been renewed in our minds, that we are called also to redeem our culture by honoring the Holy Spirit in the things we write, the music we play, the art we create—and I believe that it sells our gifts far short to hem ourselves in to only the Christian stage. There is nothing wrong with Christian music per se, but why can’t it simply be good music? So much Christian music, art land literature these days is woefully lacking in originality. Your typically bland Christian rock group would rather be copycats than creatives. I think of Frederick Buechner, a fiction/poetry/philosophy writer who happens to be a Christian. He does not shy away from the gospel in any way, but neither does he sell books on the shelves of Christian bookstores. He would rather have his work be judged on the common playing field.
I try to play my own small part in transforming culture through my calling in the area of graphic design. I don’t know if it will make much of a difference in the long run for the kingdom, but I find motivation in this fact: we serve an excellent God, and thus we should strive for excellence in all that we do.
December 13, 2008 at 10:12 am
Matt,
Just to comment briefly, and any further discussion can certainly be carried on in person. First, you speak of letter vs. spirit of the law as the defining aspect of legalist vs. Christian. I have to say, I think you are very, very mistaken. A legalist is someone who believes that the law contributes to or is the sole basis for their salvation. Furthermore, I think we see God as one who holds to the letter of the law, rather than “the spirit” of the law. Because He expects such strict obedience is the precise reason why Christ had to be our perfect atonement. Christ obeyed the letter/spirit of the law, and died as our perfect sacrifice, thus propitiating us with the Father. If you look at the Abrahamic law given throughout the pentateuch, you see exacting standards and details, without any sense of “the spirit of the law”. Oops, your tunic has some mold on it, well take it to the priest, and if it spreads, that favorite tunic of yours has to be burned up (Lev 14:47-59). Certainly, God gave this rule for a reason, but you see an aspect of exacting obedience, as well as a level of detail not really familiar to us today. Or, look at Nadab and Abihu, offering “unauthorized fire before the Lord”. They were following the “spirit” of the law because they weren’t offering fire to any other God, but were instead, not following the “letter” of the law, and so “fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them” (Lev. 10:1-2). Again, God is a detailed and exacting God, because He is fully, immensely, and incomprehensibly holy. Because we cannot obey the letter of the law, which God does requires of us, Christ did it for us, and then died as an atonement for our disobedience.
Second, It is a grave mistake to call someone a legalist merely on the basis of their views on how the biblical law should be followed. Too often, in today’s liberal church movement, the term legalist or Pharisee is used to label those who hold a detailed doctrinal position, and/or a detailed concept of biblical morality. First, Paul warns of this in 1 Corinthians 8, that even though something may be allowed in our scope of Christian freedom, we should not cause an undue burden upon another Christian’s conscience by forcing our view upon them, if they hold that view to be wrong. It was meat sacrificed to idols then, perhaps it’s the use of alcohol, smoking, or listening to secular music now. Matt, as I said before, calling someone a legalist is in essence saying that their faith is outside of sola fides, and so, they are not really trusting in Christ alone, and thus are not a Christian. So, since Baptists follow the moral maxim that the consumption of alcohol and tobacco products is a sin, are you ready to put them outside the camp because that view is “legalistic”, and thus they aren’t Christians?
Lastly, (so much for my short response), as to the seeming bias of RFT, I cannot speak for Les or Randy in regards to the fair treatment of the “fightin’ fundies” compared to the liberal movement in the church. Yet, what issue is more pressing? Which side poses a greater danger to the core tenets of the church? Which side actively seeks to undermine the authority of Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture? Which side denies the ability to know Truth absolutely? Which side denies and fights against an historical, creedal, confessional church? The answer is the liberals. So, who deserves more attention? The fundamentalist who only reads Christian books, would take an original Kinkade over a Pollack any day, and who thinks the band K.I.S.S. stands for Knights in Satan’s Service? Or, the submergent who thinks that we can’t really know anything with certainty, and who holds the view that Christ’s atonement for our sins is “tantamount to cosmic child abuse”? Who do we have more theological common ground with? I hope the answer is the “fightin’ fundy”.
December 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Tom: you’ve got mail. I think you’ve wildly misunderstood some of the things I said, and made assumptions about things I simply did not say. We should most definitely talk soon in person.
Again, if anyone else wants to talk with me let’s take it offline because I will not respond via this blog.
December 16, 2008 at 8:27 am
Just one thought:
If we look at the OT nation Israel, how did people know they were different?
Was it because they looked, talked, and smelled just like the world, or was it because they were completely different and probably “weird” looking?
I’m not advocating monasticism or physically withdrawing from culture, but in my generation, it seems to be that the focus is on “engaging culture” when the reality is, many are being engaged by culture. Just as Israel was to be the vehicle by which all the nations would be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3), as a nation they were to be set apart and different than all the other pagan nations.
Why is it that the focus on pursuing holiness is not emphasized more? Is it a pomo no-no?
Is the only difference between us and the world our creed?
By the way, this isn’t directed at anyone in this thread. Just some thoughts…