THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF A MANIC DEPRESSIVE

THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF A MANIC DEPRESSIVE

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

A PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF LEAVING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

‘The spiritual life of a manic depressive’ may be quoted for non-commercial use in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up to and inclusive of 2000 words without the express permission of the author, providing that the total does not amount to more than 25% of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

For commercial use all rights reserved. No part of this manuscript may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

COPYRIGHT ROBERT LAYNTON (2009)



P______ S_______ was a graphics computer operator for 33 years. In his late thirties he studied with the Open University and obtained a Bachelor of Science honours degree. He subsequently gained a Certificate and Diploma in Counselling. Since his early fifties he has worked in a retail store. He enjoys photography, jazz, crime novels, tracing his family tree and Badminton.

I was born in 1951, in the north Midlands of England the only child of working class parents living in an industrial town. I remember my childhood as happy and secure. I went through the then-usual gamut of childhood illnesses – measles, mumps, chicken pox and so on. There was also a period when I had scarlet fever and was placed in an isolation hospital for three weeks at the age of three and a half. This was quite a traumatic experience for an only child of this age and did leave a few problems in later life, such as overwhelming feelings of isolation even on a crowded room. It was an experience that proved to be interesting to explore as part of my self-development in my counselling studies years later. I went to the local school with my friends and played in the local park. There were day trips to the coast and holidays in Wales. Neither of my parents were churchgoers, though they considered themselves to be Christians and encouraged me to go to Sunday School like many parents did with their children in the mid fifties. I had attended the local Church of England Sunday school (St. J____) as an infant, and during a period of unhappiness there when I was about six or seven years old, I was encouraged by my piano teacher to go to a local Congregational church which I attended until I was about twelve years old. I remember having a respect for church and I refused to fool around or misbehave in church like some of my friends but nevertheless, by the age of twelve I found the whole thing very boring and drifted away. That was in 1963. I was not a ‘sporty’ child – I hated football and cricket – and was a thin boy, slightly underweight and slightly shy and introverted.

My first experience of what we might call mental disturbance was at the age of ten or eleven. In those days, in England, a school exam called the 11-Plus was a very important milestone in a child’s education. It consisted of a day of exams – in maths, English and so on – that determined what level of education the child was to progress to for their secondary education in their teen years. Failure to pass the exam meant that one was sent to ‘senior’ school – grouped together with low achievers who would eventually go into some sort of lower paid manual work. Success in the exam meant entrance to a grammar school or high school – with more opportunities, higher standards, and therefore an opportunity to obtain a higher quality job or profession – even a chance at University. The pressure to pass this exam was quite intense in those days, and all school work was geared to rehearsing the kind of questions and answers needed to pass this exam. Parents put pressure on their children to succeed and to gain opportunities for a better job in the future. My parents were by no means excessive in this, but encouraged me to do my best. Due to the date of my birthday within the year, I was one of the youngest in the class and at this age, that year makes quite a difference in one’s maturity, skills and abilities. In this, I was at a disadvantage. Neither am I quick learner – it takes time sometimes for ideas and concepts to sink in, thus, I was at another disadvantage. Nevertheless, I got a reasonable result and went on to a Technical High School. But the pressure was undoubtedly there and I certainly felt it. For a few days during this period, I went to bed and my parent’s activity around me seemed to ‘speed up’. I guess I was suffering from some sort of feverish activity in my mind – feeling overwhelmed, mithered and distracted by this general pressure. It felt very disturbing and I would not go to sleep on my own for about a week. The experience only lasted for a few seconds or a minute, but was a little frighteneing for a 10/11 year old. It was bad enough for me to be taken to the doctors by my parents, but it was dismissed as a reaction to the pressure of this 11-Plus exam and after a few days, this mithered distraction passed. I believe now that this was my first encounter with a borderline manic episode.

My first encounter with Christian fundamentalism was at the age of 16. Fundamentalism is term that covers both religious and secular areas, but I use the term here with reference to Christian protestant churches which insist on the inerrancy of the Bible. They contest that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that therefore it is without any mistakes or errors, Thus they use the Bible as their authority in matters of faith and conduct, with frequent appeals to it’s texts and verses. Despite their shared this view of Biblical inerrancy, different fundamentalist churches hold to different and even opposing views. This is because these churches emphasise different verses of the Bible and draw out different interpretations of Biblical passages. Thus, though sharing a common belief in Biblical inerrancy, these groups have different systems of government and practice, and draw out different systems of belief. Some are Arminian, some Calvinist; some believe that extraordinary gifts like tongues prophecy and healing continue today, whilst others do not; some are democratic, some are not. These groups include Christadelphians, Pentecostal churches, both Elim and Assemblies of God, Brethren churches and Evangelical Reformed churches, which may be Baptist churches or local independent churches.

By 1967, a new minister, B_____ T_____, had arrived at the local Congregational church following the merging of the Congregational church with the local Railway Mission, whose building had been burnt down. Many of my friends were impressed with this new Pastor, a young man in his early twenties who came from a working class background in Manchester and was fresh from Bible College. He developed an instant rapport with the young people and the church youth club had grown in popularity as a result. It was about six months after his arrival that I started to attend the youth club with my friends. Being a church youth club for the youth of the church, it was expected that those who attended the youth club should also attend church services or Sunday school on Sunday mornings. No one ever challenged me on this, but I felt obliged to attend church and began to do so, a little begrudgingly since the youth club seemed worth it. I attended with an open mind, considering myself a Christian, with the same sort of respect that I used to have before. Over a period of six months it became clear to me that the message being preached by this new minister was different from what I had heard before. These sermons were preached from the Bible passages and texts and it appeared that they were faithful to these verses and passages. The messages declared that I appeared to be in danger of a 'lost' eternity, because a Just and Pure God demanded that failures and disobedience against God be punished. I saw that my failures and disobedience against God demanded such punishment and weighed against me when put in the balance. I saw the sword of God's justice hanging over me, rightly and fairly because I had offended a Just and Pure God. But I also saw the Love and Mercy of God in the offering of His Son Jesus Christ to take my deserved punishment on my behalf, and therefore an opportunity for deliverance by trusting in Jesus Christ to that effect.

Through August and September of 1968 these things occupied my mind and I sincerely wanted to believe and trust in Jesus and 'asked Jesus into my heart' many times. But I was not sure that I had obtained deliverance or forgiveness. I began to change my behaviour; to shun things that I felt were displeasing to God and to seek to do those things which it appeared that God approved of. At that time I bought a gospel record by Little Richard, the Rock and Roll singer of the 50's. It still remains an excellent Gospel album of spirituals by the likes of Thomas Dorsey. Whilst listening to that album and particularly the track ‘Peace in the valley', I had, for the first time, the experience of assurance of salvation. All of a sudden, I knew that I was going to have 'peace in the valley some day' and that my sins were forgiven and that I was welcome by Jesus. These ideas were no longer theories or doctrines out there, but I felt that they became personal: they applied to me: I had a personal interest in them. I wept with joy as my salvation anxiety fell away and I felt assured of a place in paradise for all eternity. Eternal, Invisible, Spiritual things seemed Real and True to me. This was my ‘conversion’ experience – I was ‘born again’.

I continued to attend church and became enrolled as a member. Some of the young people, myself included, asked for a young people's Bible study. We spent three years going through Paul's Epistle to the Romans once a week. During this period I also to attended evening services and mid week Bible studies. By 1971, I was asked if I would serve as a deacon, a sort of church administrator in more secular matters, which was considered at that time to be a role that lasted one year and which was then open for election again by the membership. Deacons deal with various odd jobs around the church, organised the bread and wine for communion and dealt with things like decorating, heating, maintenance and so on. With some reservations, I agreed. Looking back, this was a big mistake: I was not mature enough or educated enough in spiritual matters, but this was in many ways still a young church and not very large in membership, and the minister had introduced a tremendous sense of community and fellowship. These were happy days for me: full of humour, exploring together, playing together and working together. The structure and organisation of the church was moderately loose and informal and there was room for spontaneity and flexibility.

During this time I developed a growing respect for Scripture, but it was not until two or three years after my 'conversion' that I considered the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. I remember sitting through a sermon on Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 5, where Paul talks about the first and second Adam. The Adam of Genesis is referred to as a real person, not a parable or symbol and it was pointed out that Jesus himself regarded Adam as a real human being. If the Apostles and Jesus the Son of God taught this, then it must be so I thought. This literalism, this dismissing of analogy or metaphor except where plainly intended, such as in parables, is a typical feature of Christian fundamentalism. The creation story in Genesis for example, is often taken quite literally by fundamentalists, who often believe in a literal, seven 24hr day creation of the universe and a young earth only tens of thousands of years old rather than millions or billions of years old. I was no exception and it was arguments like this coupled with an increasing faith and commitment that moved me to an acceptance of Scripture as God's inerrant Word and eventually to a position of being a young earth creationist, that is one who believes that God literally created the world in seven days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I was encouraged to lead the occasional Bible study and to preach and these meetings obviously met with some approval since I was asked to preach and lead again at various occasions.

By now I was also beginning to seriously read Christian books. I had read introductory booklets to the Christian faith, but over a few years I had begun to read more deeply. Christianity really began my love of books and my love of philosophy. Over about five or six years I progressed from booklets, to modern book length studies, to Victorian works and eventually to the writings of the puritans. I sometimes had to have a dictionary on hand as I became aware of deeper, more thoughtful and more ‘technical’ works of theology and philosophy. I developed an increased love of the English language, grammar and the preciseness of the use of words in philosophy. Trips to second-hand bookshops became a joy.

I continued in this direction for about two years, but by late 1970 or early 1971 I began to suffer from tension and anxiety. The anxiety was what psychologists and psychiatrists call ‘free floating anxiety’: in other words, there wasn’t a particular issue or event that was causing my anxiety, but rather, I suffered from waves of anxiety in which my mind would latch on to some small or irrational concern and blow it out of all proportion. My stomach would tighten and I would get ‘butterflies’ in my stomach. Waves on unsettlement and worry would sweep over me and I would feel distracted, ‘mithered’ and cluttered in my head. It is not clear to me even now what triggered this condition, though it may just have been pressures of work, course exams and so on.

At lunch times I took to going to a local open space and sitting in the long grass for half an hour, to escape the hustle and bustle of the working day. One particular day during the summer, I became deeply aware of the beauty of my surroundings. The sunshine, the tall grass blowing gently in the breeze, the sound of the grass as it moved, the patterns of the wind on the grass and the peaceful solitude all conspired together to produce in me a sense of natural harmony and simple beauty that seemed richer and fuller than I had ever experienced before. This open space seemed like a little paradise on earth, pure and unspoilt, and I felt deeply calm and peaceful and sensed the power and beauty of the God who must have made such harmonious nature.

However, my anxieties continued and I visited my doctor who prescribed the then wonder drug of Vallium. I was to learn ten years later that this drug causes me to become depressed about twenty-four hours after taking it. At this time though, I thought my depressions were a reaction to my anxieties. This condition was bad enough for me to be absent for a few days from work occasionally and generally disrupted my life making me introspective, lacking in confidence and morose.

The world sometimes appeared to me to be a scary, unpredictable place and there was a feeling of things being slightly out of control. It is not surprising then that the issue of whether God was sovereign or not was exercising my mind: Was God in control? Was God effectively ruling the world or had God wound the world up like a clockwork toy such that it was now winding down in it's own way? If God was in control, why was there so much evil and suffering? It was in this frame of mind that I read a book called ‘The sovereignty of God’ (A. W. Pink. 1968). Using Biblical texts, this book proposed that God was indeed a sovereign God, in full control, ruling believers and unbelievers, events and circumstances to accomplish His purposes. As I read this I remember suddenly seeing this sovereignty of God very clearly as True and Real. In what was to be a common factor in many of my experiences, it was as if a door in my mind opened and I saw things clearly. My heightened spiritual experiences often arose from an apprehension of some doctrine in a deeper and fuller way than before. In this case I saw clearly that God was a King of kings, ruling in power: He appeared as truly God to me. I was so empowered by this apprehension of God and the perception that He was MY God and that I was watched over by Him, that I threw away my Vallium tablets, knowing that I had nothing to be anxious about with such a God organising the circumstances of my life. My irrational anxieties were overcome and I recovered from my anxious state.

About a year later I remember coming home from a church service with an increased sense of the love of God towards me. This had probably arisen from something in the sermon, though I cannot remember exactly what now. I walked home in a state of energised praise and contemplation on God and decided, when I got home, to spend some time in prayer. I went to my bedroom to pray alone and was increasingly filled with a sense of God's love for me such that I could no longer put my words together, because the sense of God's love was so great. I lay on the bed enraptured by the immediate sense of God's presence and His loving condescension to me and all I could do was bathe in God's love as I continued in a state of bliss, taken up as it were, to a spiritual realm in close communion with God for about half an hour.

It was at this time that I met my first wife, W___, who was also 'converted' under the church ministry. Though about twenty years old, I was still quite naïve and inexperienced with members of the opposite sex. During my mid teens, many of my friends had started to go to local nightclubs and discotheques, but these never appealed to me. My mother and father had been keen dancers and won competitions. Mt father was a qualified dance teacher. But they liked the Old Tyme and Modern sequence dancing which by the late 1960’s was seen as old fashioned. My parents used to host dancing at a couple of local workingmen’s clubs every week, and as a child I had been taken to these events. By my early teens I grew to dislike the cigarette smoke-and-beer laden atmosphere. I just grew to dislike such clubs and public houses…I never was and never have been a big drinker or a smoker. Neither have I been a fan of contemporary popular music. My tastes turned to mellow Jazz, Blues and Latin music from Brazil, Cuba and Puerto Rico. So nightclubs and discos never held any fascination for me. As a result, the ‘swinging sixties’ partly passed me by and always seemed to be happening ‘somewhere else’. In any case, I always think that I must have seemed a bit of an oddball – wrapped up in Christianity, studious and introverted, not liking modern popular music and still remaining physically thin and slightly underweight. Nevertheless, I was and still remain a bit of a ‘hippy’ at heart – at this time my hair was shoulder length like many other males of my age, I had a ‘goatee’ beard and liked the sanitised version of flower-power and psychedelia. I had met and dated a couple of girls but to my frustration at times, nothing came of these brief relationships. It was therefore natural that I would gravitate to someone within the church circle who shared to a great degree my spiritual views.

At the end of 1971, the Minister of the church received an invitation to pastor a church at Bridgnorth in Shropshire and after prayer and consideration, he accepted. He helped us in our search for a new Pastor and following a few months where the Deaconate looked after the church, our new minister, H_____ M_____ arrived in January 1973. Thus it was that I had found myself leading and preaching in church services along with other deacons during the period between our minister leaving and a new minister arriving.



The new minister, was a different man altogether from our previous pastor. A schoolteacher in his mid twenties, he had come up through the ranks of an independent reformed church at Brighton, where served as an assistant Pastor. Very quickly, the cold wind of a more austere Calvinism swept into the fellowship. Our previous pastor had taken a Calvinist stance, but H_____M_____ introduced a more intellectual and emotionally cold approach and by now, I was already locked into a worldview that had Scripture as God's inerrant Word: an authority that shaped my view of everything. It was no longer an easy thing for me to dismiss apparently Biblically based ideas. The young people's flamboyant humour and the church's free and open structure was interpreted by this new minister as he later admitted, as a form of Antinomianism: too free and liberal in it's approach to morals and having to much licence. Thus a stricter, more disciplined approach began to take shape.

The new pastor had also seen problems in the then-emerging Charismatic movement. This was a movement that laid stress on spontaneity and inspiration in worship and on spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. It emphasised the personal experience of Baptism in the Spirit and centred on experience and joyous emotional displays in worship. This movement was critical of what it saw as the cold, dead formality of traditional English church services in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Our new pastor had seen at least one church divided and broken up by this clash between Charismatics and traditionalists and this had produced in him an acute wariness of ‘experiences’ or emotional displays; of hand clapping; chorus singing; tongue speaking or other such practices.

He also a more reasoning, intellectual approach to Scripture, though like all fundamentalists, this intellectual approach was strictly within the bounds of fundamentalist ideology and the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. For example, everyone was encouraged to have their Bible open during sermons so that they could check that what the preacher was saying really was Scriptural. The bookstall was checked to ensure that only 'sound' literature was available, that is, material which conformed to the fundamentalist Calvinist ideology. This was not seen as censorship, but as a preservation of the 'Truth'. It would soon extend to comments made about the sort of books that appeared on church member’s bookshelves, or the sorts of films they went to see or television that they watched. I remember a considerable uproar for example when some of us decided to go and see 'The Exorcist'. The new pastor made it his aim to work through the whole Bible within ten years via the two Sunday services and midweek Bible study, which he succeeded in doing. His aim was to give a balanced Biblical view, not over-emphasising his favourite verses and not avoiding difficult or controversial passages. He soon began to wear a minister’s black gown in the pulpit to help assert his authority and he insisted that he be addressed as ‘Pastor’ rather than by the more familiar and informal use of his Christian name.

A new church manse was built via member's contributions, the men of the fellowship built a Baptistry and the church was redecorated. A church constitution was worked through and adopted, with the authority of the minister or ‘Elders’ being more firmly established together with the importance of respect for and submission to Elders in so far as they follow Scripture. An integrated doctrinal system took shape, based very much on protestant reformers like John Calvin and the high Calvinists like B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge. The church became fully independent, not relying on any grants, or on any special meetings which relied on public donations. In this way, it supported it's own full time minister with provision for pension in retirement. 'Unseemly' humour was clamped down on and standards of behaviour began to be imposed which were seen as consistent with Scripture. This imposition was effected in various ways. Members who acted or spoke in an inappropriate way were likely to be taken into the church vestry for rebuke by the Pastor, or later into the Pastor's study, which became affectionately known by us as the 'Sin bin', much to the minister's annoyance. If a member desired to achieve a particular role within the church, they might not get approval from the minister. The shift was made from a spontaneous, natural fellowship to one where the Law of God and the Commandments were paramount. But it was as if the Holy Spirit of God was being denied and stifled.

Matters had to be seen to be done 'decently and in order' - and that is an accurate portrayal: they were only ‘seen’ to be done decently and in order - under the surface and away from formal services, there persisted a quite surreal and zany humour, inspired by such programmes as 'I'm sorry I'll read that again', 'Monty Python', and Spike Milligan’s television programmes. There was often an irreverent and bawdy humour, serving I think as a compensation for imposed decency and order of formal services and as an outlet of our real personalities.

For me, these first few years under the new minister made Christianity become a burdensome affair. The joy and spontaneity that we previously enjoyed was repressed and suppressed and a soberness and seriousness descended on us all. The sense of community continued, as did a sense of achievement and growth. But it seemed to me that if things were bad, or we weren't seen to be enjoying this repressed, formal, legalised version of religion, then it was portrayed by the minister as basically our fault, our sin, our transgressions, our fallen human nature, because, after all, this version of religion was ‘True’, God's Law was perfect and delighted in by a righteous man. The implication was that doubt was being expressed concerning whether we had righteousness imputed by Christ, whether we had integrity, whether we had salvation. We had descended into a legalistic form of Calvinism, one of its heights being the placing in the church hall of a poster of the Ten Commandments. Someone wrote at the bottom of it, 'the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life' (II Corinthians 3 v 6) and other similar verses.

This tension between freedom in the Spirit and the continual application of Law which made me feel guilty and weak as a Christian continued to grow. As an antidote I began to read yet more fundamentalist Christian literature and I was particularly shaped at this time by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's writings, especially his Romans 5 volume. I had a number of meetings with the minister, both by myself and with one or two other like minded individuals to try and address our concerns, but the outcome was always the same: no real movement. There was an inability on my part to get him to see the problem, and he had an inability to see the difficulty. Tensions came to a head when a group of us went to an evangelical meeting called 'Come Together' in 1974, they year I got married. This was an American originated evangelism type of event. For the first time in a few years I saw people actually enjoying themselves in worship. Those of us who went to this meeting decided to meet together for prayer, both to get ourselves ‘right with God’ and to pray for the church.

Fairly quickly, house meetings began to be held each Friday evening, though it took some persuading to get the Pastor to agree to these meetings. Though we were not conscious of it at the time, we were setting up a situation where the minister did not have quite the same authority, since the meetings were taking place in someone’s house and not the church. But this was not our intention: we were seeking unity and blessing for the whole group and were constantly seeking to avoid division and schism from the rest of the church membership. These meetings ran for about two years, after which many of the young people who attended got married and moved a bit further away or went to university. These meetings were the source of almost a mini revival for some. There appeared to be at least one 'conversion', a sense of liberty and spontaneity and a deepening of spiritual fellowship and communion with each other and with God.

The weight of concern over the formal, legalistic and dead state of the church was for me overwhelming. I spent much time in prayer, anguish, discussion, frustration, depression, concern and study and for me 1972-75 was a very frustrating and difficult time. I was also struggling with my personal walk with God: various habitual behaviours, which I felt to be displeasing to God and against the code of Scripture, were present in my life and I could not shake them off. I felt a poor and unworthy Christian and sometimes I wondered if I was a Christian at all. The 'Come together' meetings led me to read about the Welsh revivals of 1859/60 and 1904. I wept. Here seemed to be truly joyful and awesome Christian spirituality in practice: here were people moved greatly by an understanding of the Bible and a movement of the Spirit; here was the opposite of our dry state...lively and vital encounters with God. About half a dozen of us set out to pray for revival in our church.





The first Sunday of September 1975, (about six months after the Come Together meetings) was unlike any other. I give two accounts of it below, written at different times and from slightly different perspectives and emphasis, to try and give a flavour of this event:-

Here is the first account:-

This state of affairs changed on the first Sunday morning in September 1975. It is interesting to note that I had been struggling all that summer with a book by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, an exposition of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans. (Lloyd-Jones 1974). I had read about a third of the book and somehow could not get past one particular chapter. This was unusual for me: I tried many times to read it, it was not hard, but somehow, my concentration was not there. It was our habit to have a prayer meeting before each Sunday service, to seek God's blessing on the service. I arrived this particular Sunday morning with all these issues still on my mind, and still with a heavy heart for the church. During the course of the prayer meeting, the pastor prayed as usual, but I noticed a change in his words and attitude. Suddenly this man had shaken off some of his legalistic tone and seemed to embracing the Holy Spirit. It was as if I was being transported upwards out of the room. My heart and mind lifted as I was filled with the perception that God had changed this man. I was filled with a perception of the power of God over men's hearts and minds. It was like the floodgates of heaven were opened and a torrent of blessing was poured into my soul. I walked out of the prayer meeting as if my feet were six inches off the floor...I was filled with optimism, expectancy, energy and joy. The service that morning was as many had been before it in form: the pastor briefly opened in prayer and we then sang a hymn. Alas I cannot remember what the hymn was, but it was a typical school anthem type hymn of praise. All I can remember now is that I sang the words of that hymn as I had done many times before, but now, again, it was as if a door in my mind had opened and I perceived clearly and plainly the depth and reality of the words of praise and descriptions of the character of God. These qualities of God, His Power, His Omnipotence, His Love, His Eternity, were so immediately Real, Deep and Powerful, so Clear to my mind that I groaned under the weight of the perception of them and could barely physically stand under the glory of what they described. I could barely sing because of my strong emotions and tears filled my eyes. It was as if God was pouring out not just a shower of blessing but also a flood of power into my soul. At the end of the hymn I all but collapsed into my chair and the minister then lead us in prayer. He was a university-educated man, a qualified teacher, and by no means lacking in eloquence. Even so, the prayer was like many that had been uttered before it, yet this time, my perception of the meaning of the words was so great that I was groaning under the weight of them. Words like Immortal, Sovereign, Merciful, Eternal, Lord, Love, Pardon, Ransomed, Healed, Forgiven, were so Rich and Deep, and I felt their meaning keenly in my heart and mind. I was hardly conscious of anything else. I felt their application to the Church and to me. I KNEW I was saved from the just deserts of hell, and that my heavenly Father who seemed very near and loving to me loved me without question. After the prayer, the experience subsided, the immediate experience lasting about fifteen minutes. I don't think I have ever felt so clear headed and balanced as I did then. The immediate perception was of God's Almighty Power: that at any time, as it pleased Him, He could pour out such a torrent of blessing and turn people's hearts no matter how indifferent or rebellious they were to Him. A revival and awakening could occur in the time it takes to snap one's fingers and the Holy Spirit could pour out his blessing on one or a thousand with irresistible power, and this no matter how dark or oppressive the circumstances seemed. Though powerful, this experience was in no way frightening. It was coupled with such a sublime sense of God's supportive and protective Love that my heart opened and rejoiced in this experience. At no time was I afraid. I should point out also that there was no self-exaltation or pride in this experience. Rather there was an experience of lowliness, of humbleness and unworthiness. This was a gift of God to me, an unworthy and undeserving servant.

Some secondary effects have lasted to this day, others diminished over about six months. Immediate secondary effects included a falling away of the habits that I felt were so displeasing to God. They literally just fell away and had no power or attraction for me for some time. I was given to much time in prayer and conversation with God in much earnestness of concern for others and the church. I devoured as much as I could read on spiritual matters, particularly a number of works by the New England Calvinist Jonathan Edwards. The Lloyd-Jones book that I was struggling with was read within a week, and most interestingly dealt with the very experience I had just received. It gave a doctrinal explanation, and a number of testimonies by other Christians to this experience throughout church history. It gave tests to sift out false experiences, and mine passed every one, so this was a great reassurance to me even though the experience was so direct as to appear to be self-evidently from God. I felt very much the unity of mankind and Christians in particular, for they were bound together by Christ. When I heard fellow Christians in dispute or being sarcastic with each other, my heart was in great pain. I wondered how people could be so cruel to each other, especially Christians and at how lightly they treated God and spiritual things and I wished for Unity and Concord and for my fellow believers to share in the weight of glory that I had seen. I was aware of the Unity of the whole of creation, how everything, and every living creature were important.

Other people saw these changes in me too and commented on my increased seriousness, intensity and involvement. My experience of God during the months that followed rose and fell and then rose again. These were not serious roller coaster out-of-control situations, but a gentle, undulating petering out of the intensity of these experiences. There was one occasion when I set out for work and there was a glorious rainbow in the sky. Again, I was lifted up to God as I considered not only the beauty of the rainbow per se, with it's proportion and symmetry, but also its spiritual significance as a sign by God that He would not destroy the earth by flood. Thus again, qualities of God's Mercy, and Love and the quality of His sign filled my mind and heart and lead me to heavenly contemplations.

Here is the second account:-


I entered the morning prayer meeting of our church anniversary service very much with these concerns on my mind. I had given our Pastor a book to read which seemed to express my feelings, in the hope that in some way, he might perceive the problem. As he prayed, I sensed immediately a difference in his approach. For the first time it seemed, he talked about the presence of the Holy Spirit and the need for his blessing. My heart and mind soared. We entered the service and sang the opening hymn, one of the traditional ones and I had such a perception of the Power and Awesomeness of God, together with His mercy and Gentleness that I could scarcely stand under the weight of such a view. The Pastor then led in prayer and this perception continued with such a weight that I felt completely melted, humbled and in awe. I KNEW the power of God to bring an Instant revival. This experience led to increased study, prayer and diligence. Old habits that I felt God disapproved of fell away for months, yet before, I could not shake them with all my efforts. Bitterness and animosity that had grown towards the pastor fell away and the sense of a need for Christians to unite in love filled my mind and heart. Studies by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in Romans 8 seemed to confirm this as a genuine Godly experience and I moved on to study the works of Jonathan Edwards, which had a great influence on my thinking, particularly his works on revival and on the religious affections.

It still remains the most potent spiritual experience of my life.

One of the questions that emerge from this is whether these are genuine spiritual experiences or whether they can be explained purely as products of bi-polar disorder. I was not to be diagnosed as borderline manic-depressive until 2009, and one of the symptoms of mania is a lack of insight into the condition. The person in a manic or hypo manic phase feels great, euphoric, but this appears quite normal and a reasonable response to what is going on to the person themselves, even though others may not be so sure. Are the sort of experiences that I have been describing merely a form of religious or spiritual mania? It certainly never entered my mind that this could be so. But of couse it may well be that I am deluded by these mystical experiences and that I am rationalising them after the fact into an unfalsifiable hypothesis and world-view. It appears that neither side can prove this one way or the other. What I do know is that these experiences have given me depth, meaning and orientation: they have made me feel eleveated and euphoric and I have never felt so clear headed and perceptive as when I have them. Sometimes they have been unsettling and caused a sense of flatness and emptiness at the loss of the experience. They have altered my priorities and made me less materialistic generally and during and near to the experiences, I have become much more altruistic and selfless for example. I believe that though having some similarities to psychosis and some symptoms of bipolar disorder, they are nevertheless distinct from them and for me, as a bipolar sufferer, thay have had a rich, stabilising effect. Whether it is true or not, I believe in the Divine as diffuse literal Spirit/Energy as Essence of all that is and expressed in all that is. It makes me feel orientated, healthy and gives me a sense of purpose.

I have found the following to be true of myself as a bipolar sufferer who has had mystical experiences:

Only small evidence of thought disorder or disorganised thinking. Though entering a receptive or passive mode of consciousness, I am able to return to the active, rational mode of being. There is as a result an integration or synthesis of these two modes of being.
I enter the passive, receptive, mystical mode as a mature adult and return to the rational mode. The experience is trans-rational and paradoxical.
I am able to continue functioning in daily life, despite bipolar mood fluctuations.
I do not suffer from visual or auditory hallucinations.
Mystical episodes are generally brief, maximum about fifteen to twenty minutes.
Mood swings last for about two to three weeks, sometimes, a few months.
I have no impairment to my social relationships beyond my natural introspective nature. I respond empathically to the needs and concerns of others.
I have a history of mental health problems with bipolar disorder.
The mystical event often has a positive outcome, resulting in improvement in my functioning, social relationships and growth. It has a healthy effect.
I am probably one of 0.1% of people who experience mysticism.
I have a supportive social network
The mystical experience is no longer unsettling or disorientating
I have a sense that the material world is ‘real/not real’ whereas Spirit is Real


I have the following indications as common both mysticism and psychosis:

I can enter the receptive mode
The experience appears unmediated or Immediate and Real
There are biological effects in my brain
The content is non-rational and cannot be construed or remains unconstrued
My experience involves a unified perception and loss of boundaries
The boundary between inner and outer can be lost
My experience involves a deeper quest for meaning and stable foundation.
The experience may give rise to a loss or orientation of the self momentarily
I feel marginalized by modern western secular society and fear being marginalized by health professionals
The experience leads to a heightened sense of perception and insight


In terms of mysticism and bipolar disorder:

Both may lead to euphoria, ecstasy, elation and joy, but mystical content is always spiritual, whereas bipolar content is not.
Both may lead to preoccupation and withdrawal, even depression.


The following list gives indications of schizophrenia as opposed to mysticism:

The person's thoughts are not easily understandable i.e. what they say doesn't make sense. They are irrational.
The person has difficulty functioning, or is unable to function, in everyday life: they are stuck in a passive mode of functioning that does not deal with practical issues. They lose touch with material reality and are stuck in a world of fantasy or delusion.
Auditory hallucinations are more common than visual hallucinations.
Episodes are generally prolonged.
Social relationships are impaired due to the person withdrawing socially. They may respond inappropriately to the needs and concerns of others.
There may be a history of mental health problems in the individual or the family.
The person has usually exhibited mental health problems previously.
The event often has a negative outcome: hallucinations and delusions are considered a disruption to the normal functioning of the person's consciousness.
The tendency is one of regression and pathology
1% of people suffer this disorder
They may feel alone and isolated
The ‘ego’ or ‘self-system’ may break down or become fragmented


I think that in these sorts of ways we can begin at least to differentiate a little between ‘madness’, ‘mental illness’, ‘mania’ and ‘manic depression’ or ‘bipolar disorder’ on the one hand, and ‘mystical’, ‘gnostic’, ‘transcendent’, ‘immediate spiritual’ experience on the other. Though there are differences there are also similarities. Some of these issues will be dealt with as we move through this account.

Back in 1975, for me, these were genuine spiritual experiences and were exactly what they appeared to be. They confirmed the theology that I was embracing, reinforced it, established it and made it more deeply Real. In this atmosphere of heightened spiritual awareness, of expectation of revival/awakening, of change at church, and house groups and so on, an interest in spiritual gifts arose. Some experimentation had gone on in the house groups concerning prophecy and a word of knowledge and dreams and revivals seemed to have some of these elements, even with notable puritans, the fathers of present day fundamentalism. Our austere Calvinism considered such influences to have ceased, yet here were some of the people that we looked to such as John Flavel, C.H. Spurgeon, John Knox and Howell Harris encountering or experiencing these phenomena. We attended a few healing rallies, though I came to the conclusion that there was too much show and not enough substance and that these were in some cases positively harmful. I agreed with our Pastor that these ‘healers’ were like spiritual cowboys, riding into town, kicking up a storm and riding out again, leaving damage and lack of spiritual aftercare in their wake. Thus began, in 1976, a study on spiritual gifts that was to continuing into the new millennium. I worked excessively on this study in 1976, to the point of mental exhaustion by early 1977.Too much study had made me mentally exhausted and vulnerable.

Again there are two accounts of this period written at different times. Here is the first:-

Back came the free floating anxiety with a vengeance and following a visit to the doctor, I was on Vallium again. 1977 became and remains the worst year of my life. Vallium-induced depression led me to a foretaste of hell. Many have said to me that they consider this depression to have been a reaction to my ecstatic experiences but I do not accept this. I was simply so involved in intense study that it exhausted me mentally and physically. I overworked, studied too hard, did not give myself proper sleep and found I could not stop, and suffered a return of anxiety states, palpitations and so on. Vallium, prescribed to alleviate this anxiety, plunged me into depression, particularly in the summer of that year. If the ecstatic experiences were a foretaste of glory, this was a foretaste of hell. I was regularly, for hours each day, in a state of anguish, fear, blackness and inner torment. My thoughts, especially during the summer, were often of suicide, but the potential upset of my parents and wife was a restraining influence. An even greater restraining influence at times was the fact that I might fail in my suicide bid – that really would have depressed me. On one occasion I actually seriously gave in to the desire to kill myself. I thought that it was far better to be with Christ, in glory and that all my suffering could be ended quickly. I accordingly decided to kill myself and as I submitted to this desire, the words: 'You are not your own, you are bought with a price' (I Corinthians 6 v10) were forcefully impressed upon my mind. I immediately and strongly perceived the meaning of these words and used them as a weapon to fight off my suicidal desires. This seemed most unusual at the time. I did not realise that the words were Scriptural and could not recall hearing or reading them before. They felt like the words of God to ME. I later realised their Scriptural origin and also realised that I must have read these words before as we had worked through I Corinthians in a series of studies about five years earlier. At times I thought I was going mad, something which I had a real fear about. I suffered from illusions, (a bundle of waste paper in the street looked like a dead sheep). The world seemed mad...with lots of violence, conflict and a breakneck pace. At one point, having barely got through the day, the sheer noise of the dishes being washed by my wife caused me to collapse on all fours deeply sobbing with despair. I could hear this noise and wondered what it was and then realised it was myself sobbing uncontrollably. I stood outsider of myself as it were and could see myself defeated then suddenly being overwhelmed with terror because I thought that men in white coats would soon be arriving to drag me away to a mental hospital. For six weeks I experienced no sense of God's presence whatsoever. No one knew how to help me. This was the withdrawal of the sense of God's presence as described for example in Lamentations in the Old Testament. I felt completely and absolutely alone and frightened. It seemed to me (and still does) that sometimes when a schizophrenic commits suicide it is a last act of complete sanity.

This period ended with another spiritual experience arising from a sermon delivered one Sunday morning by our minister on the text ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ I knew that the experience of separation from God was like hell, but then I saw that Christ, who had been in the bosom of the Father from all eternity and who then became the God-Man and suffered this separation at Calvary too, I felt His cry as my own, but new it was infinitely more terrible than my own experience, because I had not dwelt with the Father in heaven. Then I saw that this separation was endured for the elect, that Christ had endured it for me out of His great Love for me, that Christ willingly came as a sacrifice, and I was melted to tears by His love, condescension and mercy to me, who was unworthy dust. My sense of separation ended at that moment.

Here is the second account:-

1977 was a disaster. I suffered severe anxiety, was given Valium by my Doctor, which I was later to discover, caused me to suffer severe depression. During 1977 I became suicidal, my thinking hopelessly distorted by the effects of Valium and exhaustion. I tried to continue my church duties, but it was very hard. Irrational fears would overwhelm me, such as a dread of being called up to National Service in the army, even though there was no conscription at that time. I found it difficult to eat. It was a major event to get through a single day. In the summer, for six weeks, I encountered what the puritans call spiritual desertion: all sense of the presence and comfort of God disappeared and I despaired. I felt cast off and cut off from God, and had no evidence or assurance of my salvation. I clung desperately to the Scriptures, still believing them to be the inspired Word of God which promised grace, though all my experiences testified that I was lost and without God. I also clung to my experience of 1975, when I had full assurance and felt that I saw things very clearly. This desertion experience came to an end one Sunday morning when our minister preached on Christ's saying 'My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' I saw how much more agony Christ had suffered in his separation from the Father on the cross and coincidentally, my condition began to be relieved.

During this time, my wife, the pastor and the members of the church struggled to cope with me. They did not know how to help; they had never experienced anything like it before. This was very much a cognitive battle against powerful emotions. It was a matter of continued obedience. Christian theology, especially of this Calvinist kind, subtly devalues feelings and sensations in favour of obedience to authority. Though fundamentalism helped in some ways, it caused further problems at other levels. It insists that man is a sinner who can do nothing to save himself. Indeed, ALL ATTEMPTS AT SELF HELP ARE VIEWED AS INDICATIONS OF PRIDE, which only deepen sin. I was never the same again.

As I emerged from my depression at the end of 1977, all the bitterness, frustration, anger exhaustion and hurt boiled over. Just as I thought I had overcome, I was overwhelmed by these negative feelings. The church and the Pastor in particular became the focus of my venom, (rightly so I felt at the time). I resigned from the Deaconate and left the church in early 1978, with my longsuffering wife as well as a close friend and his wife, who interestingly enough had gone through very similar problems at the same time. We left very much under a cloud: it was not possible to leave with dignity – the Pastor was too worried about us causing division in the church and branded us as backsliders and perhaps not even saved by Christ. For six months we attended a local Pentecostal church where initially, I found it's more spontaneous meetings fresh, positive and enjoyable. Eventually though, my friend and his wife drifted back to our original Church; I ceased going anywhere and my wife then returned to our original Church too. My returning friend, desperate to be accepted again and to be involved in preaching and leading never seemed to be himself again, but to always be putting on a mask in order to gain the approval he needed from the minister, and which was so begrudgingly given or more usually withheld. Just occasionally, when the minister was absent, his real nature and character surfaced again, but ultimately, after about ten to fifteen years, he moved to another church again, never to return, and never to gain the appreciation that he so desperately needed from the minister, not even at his funeral.

My involvement in Christianity after this became erratic. By 1978 I was not thinking too clearly and in any case, with regard to the church, the whole place seemed very oppressive because despite all, it still had an emphasis on duty, law, doing things properly and in order and such like. For two years, on and off, I attended the Pentecostal church. Pentecostalists are like the New Agers of Christianity: the experience is the thing but there is little in the way of a critical approach or in the way of testing the genuineness of various phenomena. I loved the emphasis on praise, openness and spontaneity. It was such a great release from the legalistic restraints of my previous church. I mention this as a side note, because of course, spiritual gifts were also present and I had a considerable interest in them. Every week without fail, one or two would speak in tongues and there would be an interpretation of each of these. The tongue speaking was, I think, a form of automatic speech, which was claimed to be a heavenly tongue. But there was ALWAYS an interpretation. Interpretations were always vague, in the sense that newspaper horoscopes are vague...they were either general praises, general injunctions to holiness, or vague promises of blessing...no one said anything like 'Next Tuesday morning Fred Jones will have an unexpected visitor.', or anything specific like that. One Sunday morning a man prayed in a tongue that appeared quite superior in quality to the usual stuff: it had a greater variety of phrases and syllables and I then realised that this was an Italian man speaking in his native tongue. Significantly, this was the only occasion that no one interpreted and the only time that such an event could have been tested easily.

I finally rebelled in 1979 after all my depression and exhaustion. I was spiritually exhausted: I could not stand to see theological books on my bookshelves, God appeared monstrous and sadistic to me after all my suffering in depression. I became bitter, especially concerning the pastor of my first church, yet at no time did I consider that God did not exist. Despite resting, I entered a cycle of rebellion then return, further rebellion and return again. The conservative nature of reformed evangelicalism sat increasingly uneasily with me. I asked too many questions, became too individual, but it was to take fifteen years to leave Calvinism. My spiritual experiences still seemed very Real and they were difficult for me to explain outside Calvinism and I could not be deny them, but my heart left Calvinism in the early eighties. My mind would not shake it off until the 1990's, so this time was a period of inner conflict and a searching for truth and growing interest in psychology. 1979 was also the year that my father died.

Christian Fundamentalism proved inadequate at dealing with my depression: I was told I did not have the right faith, or enough faith or something similar; so I turned to self-help psychology literature. To Fundamentalists, these books had far too much emphasis on the self or had an atheistic philosophy or both. I was continually being told to deny myself and this seemed increasingly absurd. During my depression and subsequent conflicts I became more introverted and withdrawn and felt like a square peg in a round hole when it came to fitting in to the fellowship on my periods of return. Nevertheless, if it had not been for my heightened experiences prior to my depression, I think I would have gone under: I would have gone mad or committed suicide. I just would not have had the inner resource to cope.

During this time my two daughters were born.

The five years immediately following my depression WAS a roller coaster ride. I fluctuated on a monthly cycle from a mentally taut, near manic state to days of depression. Normal life was difficult. During all this time I never sought medical help or counselling...I was far too scared during my intense depression period in 1977 when I thought I was going mad and would be locked away. The one apparently sane anchor was the Bible, which I felt to be absolutely, unquestionably true in the light of my previous ecstatic experiences. Even if I did not now feel it to be true, in my mind I knew it was true, and clung to its word and testimony. I did not seek counselling in case anyone sought to undermine this one anchor of steadfastness and hope. Even in my greatest rebellions I could not shake off the idea that the Bible was God's word and that God really existed.

It was only as time distanced me from the immediate effects of these experiences that I eventually sought medical help and by 1982, I ended up on a years course of antidepressants, to help stabilise my condition. The antidepressant was Triptizol and worked wonders, but also caused new problems. The day before I started the tablets, I found myself most irritated by the Tannoy announcement system at work. I took the tablets and the first effect was pins and needles in the brain. Then, I became very relaxed and the Tannoy system was just not important anymore. I developed a ready sense of humour, became quite giggly and I remember thinking that this new mood was how I used to feel as a child. The problem was a philosophical one: Within a week, things 'out there' ceased to irritate and annoy me and I developed a ready sense of humour. My moods began to stabilise and I became relaxed and easy going. But what had changed? Nothing 'out there’ had changed. Only my perception of reality had changed and the problem was which perception was correct? How did I know what reality was? We all think that what we perceive is correct, but now I became aware of just how much we interpret reality.

During this time I perused a number of self-help psychology books and my slight interest in psychology deepened as some of these books provided positive help in remedying my low self esteem, guilt and lack of confidence. There is increasing evidence that reliance upon church or state or astrologer or some other external authority fosters a passive-dependent lifestyle in which responsibility for personal growth is evaded. I decided that I had to take some of that responsibility on board and I felt that no one had a right to deny me or anyone else access to views and arguments that in promising to help also promised to challenge me.

I went through periods of spiritual and religious rebellion and then through attempts to re commit myself to the Christian life. In the early 80's, I began to try and sort out my difficulties by study of Scripture. I wrote a church constitution clarifying my role with Elders and the extent of their authority, together with the scope of my own duties and responsibilities. I wrote a study of evangelism that differed from the accepted orthodox view. In my spiritual gifts study I had adopted a position that gifts still continued at certain times and seasons as special providences of God and that they had in themselves their own evidence as to their Authorship: an argument drawn from John Owen and John Calvin and for quite some time, this was enough. This argument is closely related to arguments and evidences for the Authorship of Scripture, which is the highest spiritual gift in many ways, being supposedly inerrant inspired revelation.

However, despite the antidepressants, I still remained somewhat unstable in mood and opinion. I went back to the church for a while, but I was like a square peg in a round hole. Even though I still accepted the Bible as the Word of God, I placed a different interpretation on much of the practical outworking of it. I became aware of what I thought of as too much superficial thinking and hypocrisy in these fundamentalist circles. I also knew that I would only be accepted if I conformed to the orthodox fundamentalist view. I recognised that my interpretation was my opinion: just one view of reality and that I could not be dogmatic about it, but neither could I accept the dogmatism of others. I was beginning to become dissatisfied with the 'established church dogma' in other words. When I presented cogent Biblical arguments for my views, these were rejected with statements like 'You cannot prove everything from the Bible!' This from fundamentalist leaders! I resented anyone telling me what books I should or should not read and it was becoming clear that for a fundamentalist, a lack of firm dogma meant a lack of commitment. All the various Christian views were just competing shades of grey to me: nothing was black or white. If things were not so certain, then I felt that I could not give a great commitment to them. There was an increasing dissatisfaction and a growing feeling in me that I had been wrong in my life choices and that I had missed out on various worldly pleasures. Events would happen like some church members being involved in a car accident but escaping severe injury. They came back praising God for His mercy, but I thought, if God is God, why did he let it happen in the first place? All the strain of these changes and uncertainties finally took their toll. I entered another period of rebellion against God and everything.

My marriage broke up in 1984 under the strain of all these events and I had a wild and passionate affair. I visited the Pastor with the woman I was going out with just to upset him and many of my Christian friends supported me during this confused emotional time by refusing to talk to me, or walking across to the other side of the street to avoid me. Needless to say, that hurt me, though I know I hurt others as well. Within three years my new relationship broke up and following the death of my mother I lived alone. In sincere repentance I began to return to God and Christian interests, not to my old church, but to another fundamentalist church, under the gentle and friendly persuasion of my second wife to be, B______.

I also began studies with the Open University in social science. Because of my experiences, psychology had interested me for some time and I decided to seek a degree in psychology. I was introduced to thinkers like Karl Marx as well as a wide variety of psychologists. I then regularly attended B______'s church at Astley, near Leigh. This church was in some ways very much like my original church in its early days with B_____ T_____. At this time, rather academic matters like the nature of the soul occupied my mind. After our marriage, we attended W_____ H______B______ Church, another fundamentalist church. Open University trained me a little in critical thinking and introduced me to a wide variety of theories and I eventually came away with a B.Sc. (Hons.) degree. Open University also sharpened, (though some may say dulled) my political awareness. I emerged as a working class Marxist/Pluralist. I was no longer sympathetic to right wing, middle class traditional values. Of course, right wing middle class traditional values are the very values that infuse most fundamentalist churches. So, even more, I was now a square peg in a round hole, unsympathetic to much of the social agenda in fundamentalist churches.

I'm sure that many of my fundamentalist friends would like to blame Open University and psychology for my eventual withdrawal from fundamentalism, since this would provide a ready target of some alternative philosophy to Calvinism. But this is not so. My withdrawal actually came as a result of my continued studies on the theme of spiritual gifts and from fundamentalism’s own inadequacies and contradictions. In terms of psychological theories, the nearest I came to accept was George Kelly's Repertory Grid theory. This is not a philosophy but a way of measuring people’s beliefs and examining them. Open University encouraged an eclectic approach, where appropriate theories with regard to the problem were used. I did not come away with a global psychological worldview.

The crunch issue was this: if spiritual gifts such as tongues and healing, like Scripture, were self evidencing; if they contained within themselves their own irrefutable evidence as to their Godly authorship, it seemed reasonable to ask: exactly what is this evidence in particular? I began to study widely. My first shock came on reading 'The mind of the Bible believer' by Edmund Cohen. Here was a critical essay on fundamentalism by an ex fundamentalist. I had never read anything by an ex fundamentalist before. All the people I knew who had 'left the faith' had either faded away or left in rebellion. Either way, it was considered that either they were 'backsliders' and would return eventually, or if not, they were never 'true' Christians in the first place and had never really understood the doctrines of grace. Here, in Cohen’s book, for the first time for me, was an ex fundamentalist actively criticising fundamentalism. It was clear that he understood fully the doctrines of grace and had once embraced them. He was now clearly and eloquently rejecting them. Quite why it surprised me I do not know, because Jonathan Edwards had given clear indication that such a thing was possible in his work on the religious affections. Alongside this, the inadequacies of fundamentalist arguments for inspiration, inerrancy and the authority of Scripture were becoming clear. I began to take the view that if Scripture really were the Word of God and that the doctrines I had drawn from it were correct, then they would stand up to human argument. It would not be possible for humans to effectively criticise God. What good would a faith be that cannot stand up to these simple questions and criticisms?

However, Calvin, Owen, Luther, Packer, Young, Strong, Warfield, the Westminster Confession, Sword and Trowel and the rest were all failing to supply adequate arguments for Scripture inspiration and inerrancy. It occurred to me that rarely was this subject dealt with in fundamentalist circles. If it was, specious arguments were often given, which when combined with existing beliefs and commitments, seemed to be sufficient. Other books such as Lane Fox's 'The unauthorized version' compounded the problems where inconsistencies in Scripture were outlined. The final nail in the coffin was James Barr’s book, 'Fundamentalism'. Further inconsistencies of Scripture and other problems in fundamentalism were outlined, many of which I readily identified with. The arguments against fundamentalism seemed unanswerable. Furthermore, fundamentalism seemed now to be a stagnant, dogmatic, right wing conservative authoritarian structure. It was censorious and closed to open debate.

The axe had been laid to the root of the tree of Christian fundamentalism. Without the authority of inspired revelation in the form of Scripture, the entire edifice began to collapse. It was not a pleasant experience and by 1994, I was in the middle of it. My whole orientation and identity appeared to collapse. I was not sure who I was, where I was going or why. I alternated between bitter resentment of fundamentalism and a longing to return to its cosy security. But every time I returned to it, the doubts and evidence against it soon caused me to reject it. Yet it was also a liberating experience, a freedom from constraints and standards which I no longer agreed with or which no longer reflected my views, or which no longer seemed to work. At times I was afraid of eternal damnation. At times I returned to prayer and found comfort. It was still by no means clear to me that God did not exist, but the evidence, as with gifts, was hard to find. I remembered my experience of 1975. It was the highest of at least three similar experiences and it's impressions were difficult to deny.

The end result was that my interpretation of the experience was questioned. This was because other believers in different, contradictory religions had received similar experiences couched in their own religious framework. Even non-religious people had received similar experiences. The experience is beyond doubt: a transforming, elatory, humbling and transcendent experience, which language is insufficient to capture: and it just happened to be framed by my world view at that time, as on the other occasions.

I left W_____ H______B______ Church, since I found myself increasingly unhappy there and attended Christ Church, a Church of England fellowship near to home. This was a very relaxed fellowship and gave me time and opportunity to think a little more. I studied outlines of Biblical criticism and then did a personal study on authority in the church and the place and nature of Scripture. I looked at other early Christian writings such as the book of Enoch and I Clement. Whilst happy with such ideas as two authors for Isaiah, and Paul not being the author of the Pastoral Epistles and so on, the authority of Scripture as a cohesive document was undermined. To move to a context where I understood the writers to be writing in their own historical perspectives meant a depreciation of the authority of Scripture as God's truth. To begin regarding Genesis as figurative and the so called words of Jesus being rather what early Christians thought or wished or summarised what they thought he had a said all seemed to me to be a greater difficulty of harmonisation than the more literal approach. The main thing was that the coherent authority had gone and though the Scriptures may be remarkable documents, with many wise sayings and insights, they were no longer authoritative in a way that I could understand or build on. I had been trained in the view of plenary inspiration as promoted by B. B. Warfield and this had been for me internally coherent and logical. But now, the evidence for such a view was lacking and even more, was positively against such a view, but the alternative view of the Scriptures for me was that they were simply men's opinions, and though the ideas and literature were in many ways superior for me to books like the Koran, they nevertheless were exactly of the same nature. I began to see the Bible as a collection of contradictory, discrepant books that had been written by superstitious ethnocentrics who thought that the hand of God was directing the destiny of the Hebrew people.

I explored other philosophies such as existentialism with which I identified to a moderate degree. For about twelve to eighteen months I sought to adopt a liberal Christian position, but found this impossible: I was just selecting bits of Scripture that I liked and none of it had any real authority for me. I explored the history of the reformation by writers other than fundamentalists and found much that I did not like: its cruelty, narrowness and censoriousness, but I still enjoyed that sense of revolution and overthrow of corruption. I spent some time looking at diverse religions like Judaism, Hinduism and Islam, but found these to be inferior to Christianity in my opinion. By late 1995, attendance at Christ Church had wavered. Other, more modernistic approaches to Christianity seemed to distort the meaning of Scripture into something else and I could not accept these either.

My continued studies of spiritual gifts and psychological explanations of false gifts had led me to the U.K. Sceptics. From them I discovered C.S.I.C.O.P., the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal. Their articles proved interesting and I subscribed to the 'Sceptical Inquirer', a monthly publication where scientists of various specialisations investigate U.F.O.'s, new age thinking, astrology, spiritual gifts, healing meetings and so on, encouraging scientific thinking and exposing superstition and fraud. For a while I began to adopt their worldview. The fundamentalism that I experienced had a cohesive, integrated worldview. Once one accepted certain assumptions it was quite logical. It was not like some fundamentalist groups where mere affirmation of certain 'truths' was enough without a sense of integration. If one part of my fundamentalist worldview was altered, it often affected other areas. Leaving fundamentalism left an empty void in the sense that for a while there was no integrated, cohesive worldview. I did not know how to orientate myself on various issues or on what basis. I had to start from scratch. Liberal Christianity did not fit the bill. Secular humanism involving a reasoned, logical scientific approach seemed for while to fill the gap.

Following this brief period of secular humanism, which in the end just felt inadequate, I was discovering people like Roberto Assagioli. I really like his writings, for their depth, balance, definition of self and embracing, in a psychological way, of spirituality. Then I discovered Ken Wilber and transpersonal psychology whose model seemed to cover all my experiences and also to present spirituality within a stage model of development that was broadly accepted by a number of modern psychologists and thinkers. I did not have to deny my experiences and I did not have to distort them. Neither were they were dealt with as though they were the products of poor mental health. I was able to embrace these experiences in a positive way.

Despite leaving Christian Fundamentalism, spirituality, in it's broadest sense, remained an important dimension in my life and one that had to be acknowledged, though it could no longer be done so at a Christian fundamentalist level. Following obtaining my degree with the Open University, I went on to study for my Certificate and Diploma of counselling at Keele University and it was here, that I explored more fully the area of Transpersonal Psychology, of which Assagioli and Wilber were a part. For a while, I found myself quite absorbed about New Age thinking. Tucked in amongst the dross of uncritical New Age material were some interesting books. I toyed with the Qabbalah, the Tarot, Feng Shui, T'ai Chi and other similar areas. Much of it was either unsatisfying because it was immature, or elusive: leaving a vague feeling of truth but difficult to pin down. But this period of gaining a degree and studying a new subject also introduced a hypo-manic phase. This meant that my second marriage to B_____ collapsed. Despite this upheaval, spirituality still dominated my thoughts.

For a few years, Ken Wilber became the theorist who provided me with orientation, including spiritual orientation. His model, or map embraced ALL my experiences, in a positive way, without recourse to fundamentalist type religion. He provided a scheme that positioned fundamentalism and the New Age in relation to logic, existentialism and mysticism, and differentiated genuine Transpersonal experiences from false, regressive ones. He produced a scheme that had a differentiated view of levels of spirituality.

A further period of mystical exploration began however at the turn of the millennium when I also got married for a third time. After leaving Christian fundamentalism, I entered upon a period of spiritual near-hermitage. I did not become involved in any fellowships or religious groups apart from one weekend Buddhist retreat in the Lake District and peripheral work in the spiritual area during my studies for a Certificate and Diploma in Counselling. I trod an individual path, carrying out personal studies on different religions and in Transpersonal psychology. I developed my relaxation and guided imagery practice and found new thinkers such as Ken Wilber, Roberto Assagioli, Arthur Deikman, Julian Jaynes and Ibn al-Arabi. This involved the use of Free Imagery: an extension of Guided Imagery, but without the pre-planned script or template. An opening situation was planned, (the desire to see God) and then the Imagery was allowed to take its own course. I kept a journal recording the mystical experiences that occurred during this period, and a personal spiritual philosophy has been elicited from this journal that feels right for me. The journal can be found at:

http://songofsimon.blogspot.com/

Ongoing personal spiritual studies can be found at:-

http://spiritualminded.blogspot.com/

Intense spiritual experiences occurred again, but this time, they were not framed in Christian terms such as this example:

I tried my key, which fitted the lock, and before I knew it, I was in a vast, cathedral-like room. 47. Pews were laid out on a black and white tile floor. The vaulted roof was resplendent in gold and blue. There were ornate gold carvings everywhere, and at the front of the room, covering the ceiling and made of black stone, there was a huge eagle with wings outstretched. Etheria flew around the room. In the place where one would expect the altar to be, there was a stone table. From each corner of the table there rose a column and these supported a polished stone slab and dome. 48. Between the four pillars was a glass globe, blue in colour, in which specks of light were swirling around. I became aware of a pulsating humming sound, like the sound of an electrical generator or vast electrical power. 49. I asked Etheria what this was and she told me that it was the Hub of the Universe. I felt impelled to touch the globe, and this overcame my apprehension about getting an electrical shock or being hurt in some way. To my surprise, my hand went through the globe into the blue energy, and in a moment, I had entered it completely. 50. I became the energy, and expanded out being the specks of light that infused the whole Cosmos. I began to lose my centre of being and feel that I was in all places at once. 51. I heard Etheria say ‘As God fills the Universe, so God’s energy fills the Universe as the source of all life.’. 52. Then, the light seemed to dissipate and I found myself standing by the globe again. Etheria began flying in front of me and said ‘Come!’. 53. I grabbed her ankles and together we flew out of the Treasure Room, high into the sky, until the Golden City appeared as a small dot below us. Up we went, beyond the Earth, the Solar System, the galaxy, to the outer reaches of the Universe. ‘All this is God’s Treasure’ said Etheria.

Or this:

I decided, with their approval, to open the chest. 29. As I lifted the lid I saw that the chest was filled with an incredibly bright white Light that seemed to fill the whole room. Despite my apprehension, I wanted to enter this Light, to step into the chest, to get behind the light. I put one foot in the chest and seemed at times to become part of the Light itself. 30. This perception happened only momentarily, for fractions of a second. 31. When it did, I lost for a moment my sense of being in a particular place, the sense of being an object in a particular location. I seemed to fill the space in the room, indeed, to fill the space beyond it, and instead of being a central entity, I seemed to be distributed across all dimensions, to be in all places, both there and here. 32. I felt momentarily expansive. Then the whiteness of the light faded and I was back

Processing the information that occurred during these Free Imagery sessions has now taken over nine years and the most recent writers that I have come across that most closely reflect these ideas are the Sufi mystics Ibn al-Arabi, and Rumi; the Hindu commentator Shankara; to a lesser extent the Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart and some modern writers adopting the non-dualist Advaita Vedanta philosophy. I got a couple of articles published, one in ‘Transpersonal Psychology Review’ at the British Psychological Society, and a couple in ‘De Numine’, the magazine of the Alister Hardy society.

After ten years, this left a feeling of not being involved with any spiritual group or people. Friends would say that I should be teaching, or counselling, or involved in some religious organisation and indeed, career guidance had suggested lecturing or teaching and I was in many ways a trained and qualified counsellor, though counselling had left me a little disillusioned regarding a certain overall lack of coherence.

It was in this frame of mind that I decided to carry out a Repertory Grid Analysis in order to see the way in which I perceived these different options and why I seemed to be a little stuck with regard to moving into any of them. Initially, fourteen options were compared.

1) No fellowship: I learn from books, websites, lectures, television.
2) Attend a Calvinist Christian fundamentalist church
3) Attend a Pentecostal Christian fundamentalist church
4) Attend an Anglican/Methodist Christian church
5) Attend an informal house fellowship/experience meetings.
6) Go to a Buddhist retreat. E.g. Lake District.
7) Attend a Multi faith or Inter faith centre.
8) Go to a spiritual retreat, e.g. Findhorn, Counselling workshop.
9) Attend a Liberal Christian fellowship
10) Try something new and exotic. E.g. Islam, Hinduism.
11) Start my own meetings/lead own group.
12) Attend a spiritualist fellowship
13) Practice Transpersonal counselling/lecturing/teaching.
14) Go to a Yoga course/or meet a guru/leader.

By comparing these options, bi-polar constructs were elicited, with further, deeper, core constructs being elicited from them. In all, thirty two constructs were elicited:

Preferred pole Contrast pole

1) Intuitive, spontaneous, informal warm. Cold formality
2) Open, receptive to mystical experience. Closed, narrow, restrictive. A hindrance to immediacy.
3) Personal reward, satisfaction and achievement Frustration and dissatisfaction
4) Fulfilment of my potential. Poor performance, falling short of potential.
5) A sense of purpose and direction socially Lack of social purpose, aimless, meaningless.
6) Uplifting and absorbing: energising. Numbness, depression, tiredness, listlessness.
7) Accepted by others, belonging, connected, being part. Disapproved of by others, outsider, outcast, isolated.
8) Truthfulness and integrity Charlatanism, deceit, lies, untruths, party spirit.
9) Orientation, I know where I am Do not know where I am, constantly wrong-footed.
10) Confidence Bewilderment
11) At ease, relaxed, peaceful Anxious, guarded, uneasy, tense
12) Long lasting commitment to God and others Drifting, temporary and transient fellowship
13) Involved in the purpose and meaning behind religion Indifference, or involvement only in shadows.
14) Reaches depths of my being, real me, relevant. Empty, superficial, only touches surface.
15) Affirming of life and self Nothing, Annihilation, death.
16) Gives clear perception and vision of God and Reality Things stay as they are, status quo.
17) Sense of self-control, self-determination. Independence Manipulated, others force agenda, dependent on group.
18) A position of power and strength Weakness, loss of power, draining.
19) Mature, Adult Put into role of child, patronising, tendency to rebel.
20) Stable, level, steady, firm base, good foundation Unstable, fluctuating, up and down, unsettled.
21) Able to stand in storm and tempest May collapse or fall in trial and difficulty.
22) A sense of order, structure, discipline and boundaries Undisciplined, eclectic, free for all, chaos.
23) Being happy and comfortable Restless, uncomfortable, unhappy.
24) Not accountable to others Accountable to others – censure, disapproval e.t.c.
25) Able to build (on good foundation) Not able to build
26) Participation. Originality Following by rote: creeds, chants, set formulas e.t.c.
27) Part of my context, culture. Fits, established Unfamiliar, foreign, alien, square peg in round hole
28) Able to function well Poor functioning, Distracted, restricted.
29) Able to discover new ideas. Originality, Freshness Restricted to prevailing system. Clichéd.
30) Diversity, multiplicity, plurality, Transcendence Restricted to one ideology.
31) Involvement in spiritual counselling, teaching e.t.c. No involvement, keeping self to self. Hiding ones light
32) Tendency to altruism Self interest, even selfishness
Each of these was rated in importance, and then evaluated for each option in terms of how likely one or the other side of the construct would be fulfilled. This produced a network of figures, totals for each option and each construct and so on. But at the end of this exercise, I still felt that I had not quite grasped the essence of the problem, so a further set of options were drawn up for comparison:

1) Attend a Pentecostal House fellowship
2) Practice Transpersonal counselling in hospice or Mind.
3) Transpersonal counselling: own practice
4) Be a lecturer in a college following their syllabus
5) Set up my own lectures in a college or library
6) Be a spiritual mentor or guide
7) Teach or lecture in a Pentecostal/Quaker fellowship
8) Do occasional teaching or lecturing
9) Writing for spiritual magazines.

The bi polar constructs elicited were:

Preferred pole Contrast pole

MEANINGFUL, DEEP EPHEMERAL, LIGHT
SAFE, WITHINMY LIMITS OUT OF MY DEPTH
HEALTHY SELF-PROTECTION RISK OF EMOTIONAL HURT
HAPPY, SETTLED UNHAPPY, ANXIOUS
ORIENTATED BEWILDERED
IN CONTROL OVERWHELMED EMOTIONALLY
CAN FUNCTION CANNOT FUNCTION
RELAXED, SPACE CLUTTERED, TENSE
EVEN TEMPERED MOODY IRRITABLE
GOOD RELATIONSHIPS STRAINED RELATIONSHIPS
WITHIN MY FINANCES BEYOND MY FINANCES
NO GUILT FEEL GUILTY
LITTLE WEIGHT TO CARRY HEAVY BURDEN
IN TOUCH WITH OTHERS DISTANCE, BARRIER
GOOD FOUNDATION BASELESS
ORDERED, STEADY TOSSED ABOUT
FOCUSSED DISTRACTED
AT EASE WITHMY SELF PERSECUTE MYSELF
ENERGISING DEPRESSING
EMOTIONALLY SAFE EMOTIONALLY CRIPPLING
MY AGENDA SOMEONE ELSES AGENDA
SENSE OF LIBERTY BOUNDED, CLOSED IN
AWAY FROM HOUSE AT MY HOUSE
GIVING INFO PROBLEM SOLVING
NO QUALIFICATIONS NEED QUALIFICATIONS
NOT OPEN TO BLAME OPEN TO BLAME
TOUCH LIVES DO NOT TOUCH LIVES
STUDY AT OWN PACE PACE SET BY OTHERS
COMPANIONSHIP LONELY
HELP AND SUPPORT UNSUPPORTED
UNMONITORED MONITORED
THEORETICAL PRACTICAL

All of these two groups of constructs were rated highly: they were seen as important.

It was during the elicitation of the second group of constructs that a fundamental and deep-rooted conflict within myself emerged. My counselling training had revealed a problem left over from a stay in an isolation hospital when I was just over three years old. I sometimes get in touch with a deep seated and uncomfortable sense of isolation and loneliness. The way to remove this deeply uncomfortable feeling is by contact, often, just a handshake, a hand on a shoulder or hug. Thus I sometimes feel quite keenly my need for spiritual fellowship with like-minded people. However, this conflicts with another deep-seated emotional issue: I find being with people can be quite overwhelming emotionally; I feel out of my depth, distracted and unsure quite how to behave. Thus I can feel quite uncomfortable at social gatherings, parties e.t.c., and especially when I am first meeting people or in a new situation with people, such as working in a new place. Also, tied up with these emotional issues is a need for approval. When these sometimes quite powerful emotions arise within me, I am taken back to being three years old again: I either feel isolated and distant, or I am overwhelmed with churning emotions of uncertainty and anxiety, or I become very sensitive to a need of approval by others, and am deeply hurt and isolated when not approved of or criticised. It is this trio of emotional states, deeply imprinted by my hospital stay at the age of three that form a core problem. Knowing the issues, and working through them in my counselling self-development has not made them go away. Neither has staying with the feelings and trying to ride them out. This is a major reason why I could never be a professional counsellor: the emotions are too much like a roller coaster, and too exhausting. Similarly, if I were to stand in front of a fellowship or group of students as a leader or teacher, the strong need for approval would kick in. And that is what it is like: being kicked in the stomach. Not to be approved is to be isolated, and once again, the roller coaster emotions begin.

This second set of constructs got in touch with some of these issues.

In the end, the results of the analysis were:

1) The best option was the one that I was in: the semi-hermit; the individual walk. (42%)
2) The next best options were:
a) Writing (37%)
b) Pentecostal House fellowship/experience meeting. (36%)
c) Going to yoga class. (31%)
d) Starting my own meetings. (16%)

3) The constructs that scored negatively, in other words, areas of dissatisfaction, in the main option of keeping an individual walk and not attending any fellowship were:

-40 No participation
-40 No involvement
-40 Lonely
-40 Isolated
-36 Unsupported
-28 Socially aimless
-19 Do not touch other people’s lives
-16 Sense of distance from people, barrier
-16 Depressing
-14 Unhappy
-14 Moody
-14 Burdensome
-12 Self-interested
-12 Poor performance
-12 Drifting socially

4) The second option, Writing, does not satisfy or overcome these areas. Though not significantly related to the first option of the individual walk, it nevertheless scores negatively on most of the same constructs, so taking up writing, though an interesting area to begin, would not solve the feelings of dissatisfaction that I have listed above. These disadvantages are most countered by going to some sort of house fellowship or meeting. However, if I attend say a Pentecostal fellowship, I would have to attend Sunday worship and tolerate the narrow or restricted view of spirituality that they have, and I would find this difficult and if I lead a meeting myself, than I have all the disadvantages of the burden of the need for approval and the resulting emotional roller-coaster ride. Attending a weekly meditation/prayer group with the Pentecostal/Quaker context is quite appealing, but attending weekly church services is less so.
5) The fourth option, attending a Yoga class, I found to be surprisingly high up on the list of favourable options. The Yoga that I have in mind is not the keep fit stretch-and-bend variety, but the meditative variety. This does begin to give a sense of involvement with like-minded people if it is in the form of a class as opposed to a one-to-one session.
6) Finally needless to say, all counselling options scored negatively because of the emotional involvement, and they should be avoided. They scored highly in the areas of contact and purpose, and that is why they sometimes seem attractive to me when I feel isolated and purposeless. Teaching and lecturing offers orientation, purpose, meaning and some involvement, but being more distant, these options are more emotionally safe. They scored in the mid range, some slightly negative, some more positive. This trend encapsulates the main problem: I want to be involved and in contact with people, but the result is an emotional roller-coaster that is draining and produces tension and anxiety, together with a need for approval. Counselling provides most contact and most unsettlement. Teaching gives a certain distance but begins to create with that a certain sense of isolation, but it is emotionally safer. However, I only feel really safe more or less on my own, but then I am more isolated still. This reflects upon my whole social life: I much prefer having a few close friends to being plunged into a pool of being surrounded by many people and being out of my depth.
7) The Calvinist option was put in as a test. Bitter experiences of leaving a Calvinist church mean that I feel quite negative to this option, and indeed, it came out quite negatively as it should have done.

I felt that this exercise really did get into some of the nitty-gritty of the issues involved in my spiritual walk and I have come away understanding my dissatisfactions more clearly together with an understanding of options realistically available to me.

Then, in 2009, I was diagnosed as being hypo manic-depressive following a period of exuberant but not spiritual activity throughout 2008. This was as a result of finally arriving at what I felt to be a stable, coherent, integrated spiritual philosophy. I felt released from a long quest and the resulting euphoria led to a manic phase. I love these phases, but I do not always have proper insight into what they are and everyone around me seems dull and staid while I want to have fun. My third marriage collapsed.

Being diagnosed as a Bi-polar sufferer led me to an extensive personal study on the differences between mysticism madness and mania which can also be found on the web at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14800812/MYSTICISM-MADNESS-AND-MANIA-AN-EXPLORATION-OF-EXPERIENCES-OF-GOD-AND-MENTAL-DISORDER

The instability that arises from manic depression, with the accompanying shifting sands of changes of perspective have led me on a spiritual quest to find a spiritual philosophy and orientation that is deep enough, strong enough and stable enough to endure such changes and the trials that the world brings. It has lead to a position that embraces the expressions of all religions, Christian Fundamentalism included but which recognises that the Divine cannot be contained by any of them. It recognises that the Divine meets us where we are, and uses our imagination to create metaphors and analogies to explain and comprehend the Formless Incomprehensible Absolute. This philosophy can be explored at:

http://pilgrim-talks.blogspot.com/

Or at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22377168/Pilgrim-Simon-s-Modern-Spirituality-A-summary-outline-of-a-21st-century-spirituality






REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING.

Assagioli, R. (1975) ' Psychosynthesis' Turnstone. London.


McKinsey, C.D. (1994) 'The encyclopedia of Biblical errancy' Prometheus Books.

Porterfield, K.M. (1993) ‘Blind faith. Recognizing and recovering from dysfunctional religious groups’. CompCare publishers.


Psychological approaches to Fundamentalism:

Sargant, W. (1957) ‘Battle for the mind’ Pan London

Porterfield, M. (1993) ‘Blind faith – Recognising and recovering from dysfunctional religious groups’ CompCare U.S.A.

Hassan, S. (1990) ‘Combatting cult mind control’ Park Street Press Vermont U.S.A.

Cohen, E.D. (1986) ‘The mind of the Bible believer’ Prometheus Books New York U.S.A. (Neo-Freudian)

Thouless, Robert H. (1983) ‘Straight and crooked thinking’ Pan London.

Christian critique of psychology:

Vitz, Paul C. (1977) ‘Psychology as religion: the cult of self worship’ Lion. U.K.

Cosgrove, Mark P. (1979) ‘Psychology gone awry – Four psychological worldviews’ IVP U.S.A.


Liberal Christian critiques of Fundamentalism and leaving Fundamentalism:

Barr, J. (1984) ‘Escaping from Fundamentalism’ SCM Press London

Barr, J. (1977) ‘Fundamentalism’ SCM Press London

Humanist approach to Fundamentalism:

Kurtz, P. (1994) ‘Living without religion’ Prometheus Books New York U.S.A.

Historical context of Fundamentalism:

McManners, J. (Ed) (1993) ‘The Oxford history of Christianity’ Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Testimonies of former Fundamentalists:

Babinski, Edward T. (1995) Leaving the fold – testimonies of former fundamentalists’ Prometheus Books New York U.S.A.

Critique of Bible:

Lane-Fox, R. (1992) ‘The unauthorised version: truth and fiction in the Bible’ Penguin London.

FUNDAMENTALISM, THE BIBLE AND LITERALISM

FUNDAMENTALISM THE BIBLE AND LITERALISM

The main problem with Christian Fundamentalism, at its foundation and core, lies in its approach to Scripture and especially in its definition and interpretation of Scripture.


THE BIBLE: A CLOSED HUMAN SELECTION OF SACRED LITERATURE

Firstly, out of a whole range of Jewish and early Christian writings, Christian Fundamentalism ring-fences a particular selection of those writings, the documents which make up what fundamentalists refer to as the canon or rule of faith. This selection of writings is then referred to as The Bible. This collection is not seen so much as a selection of varied writings from different periods and times, but as a Holy Book (singular); a move which in itself gives these documents a cohesiveness and unity that they might not otherwise possess. The ring-fence that is put around this collection of documents is constructed using the following arguments:

a) Nothing is to be added to this selection of literature as having the same authority of rule for the faith. Conveniently, the last sentence of the last book or letter in this selection of sacred literature talks about a person being cursed by God if they add or take away from the writings in this book. Of course, as we have seen already, by ‘book’, fundamentalists are now referring to ‘the Bible’ as if it is a cohesive whole. Thus Fundamentalists erroneously use this verse in the Book of Revelation to close and restrict this selection of writings that we know as the Bible.
b) It is further argued that God, through the action of the Holy Spirit, assisted and helped the early Christian elders or leaders in their decision making about which literature was to be included and which was to be excluded. This further ring-fences the Bible by giving this particular selection of writings a form of unwarranted Divine sanction and approval. In fact it took three or four centuries to establish the selection, although even at the reformation, leaders such as Luther and Calvin were disputing the inclusion of some of the New Testament writings. One of the most common criterion used for inclusion in the selection was apostolicity: the fact that a particular letter or treatise was written by an Apostle. Unfortunately, modern scholarship and analysis of linguistic styles has shown that a number of the New Testament letters are not Apostolic, and that the gospels are not written by the disciples whose names they bear. On this criterion alone we would have to remove a number of New Testament writings. This seems to lay serious doubt on the idea that the Holy Spirit of Truth was guiding the early church fathers.
c) Some fundamentalists further isolate this collection of writings that make up the Bible by declaring that revelation has ceased and therefore, we should not expect any further writings to be added to this selection, or to be put on the same level of authority. This argument has a softer and a harder form. The harder form argues that revelation and inspiration has fully ceased. Those who hold to this position are anti charismatic and see modern displays of prophecy, healing and tongue speaking as merely psychological, emotional and enthusiastic deceits, tricks of the mind; or worse, the work of the devil and unclean deceitful spirits. The softer view allows for charismatic experiences and therefore allows modern revelation and inspiration but sees them as of an inferior quality to that in the Bible which is used as a guiding light to test such declarations. History seems to suggest at least that such experiences do continue – church history is full of mystics and Gnostics.


EXCLUSION: HERESY AND DECEIT

This selection process serves then to exclude some early Christian writings, not only dismissing them, but going so far as to declare them as heretical, satanic, sinful, false, deceitful or evil. It also serves to either totally exclude modern Christian experiences which may appear to be inspired revelation, similarly dismissing them as misguided, heretical, satanic, demonic, false and deceitful; or, in the softer approach, to dismiss anything in such an experience which contradicts or opposes the content of the selection of writings that have already been made. It is in this way of course that the early church fathers established orthodoxy and orthopraxy: one right doctrine and one right practice for Christians. It is by this means that many Mystics and Gnostics, who did not follow this orthodox viewpoint, were branded as heretics, the penalty for such heresy often being death.


THE CLOSED SELECTED LITERATURE: INSPIRED BY GOD AND INERRANT

Fundamentalists further ring-fence this selection of sacred literature by another series of arguments: They declare that this literature and this literature alone is:

1) Inspired or God-breathed. This inspiration goes right down to the dotting of ‘i’s’ and the crossing of ‘t’s’. Sure, different writers display different literary styles and themes, and reflect the times in which they lived, but nevertheless, the Holy Spirit intervened as they wrote to withhold the distorting and erroneous effects of sin and transgressions, such that God breathe through these writers in what they wrote. However, it is difficult in practice to see how the Fundamentalist can avoid the idea of some form of mechanical inspiration, or, in effect, dictation by God.
2) God’s Word. Such inspiration, reserved for this selection of literature alone, makes the Bible to be God’s Word. The Bible, according to Fundamentalists, is God speaking through his servants: the writers of these documents: this is not man’s word, or a human production, but the work of God. This has a tendency to add further erroneous weight to this selection of documents as being both cohesive and authoritative.
3) Inerrant, or without error or mistake. Since God is Perfect, and since God has inspired the writers of this selection of documents right down to the last comma, the, the Fundamentalist argues, the Bible, being God’s Word, must be without error or mistake. This is not just in spiritual matters or theology, but in all matters: in history, geography, science, psychology, biology, astronomy – everything. It is by no means clear that this is actually the case. The six 24hr day creation or Noah’s worldwide flood are cases in point.
4) Finally, in the light of 1), 2) and 3) above, the Fundamentalist then says that this selection of literature, the Bible, can be the only authoritative basis for Christian faith and conduct – thus the watchword of the Reformers: Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone! The collection of writings that make up the Bible form the sole means of authoritative knowledge about God, Christ and redemption. This of course is in part a knee-jerk reaction against the corruption of the then Roman Catholic church, its priests, bishops and authorities. However, this shift to Scripture alone is an imbalanced position, because the faith of the Christian is to be based on Christ, not on a collection of writings. The Fundamentalist responds by declaring that the only tangible evidence we have of God and Christ today is His Word – by which they mean this selection of writings called the Bible.


AN IMBALANCED VIEW

Taking all these elements together, Fundamentalists place this chosen selection of sacred literature onto such a high pedestal that it cannot be maintained. They have such an unjustifiably elevated view of Scripture that it virtually displaces Christ as the ground of faith. It is an imbalanced view. Everything is built on the foundation of Scripture as God’s inerrant rule for the faith and this foundation is defended at all costs. If the foundation is breached, then the whole edifice of faith is in danger of collapse. If a Fundamentalist begins to doubt the authority and authenticity of the Bible as God’s inerrant Word, then their whole faith is liable to fall down with all the crisis that that may involve for them. But as we have seen, this is an erroneous foundation: the church is built on Christ, not on Scripture. Scripture is not what the Fundamentalist declares it to be. Unfortunately, as with many faith systems, so much has been invested by the Fundamentalist in their belief, so much time, energy and commitment to a faith and practice based on the Bible as God’s inerrant Word, that if that foundation is shown to be false, then the baby may well be thrown out with the bathwater: the whole Christian belief may be thrown out as a deceit or a mistake.


INTERPRETING THE SELECTION OF SACRED LITERATURE: LITERALISM AND NAÏVITY

The literal interpretation of this selection of literature by Fundamentalists is also an area that comes for some criticism, though this can be an unjustified and simplistic criticism. Literalism means following strictly to the basic and most obvious meaning of the text, without further elaboration or interpretation. It is not always true that Fundamentalists do this. They recognise as well as anyone else that there are different kinds of passages in these documents: there are poems, hymns, parables, historical accounts, biographical accounts and symbolic sections, such as Daniel and Revelation. Fundamentalists also recognise that there is a multi-layered aspect to interpreting these writings: the word ‘heaven’ may mean the sky, the universe or spiritual paradise and the context of the word often determines it’s meaning. In fact, this can be taken too far, resulting in what one author called ‘logocide’: one word has so many meanings as to be rendered meaningless. Also there is a reaction to the kinds of interpretation that were taking place in the Middle Ages just prior to the reformation: here, all kinds of spiritual meanings were being read into basic, literal accounts. For example, a passage may say ‘A woman entered a house’ and interpreters would suggest that by ‘woman’ is meant the Spirit of Christ and by ‘house’ is meant the human heart or soul and thus this verse indicates a picture of God entering the human heart. The trouble is that using this kind of approach, one can get a passage or verse to say anything. Those who adopt this kind of interpretation are concerned with ‘hidden truth’, ‘spiritual truth’ or ‘deeper truth’. Literalism is also concerned with the truth or reality of something and most if not all religions declare for example that God literally exists and that God literally created the universe and so on. Those who adopt the idea of panentheism or pantheism, where God is expressed in all that is made, take that as a literal belief and this is evidenced by some devotees who take care not to tread on ants, or insects and so on, because it is considered that these creatures are literally expressions of the Divine. So literalism is common in religion and Christianity is no exception to this. The range of literature that makes up the Bible lends itself to a literal understanding with its biographical and historical accounts. These are not just poetical accounts, or myths, or symbols and metaphors. They are presented as real events and real people: accounts of kings and priests and nations. Jesus Christ is not presented as a symbol or metaphor, but as a real person. It is clear that the Apostle Paul believed in a real, actual, physical, bodily resurrection, both of Christ and all humanity. Even the more unusual events, such as the creation story, the fall of Adam, and the flood of Noah, are presented as literal, actual events.

Literalism also means ‘taking things at face value’ - in a simple, naïve, factual way, without taking account of or ignoring the context and implications. It is here perhaps that we are entering into the nub of the problem. For the Fundamentalist, if the serpent in the Garden of Eden spoke, then it actually, literally spoke – there is this simple, naïve acceptance that this is a fact. The Fundamentalist may follow this up with quite intricate, novel, creative and imaginative arguments to support this initial naïve acceptance of this statement as a fact. Creation Research is a fine example of this effect. The Fundamentalist accepts a literal view of the Genesis account – God created the earth in the order and way described in Genesis, over six 24hr days at about 5000B.C.. Now this flies in the face of much modern science, so Creation Research is an organisation of scientists, astronomers, archaeologists and so on who bring to bear scientific arguments and evidence to counter the prevailing scientific point of view and to support this literal view of Genesis. In other words, as we would expect: given the view that Fundamentalists have of the Bible as God’s inerrant authoritative Word; and given their tendency to take a literal view of its passages, then everything else is subsumed under these ideas. Presented with a scientific account that contradicts the Biblical one, the Fundamentalist opts for the Biblical one and then tries their best to defend it. If they cannot defend it, they shrug their shoulders, admit that they do not know enough, (I am not a scientist!) and then re affirm their faith in God and His Word. They really believe that ultimately, science and faith will be reconciled and since God’s Word on this issue is plain, then somewhere along the line, the present scientific view must be in error. Given also that their whole faith system, with all of its commitment, and investment of time and energy, is based on this elevated view of the Bible as the ground of their faith, then it is very difficult for them to admit to any dent or flaw in this foundation. To admit to this is to admit to the fact that what they have believed and committed to could all be a mistake and waste of time. (This all-or-nothing thinking is another common aspect of Fundamentalist thinking). But it is this aspect of literalism, this naïve taking things at face value is also a problem. It is a problem because of what it does not allow and what it ignores: it discourages further elaboration, further interpretation and ignores context and implication.

Critics of Fundamentalism on the other hand too easily fall back on myth, legend and symbol. If Fundamentalists are too naïve and take things too simply at face value, then its critics too readily dismiss these accounts as myth, fable, fairy-tale, legend and symbols. Of course, in using terms like myth and fable, there is a denigration of accounts such as the creation story, the fall of Adam or Noah’s flood. This literature is turned into a fiction. On the other hand, Fundamentalists forget that we are talking about stone-age man in the creation account. It does not occur to them that these ancient writings are locked into how primitive humans perceived and understood their world. Julian Jaynes for example talks about an earlier and different mode of consciousness, the Bicameral Mind, with which earlier humans encountered their world. With the Bicameral Mind, animals spoke, gods appeared and disappeared and so on. We see similar accounts in Homer’s retelling of very old stories. The animals did not speak, but they were perceived as doing so. This kind of interpretation would not even enter the mind of the Fundamentalist. The idea of some natural catastrophe flooding the Black sea or Mediterranean would not be acceptable to a strict Fundamentalist as an explanation of Noah’s flood. The strict Fundamentalist requires a flood covering the whole earth, because that is a face-value understanding of the Genesis account.


THE FUTURE

As science increases in understanding, as Biblical literature is better understood, as historians get a better idea of how earlier societies worked, and a better understanding of some of the catastrophes they faces, as extra-biblical literature gets more publicized, and as Biblical literature becomes better analysed, the Fundamentalists position will become ever more difficult to defend and maintain. Despite its apparent certainties and seemingly strong foundation and despite the strong sense of purpose, meaning and identity that it gives, its base is weak and uncertain. The challenge of course is how to move from this imbalanced and erroneous position to one that is more sustainable and accurate, without dismantling or dismissing the whole faith, or becoming so disillusioned as to reject God altogether. Part of this means that the Fundamentalist must move to a more Christ centred and based faith and practice.

THE AUTHORITY AND FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF

THE AUTHORITY AND FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF

What is the foundation and authority of the Christian faith? How do Christians know what to believe and what to reject in terms of theology, doctrine and practice? Is it as simple as just appealing to the Bible texts? In these days of religious fundamentalism, even fanaticism; and in these times of globalization and exposure to multiple faiths and mystical/Gnostic practices, these are important questions that more than ever demand proper answers. For those finding problems with the basis of Christian fundamentalism with its insistance of an inerrant set of inspired writings, but not wanting to abandon their faith, this article seeks to provide a better, more balanced approach.


GOD’S FOUNDATION

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures tell us that time was when God dealt only with the Jews as his chosen people and thus it was the Jews who received the Law of God and the prophets, and it is from the Jews that a Deliverer was promised to come. Those outside Judaism were left in the ignorance of their own devices concerning the Divine. (God did not abandon them, but they did not have the privileges of prophets and the Law). The promised Deliverer was Jesus Christ, however the Jews did not accept Jesus as their promised anointed one: ‘He is the stone you builders (the Jews) rejected, [and he] has become the cornerstone.’ (Acts 4 v 11). Since the Jews rejected the gospel, the gospel was offered to those people outside the Jewish nation, to those previously considered ungodly, unworthy and unclean: to non-Jews or Gentiles. As a result, the ‘Gentiles are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.’ (Ephesians 2 v 20, 21).

The foundation of the faith then is God and most particularly, Jesus Christ who is described as the chief cornerstone. The cornerstone of a building was the first foundation stone that was laid, and from it, all the angles and facets of the building were calculated. It is on this foundation, the foundation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, that the church is built. Thus the Apostle Paul declares: ‘I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day [of Judgment] will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.’ (1 Corinthians 3 v 10 - 15). There is some writing on this cornerstone: ‘God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness”. (2 Timothy 2 v 19). This reveals a twofold aspect of the foundation of Christianity: Firstly, the Shepherd knows his sheep and none of them will be lost – every true believer is secure in Christ and known by God. Secondly, this Kingdom is built on Righteousness. ‘For in the gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith’. (Romans 1 v 17). The good news of the gospel is about deliverance from our righteous condemnation that we deserve because of our sin and transgressions; deliverance that in no way compromises God’s own righteousness, but rather upholds it. In the light of this, believers have an obligation to turn away from wickedness or unrighteousness.

Jesus Christ is also the full expression and revelation of the Father: ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14 v 9) and ‘I and the Father are one’. (John 10 v 30). Jesus Christ is God the Father revealed.

The heavenly city of God – the whole community of God’s people throughout all the ages - is described in Revelation: ‘The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’. (Revelation 21 v 14). It is the Apostles who lay the next level of the foundation after the chief cornerstone and they do so by their teaching, practice and example. Their example was one of obedient submission to God and living a blameless life. Their teaching laid a foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, faith in God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6 v 1-3). Thus, as believers we are instructed that ‘just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught.’ (Colossians 2 v 6, 7).


THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST

As we have seen, Christ is the revelation of the Father and the chief cornerstone of the building, thus, all the lines and angles of the building can be traced back to Him. As such, we are encouraged to follow the example of Jesus Christ: ‘Christ suffered for you leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2 v 21). Jesus himself says, ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me’. (Matthew 11 v 29). The Apostle Paul says, ‘Follow my example as I follow Christ’s example’ (1 Corinthians 11 v 1). This is particularly so when it comes to Christ’s humble obedience to God. ‘Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance like a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!’ (Philippians 2 v 5 - 8). We are to emulate Christ in this – being sensitive to and submissive to the will of God at all times and in all situations. This connection with Christ is essential also in terms of a foundation for faith and doctrine. Losing connection with the Head may result in ‘delighting in false humility, worshipping angels or spirit-guides, going into great detail and elaboration concerning what the person has seen in mystical encounters and having an unspiritual mind puffed up with idle notions’. (Colossians 2 v 18, 19). This was the problem with Gnostic experience – a form of mystical experience that began to be a problem in the early church. We shall see how it was dealt with later as an example of authority and foundation.


THE HOLY SPIRIT

Jesus promised that when he left to be with the Father, he would not leave the disciples alone, but give them the Holy Spirit. ‘The Spirit of truth…will guide you to all truth’ (John 16 v 13). Thus, after a time of despair and confusion following the death of Jesus and his resurrection and ascension, the Spirit of God was poured out at Pentecost. The Christian disciples remained a largely Jewish sect for some time, because that was their tradition and history, but the Spirit of God was poured out on the Gentiles, on non-Jews as well, and the previous Jewish exclusivity was abandoned. Thus there was no difference, as the Apostle Paul reminds us often: in terms of the gospel, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free. The Spirit helps all believers in their weakness. (Romans 8 v 26), and has a special relationship with believers such that ‘those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.’ (Romans 8 v 14). The Spirit leads by inclining the hearts and minds of believers towards righteousness and humble obedience to God. The Holy Spirit was particularly present with these early believers, and even more so with the Apostles as they established and laid the foundations of the church.


REVELATION

The Apostle Paul says to us: ‘I want you to know that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 1 v 11,12). ‘For what I received, I passed on to you’. (1 Corinthians 15 v 3). Paul was an Apostle, that is one commissioned or sent by God, but he was as one born out of time. He was not one of the twelve disciples; it is not clear that he ever met Jesus in the flesh as it were. But after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, Paul, or Saul as he was then known, being a strict, legalistic Jew, was persecuting this upstart Christian sect that had arisen in the midst of the Jews and who were causing so much trouble. Only in the midst of this persecution did Saul have his Damascus Road vision. Even then, he did not go the Jerusalem church, but rather, as we have seen from the above verses, was taught directly by God, as he explains in his letter to the Galatians. Since most of the New Testament literature is written by Paul, we can say that most of this New Testament literature is the result of this mystical experience of being taught directly by God. Paul’s theology and practice is based firmly on this experience of direct teaching by God: ‘For what I received, I passed on to you’. (1 Corinthians 15 v 3). Neither does it appear that this was totally unusual: ‘When you [believers] come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of this must be done for the strengthening of the church’. (1 Corinthians 14 v 26).

It appears that part of the Christian experience involves such mystical, revelatory and inspired experiences: ‘I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know – God knows. And I know that this man – whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know – but God knows, was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.’ (2 Corinthians 12 v 2 – 4). See also I Corinthians 12 v 8-11. This view of Christians having prophesies and revelations and tongues is quite compatible with what we have seen of the giving of the Holy Spirit and also makes sense of the verses in I John: ‘Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the anti-christ, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.’. (I John 4 v 1-4) See also I Corinthians 12 v 3. If such experiences were not present, there would be no need of such an injunction.

There is then, in the Christian community, a sensitivity and receptiveness to the influence of the Holy Spirit. Not all believers have a prophecy, or have a revelation or a tongue – but some do. Now some Christian Fundamentalists consider that these influences ceased as the early church was established and as the generation of the Apostles and those immediately after them died. But there does not appear to be a Scriptural warrant for this. Indeed, the Apostle Paul does say that prophesies will cease and tongues will be stilled, because they are imperfect and will be swallowed up by perfection at the consummation of the gospel age. Now we see a poor reflection in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. (I Corinthians 13 v 8 – 12). In other words, these influences do not cease until the end of the age. But this reliance on an inner experience of the Divine through the Holy Spirit can lead to all kinds of problems. Christian Gnosticism, mentioned at the very start of this study, is one of those very problems which arises from the content of such inner experiences. It is because of this very problem of erroneous inner experiences that some fundamentalists argue that these gifts and experiences have ceased, and thus they can turn the believer to the more stable guide of Scripture alone. But it may well be that such an attitude and approach quenches the Holy Spirit’s influence.

The problem is in testing the authorship of these influences such that one is not deceived and led astray from the gospel. Inquiries into this problem of testing can lead the questioner into deep, - very deep questions about the nature of truth, the nature of knowledge, the justification of belief and so on. The writings of the New Testament give us only a few simple instructions however, quite in line with what we have been exploring so far and will continue to see later on in this study. Namely, that if these influences lead us to behave immorally or unrighteously, if they cause us to deny sin, or if they lead us to curse or deny Christ, or to stray from the teachings laid down by Christ and the Apostles, then they are to be regarded as false, or erroneous, or of a deceiving spirit. If they lead to myths, endless genealogies, promote controversies, or an unhealthy interest in and quarrels about words and so on, resulting in envy, strife, malicious talk, suspicion and constant friction, if they rob the truth or cause us to think that godliness is a means to financial gain, then they are to be rejected. (1 Timothy 6 v 3). ‘Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God’. (I John 4 v 1- 4). ‘I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says “Jesus be cursed” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. (I Corinthians 12 v 3). Thus it is that when someone has a prophecy, the others should weigh carefully what is said’. (I Corinthians 14 v 29). ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’ (1 Thessalonians 5:21).


CHURCH HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY

The church is not democratic and its members are not all equal. Unfashionable as it is to many liberal modern minds, the church has a hierarchy: it has layers of structure and authority. Though variously described, we can say that God has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration and those speaking with different tongues. (Ephesians 4.11, I Corinthians 12.28-30, Romans 12.6-8, I Peter 4.10,11, Acts 16.18, I Corinthians 7.7, Matthew 19.11, Matthew 10.1). This is so that the body of Christ may be built up until we reach unity in the faith, and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4 v 12, 13). Once again this reinforces the idea of the Apostles being part of the core foundation of the church immediately after the chief cornerstone of Christ, who is the first Apostle (Hebrews 3 v 1). After the Apostles, come PROPHETS. A prophet is one who speaks out or announces, divulges or makes known, as directed by the Holy Spirit in the form of encouragement, exhortation, prayer or song in order to edify the church. Such messages may be theological, doctrinal or make reference to events such as famine. Some prophesies may be conditional – ‘If you do not repent then…’ So for example, Nineveh was not destroyed despite Jonah’s prophecy. Compare also Ezekiel 26 v 9-14 with Ezekiel 29 v 17-20. Then there are EVANGELISTS. An Evangelist is a bringer of good news concerning the Kingdom of God and salvation. They often ordained Elders in newly established churches. Then there are PASTORS. A Pastor is a guardian and shepherd of believers. Then come TEACHERS. A teacher is one fitted to teach in order to build up the church. One who instructs and renders the Scriptures and apostolic traditions faithfully. There then follow other gifts and roles.


THE EXAMPLES OF THE APOSTLES CONDUCT

As the next layer of foundation and authority for the church after the cornerstone of Christ, believers are encouraged to follow the example of the Apostles: ‘Follow my example as I follow Christ’s example’ (1 Corinthians 11 v 1); ‘Join with others in following my example…and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you’. (Philippians 3 v 17); ‘Therefore I urge you to imitate me’ (1 Corinthians 4 v 16). ‘Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example’ (2 Thessalonians 3 v 6, 7). Elders are to set an example, in speech (1 Timothy 4 v 12); in everything (Titus 2 v 7); being a model for others to follow (2 Thessalonians 3 v 9); ‘Whatever you learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me – put it into practice’. (Philippians 4 v 9). We can see that there is a twofold aspect to the example that they give: first, their manner of behaviour and life, and second, their teaching.


TRADITION

Thus there is a tradition that is established in the church: a tradition of apostolic authority, an apostolic tradition, which is handed down and which is to be held on to. This Apostolic tradition goes back to Christ and beyond in terms of God’s dealing with His chosen people, the Jews. Thus we are encouraged to ‘Stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’. (2 Thessalonians 2 v 15). ‘Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example’ (2 Thessalonians 3 v 6, 7). ‘I worship the God of our fathers….’ (Acts 24 v 14). ‘I praise you for holding on to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you’. (1 Corinthians 11 v 2)


STANDING FIRM

The church then is not about novelty and innovative ideas, it is not about creativity and newness, but about standing firm on the foundation and authority of Christ’s Person, example, work and teaching as our chief cornerstone; and on the teaching and example of the Apostles, some of this teaching being received directly from God in revelation as the next layer of authority and foundation. Thus we are encouraged to stand firm ‘in the faith’, (I Corinthians 16 v 13), ‘in our freedom from the Law’, (Galatians 5 v 1) ‘in one attitude - contending as one man for the faith of the gospel’, (Philippians 1 v 27), ‘in the Lord’. (1 Thessalonians 3 v 8).


HOLDING FAST TO AND CONFORMITY TO SOUND DOCTRINE

In effect, standing firm and holding on to the authority and foundation of Christ and the Apostles means holding fast to and conforming to sound doctrine. The word ‘sound’ means ‘without serious damage or decay, healthy, free from injury or decay, sensible, acceptable and worthy of approval, agreeing with traditional views and behaviour, complete and thorough’.

Thus believers are encouraged to ‘follow sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of God’. (1 Timothy 1 v 10,11). ‘I praise you for…holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you’. (1 Corinthians 11 v 2). ‘By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you’ (1 Corinthians 15 v 2). Elders are encouraged to ‘hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it’ (Titus 1 v 9), and to ‘teach what is in accord with sound doctrine’, (Titus 2 v 1), teaching which agrees with the ‘sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching’. (1Timothy 6 v 3). Therefore, ‘doctrine is to be watched closely and diligently’. (1 Timothy 4 v 16), and we must ‘be on our guard’. (2 Peter 3 v 17). The opposite to sound doctrine is portrayed as false doctrine, or pseudo teaching. This false doctrine includes such characteristics as myths, endless genealogies which promote controversies, unhealthy interest in and quarrels about words and so on, which result in envy, strife, malicious talk, suspicion and constant friction in which men of corrupt mind rob the truth and think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1 Timothy 6 v 3). So, we are told to ‘stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter’. (2 Thessalonians 2 v 15). And again, ‘just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught’. (Colossians 2 v 6, 7). We are told to ‘continue in the teachings of Christ…whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son’. (2 John 9). It is recorded that the early believers ‘devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer’. (Acts 2 v 42).

Being sound in doctrine means ‘no longer being an infant, blown here and there by every wind of teaching or by deceitful schemes’ (Ephesians 4 v 14, 15) not ‘being carried away by strange teachings’ (Hebrews 13 v 9) and not ‘being deceived by false or pseudo teachers and prophets who masquerade as apostles’ (2 Corinthians 11 v 13) who ‘introduce destructive heresies’ (2 Peter 2 v 1), or ‘try to take people captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.’ (Colossians 2 v 8).

What is this sound teaching and doctrine? ‘By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
a) That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [of the Old Testament]
b) That he was buried,
c) That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
d) That he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers…
whether then it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (1 Corinthians15 v 2-11).

And again,
a) Teach older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled and sound in the faith, in love and endurance.
b) Likewise teach older women to be reverent in the way they live, not be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind and to be subject to their husbands so that no-one will malign the word of God.
c) Similarly encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good….
d) Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way, they will make the teaching about God our Saviour attractive.
e) For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. These then are the things you should teach.
(Titus 2 v 1-15)

Our prime source for the teachings, for the sound doctrines and theology of Christ and the Apostles is the Scriptures. These gospels, epistles and letters written by the Apostle Paul and other early church believers and leaders form our earliest link to what Jesus and the Apostles had to say. But we will turn to the nature and status of these writings in a moment.

MATURITY AND GROWTH OF BELIEVERS

There is a sense of evolving growth and maturity in the church. The building is being constructed and there is a sense of building on the foundation of the chief cornerstone of Christ and the next foundation layer of Apostles. Thus, Scripture declares: ‘As newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk so that by it you may grow up in your salvation (1 Peter 2 v 3). And again: ‘Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly – mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?’ (1 Corinthians 3 v 1-3). And in another place: ‘Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use, have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5 v 11-14). We are encouraged to ‘Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’. (2 Peter 3 v 18). The Apostles declared that ‘Our hope is that as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you’. (2 Corinthians 10 v 15, 16), ‘Growing in the knowledge of God’. (Colossians 1 v 10). Thus it is that we find the instruction: ‘Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of:
Repentance from acts that lead to death
Faith in God
Instruction about baptisms
Laying on of hands
Resurrection of the dead
Eternal judgment
(Hebrews 6 v 1-3)

We will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4 v 15). As we have seen, connection with Christ is essential in terms of foundation for faith and doctrine. Losing connection with the Head may result in delighting in false humility, worshipping angels or spirit-guides, going into great detail and elaboration concerning what the person has seen in mystical encounters and having an unspiritual mind puffed up with idle notions (Colossians 2 v 18, 19). We have also seem that God has appointed various roles and gifts within the church, that the body of Christ may be built up until we reach unity in the faith, and in the knowledge of the son of God and become mature, attaining the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4 v 12, 13). We also learn obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5 v 8). ‘The testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete’. (James 1 v 4, 5)

We find then that the infant believer is not acquainted with teaching about righteousness, (Hebrews 5 v 13) and is worldly (1 Corinthians 3 v 1) and that through unity in the faith…and…knowledge of the Son of God…we become mature and then we will no longer be infants’, (Ephesians 4 v 13, 14), and that suffering plays its role in developing maturity.

Growth and maturity takes place in
a) Knowledge (Colossians 1 v 10, 2 Peter 3 v 18)
b) Faith (2 Corinthians 10 v 15)
c) Grace (2 Peter 3 v 18)
d) Into the Head, Jesus. (Ephesians 4 v 15)
e) Producing the fruit of righteousness Hebrews 6 v 7, 8, 1 Corinthians 3 v 12 – 15, Romans 7 v 4-6, Philippians 1 v 9-11, James 3 v 13, Colossians 1 v 10, Galatians 5 v 22)


CHURCH MEMBERS INSTRUCT ONE ANOTHER WHEN THEY GATHER TOGETHER

As believers attain maturity and growth, then the Apostle is able to say: ‘You are competent to instruct one another’ (Romans 15 v 4). And again, ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God’. (Colossians 3 v 16). ‘When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of this must be done for the strengthening of the church’. (1 Corinthians 14 v 26), ‘in a fitting and orderly way’, (1 Corinthians 14 v 40).


THE SCRIPTURES

So far we have seen that the church is built of the chief cornerstone of Christ with the Apostles as the next layer of foundation. We are to hold fast to the tradition of the example of their life and teaching and as we reach maturity in knowledge, faith and grace and begin to discern righteousness and follow it, then we can encourage and help one another. Finally we come to the most obvious foundation and authority: scripture, yet in some ways, this is the most problematic.

However, let’s be clear: the Old Testament scriptures, together with some sacred literature outside the Old Testament, were often referred to as an appeal to authority. This was especially so when those being who were being spoken to were Jews. This is because Christ emerges out of the Jewish nation and the Jews already had the advantages of accepting these writings and having the Law and the Prophets. There was some debate about which literature was to be included as authoritative and profitable, and which was not. This debate was not really settled until New Testament times, and some literature, now known as the Apocrypha, were considered by some Jews and Christians to still be authoritative, even though they were not included in the ‘canon’ or ‘rule’ of Scripture. In the Apocrypha we find writings such as Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, additions to the book of Daniel and Esther, I and 11 Maccabees and so on.

It is also important to note though that when the Gentiles or non-Jews were being addressed, appeals to Scripture in this way were not generally made. For the Gentiles, is for those outside of the tradition of these writings, appeals were made rather to the universal witnesses of God’s creation and providence as evidence of God’s existence and dealings. Even pagan Greek philosophers were quoted.

With that caution in mind, we can note that the Old Testament Scriptures are often used as an appeal to authority for the Jews; an appeal to a good foundation. Thus when we read the New Testament, we often find phrases like: ‘This is why it is said’ (Eph 5 v 8, 14); or ‘As God has said’ (2 Corinthians 6 v 16, Romans 9 v 25); or ‘As it is written’ (1 Corinthians 1 v 19, 31, 2 v 9, 2 Corinthians 9 v 9, Galatians 4 v 27, Romans 3 v 4, 10; 8 v 3; 9 v 33; 11 v 8, 26; 14 v 11; 15 v 9, 21), or ‘according to Scripture’ (1 Corinthians 15 v 3-5). At one point it is said that ‘These things were written down as warnings for us on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come’. (I Corinthians 10 v 11). In other words, Paul says that the Old Testament Scriptures were sometimes written not for the people who were alive at the time of their writing, but rather for a later generation of people who were under the dispensation of the gospel.

However, I have already hinted at a second problem: the idea of a ‘canon’ or authoritative set of writings which serve as a ‘rule’ or ‘measuring rod’ for the faith. Sometimes in Scripture, we find sacred literature quoted which actually does not form part of the canon of biblical literature, as we know it. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, Paul actually quotes the Greek’s own pagan religious philosophers as a support for the point he is making. Just as with the Old Testament, there are a number of sacred writings that were not included in the New Testament canon. There is then, a whole range of sacred literature that is contemporary with but which exists outside the collection of writings found in our Bible. Our problem is: who decided on what books and writings should be included or excluded? What criteria did they use? Were they right?

I must make it clear now that the Bible as we know it, with the books and writings that it contains, in the order in which they are presented, is a tradition derived from the early church fathers – those leaders and elders of the first few centuries of the church. It is therefore a construction and selection of men, not of God and not even of the Apostles. Worse still, to some degree this selection is a knee-jerk reaction to a movement known as Gnosticism: a form of mysticism that was prevalent in the early centuries of the church and which was considered to be in error. These early church leaders felt that there was a desperate need for an authoritative set of writings that would enable them to combat doctrinal error and establish a common Christian belief and practice. Some of these leaders were most intolerant of what they saw as false and heretical writings and sometimes ordered that such works should be burned.

A connection was made between God and approved writings, such that orthodox writings; writings which advocated one standard practice and belief; writings approved of by church leaders; were seen as inspired by God, as God’s word, as God’s revelation, as opposed to the mere words and vain imaginings of men. And to some degree this is correct: we have already seen that the Apostle Paul’s theology was determined and shaped by immediate and direct encounters with the Divine in mystical experience.

Looking at some of these early church leaders, we find for example that Clement of Alexandria (165-220) had a wide and comprehensive view of inspiration and therefore no very definite conception of Scripture exclusiveness or fixed boundaries to a canon or measuring rule of sacred writings. Thus, he quotes from the Letter of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Gospel of Egyptians and Didache. [which are all] seen as in some way authoritative. (W.F. Adeney in ‘Dictionary of the Bible’ (Hastings, J. (Ed)) (1936) T&T Clark Edinburgh. p115)

The principles that would be used for the selection of writings for inclusion in such a canon began to emerge in the 2nd century. These were:-
i) Apostolicity – they were written by Apostles.
ii) True doctrine – they reflected the ideas of the Apostles.
iii) Widespread geographical use by the churches.
Thus, the Shepherd of Hermas and I Clement were rejected, because though they contained true doctrine, they were not written by Apostles and/or were not widely used.

In the 3rd century, Origen, another of the Church Fathers, identified three classes of sacred writings:-
i) Those undisputed by the church of God throughout the known world. Origen included in these the Letter of Barnabas, Didache and Shepherd of Hermas.
ii) Those writings disputed by some in the churches:
II Peter.
II & III John.
Hebrews.
James.
Jude.
iii) Spurious writings - those not considered to be genuine or what they claimed to
be, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians.

Eusebius in the 4th century identified matters in the following way:
i) Some books were universally accepted:
The 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Acts of the Apostles
14 letters of Paul, including Hebrews which at that time was thought to be written
by him.
I John.
I Peter.
ii) Disputed writings were of two kinds:
a) Those known and accepted by many, such as -
James.
Jude.
II Peter.
II & III John.
b) Those which were called spurious but which were not impious or foul, such as:
Acts of Paul.
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter.
Letter of Barnabas.
Didache.
Hebrews, possibly.
iii) Finally there were the heretically spurious writings, which were rejected, such as:
Gospel of Peter.
Acts of John.

However, Eusebius felt free to make authoritative use of disputed writings. Certainly at this time, even three hundred years after Christ, the idea of a canon of authoritative measure of sacred writings and the idea of God’s Word of inspired revelation are not yet considered as the same thing. And still, even in the 4th century, churches were still using the Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement and II Clement.

Athanasius, the 4th century Bishop of Alexandria helped settle the matter, and differences between eastern and western churches were sorted out at a council of leaders in 397 A.D.. The 27 books of the New Testament were accepted at this time. Nevertheless, in later documents there was still no distinction between these and other works such as the Letter of Barnabas.

Even at the Protestant Reformation which was a protest against problems and corruptions present in the then Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers again questioned the canon. Martin Luther's principles were:
i) Apostolicity.
ii) That which leads to Christ.
But since he could not find this latter quality in Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, he rejected them, although he bowed to tradition and included them at the end of his Bible. Calvin too rejected some books. All this suggests that with more and better evidence, the reformers would have continued the refining of which books and letters should be in the canon and which of them should be excluded.

Today we know that errors were made in the selection criteria: modern linguistic analytic techniques have shown that letters that were thought to be written by Paul were not written by him and so on. ‘But these critical questions of the authority of Scripture have dealt less with the canon as such than with the genuineness of literature – the canon is seen as an historical record of church opinion. On the other hand, those who accept inspiration of the New Testament do not connect this closely with such critical questions, thus for them, the canon is not affected. Thus doubts, say about the authorship of II Peter does not lead to moves to have it, and similar books removed from the canon. The canon rests mainly on tradition and usage.’ (W. F. Adeney in Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, J. (Ed)) (1936) T&T Clark Edinburgh. P.117). The canon of Scripture as we know it, in the form of the Bible, has been further entrenched and established by its translation into the common tongue and the invention of printing. ‘The translation of the Bible into the vernacular of various languages laid the question of the canon to rest again, by familiarizing readers with the same series of books in all variations and editions’. (W. F. Adeney in Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, J. (Ed)) (1936) T&T Clark Edinburgh. p.117).

Now theories as to the dates of the writing of these letters and gospels vary. Thus, if we were to look again at these New Testament writings and order them according to the date of writing, we would have a New Testament that would look like this:

Date of writing - Title

N.I.V. Study Bible:

48-49 or 51-53 or 53-57 Galatians
51 I Thessalonians
51-52 II Thessalonians
50’s or 60’s Mark
50’s 60’s or 70’s Matthew
53-55 or 57-59 or 61 Philippians
55 I Corinthians
55 II Corinthians
57 Romans
60 Ephesians
60 Colossians
60 Philemon
Early 60’s or before 50 James
63-65 I Timothy
63-65 Titus
66-67 II Timothy
60-68 II Timothy
65-68 II Peter
Prior to 70 Hebrews
70’s or 80’s Luke
63 or 70-> Acts
65 or 80 Jude
50’s 60’s or 85 John
85-95 I John
85-95 II John
85-95 III John
95 Revelation


Or like this:

Encyclopedia Britannica:

Earliest letter I Thess.
53-54 Philemon
53-54 Galatians
53-54 I Corinthians
55 II Corinthians
circa 56 Romans
64-70 Mark
70-80 Matthew
80-85 Luke
80-90 Acts
80-90 Hebrews
80-90 Revelation
90-100 II Thess spurious
90-100 John
90-100 Jude
95-105 James
100-120 Colossians
100-120 I John
100-120 II John
100-120 III John
100-125 I Peter
Possibly 2nd century I Timothy
Possibly 2nd century II Timothy
Possibly 2nd century Titus
Circa 150 II Peter
Ephesians spurious

Or like this:

From a web site on early Christian writings:

40-80 Lost sayings of Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

The reaction of Christian Fundamentalists such as B.B. Warfield to this kind of problem was to in effect ring-fence the canon by declaring it as inerrant: that is being without error or mistake. Fundamentalists strengthened the idea that this particular selection of sacred writings, which form the Bible, is nothing less than God’s Word and therefore it is True, because God is Truth and cannot lie. Often a quote from the end of The Book of Revelation is referred to about not adding to taking away from this book – by which fundamentalists mean the Bible as opposed to the Book of Revelation itself. The watchword of the Christian Fundamentalist is ‘Scripture alone’ and ‘To the Law and testimony!’ Once one is locked into this kind of thinking, to question the canon is to question God, or call God a liar. But this apparent strengthening of the canon associating it with inspiration and inerrancy is in fact a weakening. Christian fundamentalism, in its reaction to the corruption of Catholicism during the reformation period and its knee-jerk reaction against Biblical criticism and Liberalism makes a number of fundamental and fatal errors:

Firstly it shifts the foundation for Christian authority away from Christ and the Apostles to a set of sacred writings, some of which we now know to be dubious.

Secondly, it shifts its foundation for Christian authority away from the tradition of Christ and the Apostles to a set of sacred literature that is the product of the selection and tradition of men, however well intentioned those leaders may have been at the time. Thus Christian fundamentalism is a position based at least in part on human tradition, and in part on dubious writings.

Thirdly, it places an impossible strain on the sacred writings themselves. By trying to strengthen the canon, Christian fundamentalists have had to hold to a view of inspiration that does not allow for error. It is so rigid that it cannot bend and just one crack or weakness - one contradiction in the writings, one erroneous fact in the canon, - can bring the whole edifice of Christian fundamentalism crashing down. The trouble is, that in such a collapse, it is in danger of bringing a person’s faith down with it.

Fourthly, by creating such a tight fence around the canon, Christian fundamentalism excludes other contemporary sacred writings that are profitable and useful.

Fundamentalism in short, places too much emphasis on the closed canon of Scripture and on its supposed inspired inerrancy and has in effect a false foundation – which is in many ways a tradition of men. It is an unsure foundation where whole edifice of fundamentalism stands or falls on an unbending human (and dubious) selection of some sacred literature from amongst many such writings, using selection criteria and knowledge that was flawed and inadequate.

Therefore a softer view of Christian sacred writings is required. Paul was an Apostle: one commissioned and sent by God to preach the gospel and his writings are important because of this. They also form the earliest Christian writings, predating the gospels. In addition, his writings form much of what is included in the New Testament. Modern scholars argue that many of the writings attributed to him are considered authentic. All these reasons make Paul’s letters and Epistles a vitally important part of the Apostolic tradition: they provide us with a prime source of information about the foundation and authority of the church, giving us the ‘sound doctrine’ and tradition that we are to hold fast to. And other writings that follow the same tradition and doctrine are also profitable, whether they are in the ‘canon’ or not. All these writings are written by men, men who encountered God in mystical experience, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit but who were not infallible, not perfect or without error; they were written by men who were contemporaries of the Apostles who were themselves contemporaries of Jesus. These writings are by men who used sources for their writings which dated back to contemporaries of Jesus just a generation before. But these men were not perfect or infallible: Peter and Paul had strong disagreements over theological and practical issues. Some writings are better than others, but God has not given us a defined ring-fence around certain sacred writings. Even so, the early church leaders selected the literature which they considered to be either written by Apostles or which closely followed the Apostolic tradition and which was being used in a widespread manner by the churches. These writings, contained in our Bible, form the tradition of the church through the ages after the fourth century. This kind of view of Christian sacred literature presents a much softer and more pliable view of these writings without dismissing them on the one hand, or falsely elevating them on the other. It recognizes their value as prime and secondary sources of the apostolic tradition, the tradition on which, along with the chief cornerstone, Christ, the church is built. It recognizes that they are profitable for use in teaching and equipping the man of God, but it does not elevate them to a rigid indefensible position that is in danger of breaking and collapsing under the stresses of modern scholarship and evidence.

We also recognize that Scripture has to be interpreted: and that by placing different emphasis on different texts, or that by approaching texts in different ways and contexts, new meanings, understandings and perspectives arise. Even within Protestantism, despite being based on Scripture alone, many different and distinctive movements arose. Even so, believers were baptized not into Catholicism, or Calvinism, or Lutheranism, but into the name of Christ – one body, one baptism, one Lord.

If Christian Fundamentalism is also known as a conservative movement, then this softer approach is more of a maximal conservatism – we end up with similar views about Christ and his work, but with a more relaxed, open and flexible approach to sacred literature and to different facets and aspects of the broader Christian church.


HOW WAS THE EARLY CHURCH PROBLEM OF GNOSTICISM DEALT WITH?

Let’s return to the problem that the early church encountered in the Gnostic movement. How was it dealt with? What was appealed to as a foundation and authority for the Christian faith and for avoiding error?

Let’s just look at Gnosticism itself for a moment. Gnosticism was a form of direct mystical encounter with the Divine and like the Apostle Paul himself, it took its authority and foundation from these kinds of encounters. Gnosticism took a number of forms, including Christian mysticism. It contended that human perfection and salvation was found in the immediate knowledge and experience of the fullness of the Divine: gnosis. A resurrection out of the realm of ignorance and the material occurred during the attaining of this knowledge, whereby the evil material or physical world was transcended. For some Gnostics, Jesus was seen as a spirit and the resurrection of Jesus was seen as a spiritual resurrection, and these people saw the idea of a physical resurrection as ridiculous. Sin was either irrelevant or transcended in this experience of unity with the Divine and ultimately, the self and God were seen as one and thus we return to our True Source at death. In Essence, Gnostics affirmed that we are God. The transcendent God may speak or manifest to us through angels, spirit-guides or by all manner of symbols and metaphors. In Christian Gnosticism, these kinds of ideas were expressed using Christian terminology.

Did the early Christians and Apostles deal with this issue solely by an appeal to Scripture as a closed canon like Christian fundamentalists would today? No, they did not. It was countered using the following arguments:

Perfection is found in Christ, not in knowledge or the experience of gnosis. (Colossians 1 v 28)
Knowledge and wisdom is found in Christ, not in mystical or Gnostic experience. (Colossians 2 v 2 - 4)
The fullness of the deity is found in Christ, not in anything or anyone else. (Colossians 2 v 8-10)
Contact with Christ is vital. Losing contact with Christ leads to a puffed up and empty imagination. (Colossians 2 v 18, 19)
Christ is true knowledge. Ideas that oppose this are false knowledge. (1 Timothy 6 v 20)
The resurrection is yet to occur in the future. The notion that we are already being resurrected is false and is an idea that spreads like gangrene. (2 Timothy 2 v 18)
God is not a liar: we do sin and miss the mark. To say that we do not sin makes God out to be a liar. (1 John 1 v 10)
Knowledge of God is evidenced by our obedient submission. Continuing to behave immorally is to be in error. (1 John 2 v 3)
True spirits testify that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore, test the spirits. (1 John 4 v 1-3).
Jesus came in physical flesh. Jesus was not just a spirit e.t.c. (Docetism) (2 John 7)

Though I have paradoxically referred to Scriptures to make these points, we can see that the Apostles and early church Elders are not using Scripture in this way, certainly not in the way that a Fundamentalist would do today. I have used Scriptures as a reference to how the early church and apostolic tradition combated this difficulty of Gnosticism. But, nowhere in this set of arguments by the early church leaders and writers is there a reference to Scripture: Gnostic ideas are simply counteracted or opposed with Christian ones. Of these ten arguments, seven of them refer to the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ. Of the other three, one refers to God as True, one to the resurrection as being in the future, and the last to submission to a righteous God as being the evidence of the knowledge of God. This really reflects what we have been saying: the focus of the foundation and authority for the Christian faith is Jesus Christ: His Person, life and work. Our use of sacred writing is in some ways a secondary means to this end – it tells us what the principles and doctrines of the apostolic and Christ based foundation of the church is.


CONCLUSION

The questions we asked at the start of this study were ‘What is the foundation and authority of the Christian faith?’ ‘How do Christians know what to believe and what to reject in terms of theology, doctrine and practice?’

The answers that we have given are that God is the foundation of the church, and that a chief cornerstone is laid by the first Apostle: the Son of God, Jesus Christ whose teaching and work is applied to us by God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the full revelation of God and all the lines of our building trace back to the lines of this cornerstone. The Holy Spirit also gives revelation to the church: to the Apostle Paul for example, whose thought, teaching and writings are based on such revelations, and to members of the church through the ages. In this way a hierarchy is formed in the church, from God the Father, to Christ, to the Apostles and then to evangelists, prophets, teachers and so on, as given by the Spirit. The church is encouraged to copy the example of the Apostles, both in terms of their life and teaching, such that a tradition is set up, to which we are encouraged to stand firm. We are also encouraged to conform to sound doctrine: to the healthy teaching of the Apostles and Christ, thus growing in maturity and encouraging one another. As part of this we refer to Scripture – to sacred writings handed down to us, some of which are written by the Old Testament patriarchs, others by the Apostles and others by early church leaders. Some of these writings were selected for a rule of faith and form our Bible, but the selection was flawed, such that some included writings are dubious and other writings outside this rule or canon are actually profitable. Many of these writings remain prime or secondary sources of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

WHY CAN LEAVING FUNDAMENTALISM BE SO HARD?

WHY CAN LEAVING FUNDAMENTALISM BE SO HARD?

Why set up a blog about leaving Christian Fundamentalism? Is leaving so very hard? People join and leave groups all the time. Well, a Christian fundamentalist group is not like a youth group, or camera club or amateur dramatics group. Although all groups share certain characteristics in common, they are taken to a higher level in a fundamentalist group and there are extra considerations too. I was involved in Christian Fundamentalism actively for about fifteen years and after that, on and off for about ten years. Leaving was one of the most difficult things I ever did. What sort of factors created the difficulties?

a) COMMITMENT. We all commit to any group that we belong to varying degrees, but fundamentalist church groups may engender a very deep level of commitment over time. The more your commitment and investment into the group, the more difficult it is to leave. A member of a fundamentalist group may be a lay preacher, or Sunday school teacher, or Youth leader. They may be a deacon, serving in the church. Even an ordinary member may commit and invest a vast amount of time and energy into the group and its activities. They may commit their money via tithes and gifts. When this has been done over a number of years, it is difficult to say ‘Gee, it was all a mistake, a waste of time, money and effort.’
b) FELLOWSHIP. Christian fundamentalist groups often provide a terrific sense of unity, a sense of common purpose engendering intense friendships. There can be a real sense of community and belonging, a closeness and connection sometimes polarizing us (the elect, the people of God) with them (the unbeliever, the world). This unity is based on an orthodox identity and purpose – Christian fundamentalism is highly orthodox, tracing a line and tradition back to the Apostles and disciples. This sense of fellowship is something that I miss to this day. I have only seen indications of such a level of connectedness in certain sports teams and in the armed services, both of which function at a level of development called mythic – the same as Christian fundamentalism. This camaraderie works really well when all its members are singing from the same hymn sheet. But once one questions the wisdom of the orthodoxy, once one questions say the nature of the Bible, or Divinity of Christ, then the cohesion and identity of the group is threatened, and the dissenting person may be seen as divisive, schismatic, deluded, oppressed by evil spirits, backsliding, apostate, heretical e.t.c. If the dissenting opinion is persisted in, the dissenting person faces rejection, Loss of friendships, Distancing from the group, Isolation, Criticism, Judgmental attitudes, being outcast/excommunicated, increasing attempts by group members to manipulate the dissenter to conformity to group norms. The Christian Fundamentalist group is a semi-closed community. It has a certain withdrawal from the world and from unbelievers. Thus standards and norms of behaviour and belief are defined by the group and by authoritative group members such as teachers and elders. Christians may have unbelievers in their social circle as work colleagues or as neighbours and acquaintances, but they are not usually trusted friends. Thus values, meaning, purpose, significance, reward, and identity; all core personal issues, become partly or mainly defined by the group in its teaching and practice and cemented by cohesive activities such as outreach programs, painting the church e.t.c.
c) CONNECTION WITH THE ULTIMATE Christian fundamentalism is about connection with the Ultimate: with the Ultimate Person (God) and with Ultimate Endings (Heaven, Hell, Judgement). Therefore, falling out of favour with this group raises the possibility of putting at stake one’s relationship with God and one’s future eternal state. Christian fundamentalism gives a sense of ultimate meaning, purpose and fulfillment. An ultimate sense of place and reason for existence in the Universe. An ultimate set of moral and philosophical/theological values. An ultimate personal identity as a son and heir of God. To leave or be excluded is to feel cut adrift, aimless, uncertain and empty. Worse, it is to be accused of or to feel a betrayer of God, a Judas. Because conduct, sentiments and beliefs which do not conform to group orthodoxy – to the ‘right way’ – are condemned, such condemnation is also linked to the Ultimate – thus by expressing doubts about fundamentalism, a dissenter is portrayed as betraying God, letting God down, incurring God’s providential judgement. Thus, though a person may have doubts about aspects of fundamentalism, they may nevertheless still believe in God and find themselves threatened with God’s wrath, a threat which would remain very real to them.
d) BELIEFS, PRACTICE, IDENTITY AND GUILT. If a person expresses doubts about some basic aspect of fundamentalist belief then they, as a person, are identified as a sinner, backslider, apostate, and rebel e.t.c. There is not usually any halfway point – it is usually black and white: sheep and goats, saved and damned. This is as opposed to saying something like: ‘He is a sincere seeker after truth who is expressing doubt about an aspect of our shared faith.’ or ‘He is a pilgrim walking along a path with ever-changing scenery as he discovers the infinity of God’. Thus, because of this black and white thinking, it is difficult to leave with honour and respect when moving to a new theological position not embraced by the group’s orthodoxy. Healthy psychology separates what a person thinks, believes and does from who they are in essence. Thus a misbehaving child is not bad, or stupid child, but a loved child who did a bad or stupid thing. Even so, Christian fundamentalism may emphasize the doctrine of Total Depravity – the idea that we are, by nature, by reason of our very existence, sinners, corrupt, rebellious, ignorant, deluded and opposed to God. Though common in a number of religious approaches, it can be used to engender conformity – if you disagree with us, you must be sinning and therefore wrong and therefore in danger of God’s Judgement - sort of thing. Thus dissenting opinion is stifled by threat of disapproval, both of the group and its leaders and God, with all that implies.
e) SECURE WORLDVIEW. Christian Fundamentalism offers a bounded, ordered and therefore secure worldview. A Bible based worldview offers a set of boundaries – do this and you will live, do that and you will be blessed e.t.c. More than this it is an ordered Universe, with god overseeing everything with a special eye on his favoured children such that all things are working together for good. More than this, some Christian Fundamentalist schemes, such as Calvinism, are seductively coherent. Once certain assumptions are accepted, the scheme makes a lot of sense, systematically interrelating the various Bible passages. All this offers a comfortable, secure world perspective, reinforced by the mutual acceptance of this view by fellow believers and by authority figures and experts within the group such as teachers and Elders.
f) INTENSE SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE. One of the greatest barriers preventing me from leaving fundamentalism was the experience on a number of occasions, within fundamentalism, of intense spiritual transcendence and closeness with God; what is known as the Baptism/Fullness/Extraordinary Witness of the Spirit, sometimes experienced by whole communities in awakenings or revivals. These were experiences of being ‘caught up’ to God; of an immediate and powerful assurance; of being fully persuaded; of one’s mind being opened to the Reality of Divine Things. (Blessed Assurance! Jesus is mine! Oh! What a foretaste of glory divine!’….‘Visions of rapture burst on my sight’.) With these experiences, Calvinist Christian Fundamentalist ideas and notions were indelibly impressed on my mind and heart by transcendent experience. They were difficult or impossible to shake off. During those experiences I never felt so clear headed. So how can this be reconciled to leaving fundamentalism and fundamentalist theology? This question has to do with the nature of Ultimate Reality, the Infinite One Formless God expressed in an infinity of multiple forms. It is an aspect of theology called Theomorphism, and is a discussion too technical to enter into here. It is related to the theology of mysticism, and interested inquirers are directed to http://spiritualminded.blogspot.com/ for further discussions on this matter.
g) RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEADER/ELDER. For me this was more of a personal issue than one necessarily linked to Christian fundamentalism per se. In other words, I would have had problems with this guy in whatever circumstance we met. But this can be a wider problem engendered by a distortion of the shepherd/sheep syndrome where the shepherd, the leader, is too authoritarian: manipulating and controlling those they oversee, and the sheep, the church member, too sheepish: too inclined to follow rather than thinking for themselves. Such blind following of authority can lead to a dependency relationship where the member is always trying to please the father-figure of the leader/elder – trying to be a good child. Indeed, those familiar with Transactional Analysis may recognise a pattern. In my case, the pastor was operating from Critical Parent ego state – dispensing disapproval in the name of God and high standards and had a patronizing attitude using words like ‘should, must, ought, sinful, bad’ e.t.c., with disapproving looks and frowns. This mode of operating tries to put the other person into (obedient) Child ego state. Thus instead of two adults reasoning together, we have a patronizing Critical Parent making the other person feel like a disobedient child. There are two Child ego states however: Submissive Child – the sheep – always trying to please and be good, over keen to show their ‘superiors’ respect; or the Rebellious Child – the person refusing to be pigeonholed, kicking against the rules, being a non conformist, probably trying to restore their Adult ego state. (That was me). This is a dysfunctional transaction pattern. As I say, this would have happened in the workplace, or anywhere with me and this guy, but it is an element to be aware of. The teacher pupil relationship is not necessarily a bad one, and generally does involve a certain inequality – expert versus learner, professor versus student, but it does not have to dysfunctional.

Positively, for me, Christian fundamentalism also engendered:
I) An awakening to and an awareness of spirituality and the Divine.
II) A sense of personal integrity – being honest and true to myself and God – being authentic.
III) A desire for Truth – wherever that takes me.
IV) A courage to stand by my principles and by truth as I see it – without feeling the need to impose my Ideas and values on others.
These are the very qualities that led me out of Christian Fundamentalism. Why is it difficult to leave? Take all the points I have raised in this article and a few more, in complex interplay, and you have some idea.

To leave is to
a) Say one’s past full commitment of time, energy and money was a mistake
b) Be rejected and isolated from a close community of friends – social severance and loss with no real friends amongst unbelievers to replace and make up for that loss.
c) Lose one’s sense of identity, meaning and purpose.
d) Feel that one may incurring the wrath of an angry God and be in danger of everlasting punishment.
e) Be adrift and alone in an unbelieving world - which may be perceived as chaotic, hostile and immoral.
f) Lose one’s sense of order and certainty
g) Feel guilty and in conflict
h) Feel vulnerable and fearful
i) Feel frustrated and angry
j) Lose one’s sense of orientation.
k) Be possibly isolated and alone

Leaving Fundamentalism may be the most difficult, courageous and honest thing you ever do.
It requires careful thought and a gradual establishing of another, alternative social support network which may initially be seen as fellowship with the world. It may be risky to your health and psychological well-being.

If you are still thinking of leaving, go to the article about problems with Bible inerrancy – the axe laid to the root of fundamentalism – these were the issues I could not escape.

What you replace fundamentalism with is up to you and is determined by who you are and where you are. The post on stages or levels of faith suggests that the next upward step is the stage of logic and rationality. This is the stage that is highly critical of fundamentalism. Readers could try Lane-Fox, R. (1992) ‘The unauthorised version: truth and fiction in the Bible’ Penguin London.
or Kurtz, P. (1994) ‘Living without religion’ Prometheus Books New York U.S.A. If you are still interested in Christianity, try Elaine Pagels on ‘The Gnostic Gospels’, - this shows the sheer variety of early Christianity and why and how orthodoxy took hold. Or try Marcus Borg – ‘The God we never Knew’. If you are interested in a wider, contemporary spirituality, look up books by Wayne Dyer, or, ‘Psychosynthesis’ by Roberto Assagioli, or ‘What we may be’ by Pierro Ferrucci. Technical, philosophical and psychological discussions of modern spirituality can be found in books by Ken Wilber. For more books, check the reading list post.

This article may be quoted for non-commercial and personal use in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without the express permission of the author. It may be quoted for non-commercial study purposes, dissertations e.t.c., providing that the quotes do not amount to a complete chapter of the new study or paper, or more than 25% of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

With regard to commercial publication, all rights reserved. In this regard, no part of this article may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author.

Copyright 2000-2007

PROBLEMS WITH THE BIBLE AS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD

PROBLEMS WITH THE INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE
AN AXE LAID TO THE ROOT OF CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

This study forms chapter eight of a study of spiritual gifts

I have looked at spiritual gifts from a framework adopted by fundamentalists, and Calvinists in particular, which Cohen describes as the most consistent with Biblical passages. (1) It is 'now important to stand back, and step outside this framework for a critical evaluation, and in doing so I shall look at the foundation of fundamentalism: Scripture. In doing so, we shall be looking at what fundamentalists consider to be the highest form of inspired revelation, and this has obvious implications for the gifts of inspired revelation. One of the main tenets of fundamentalist is that the Bible is inerrant and thus fully corresponds to reality. All passages of Scripture are interpreted in the light of this position. In many respects, for fundamentalists, the Scriptures are second only to God and form the supreme TANGIBLE sacred reality, because within fundamentalism there is no emphasis on relics, ceremony, ritual or art. (2). A term which often links Calvinists with Pentecostals is the phrase conservative evangelicalism. By definition, conservative evangelicals accept older views from the reformation and puritan times, which they seek to preserve. Only occasionally is the word conservative used to indicate social and political views. In other words, there is an emphasis not only on the inerrancy of Scripture, but the need to maintain the purity of doctrines in Scripture, which are seen as largely drawn out of Scripture by the reformers and other reformed orthodox leaders. There is then also a sense of tradition within fundamentalism, which goes right back to the early Christian fathers, but most overtly to the fathers of the protestant reformation. This tradition immediately frames the way in which fundamentalists interpret Scripture and leads fundamentalists to emphasise certain passages and verses and de-emphasise others, despite a belief in the total inerrancy of Scripture. I will speak more of this in a moment, but I am concerned to emphasise now that fundamentalism has its own particular tradition of interpretation of Scripture.

There are within this fundamentalist scheme, themes of separation and alienation of believers from the surrounding world, from modern theology and modern Bible study methods, which are seen as threats to the purity of the doctrines drawn out of Scripture by fundamentalists. (3). The Conservative Evangelical sees himself as a real Christian, because he upholds these views, which are considered as orthodox, plain truths from Scripture, whereas others, though they may be professing, Christians, are seen as 'nominal' Christians because they do not subscribe to these views. More will be said later, in postscript, on the system of conservative evangelicalism but the initial focus of this chapter is on these claims regarding Scripture. This is an important issue, since it forms the very foundation of this group and it's philosophy and so far has formed the basis of this study on spiritual gifts.

THE SCRIPTURES

First of all, I want to look at the Scriptures themselves. These are generally defined as the books of the Old and New Testament, beginning with Genesis, and ending with Revelation, generally referred to as the Canon of Scripture. Inspired revelation is perceived by conservative evangelicals to have ceased with the book of Revelation. The word -canon- refers to a rule, and thus this particular set of books is seen as being an authority and rule for faith. Though there may in some groups be an emphasis on tongues and prophecy, as inspired and revealed by the Holy Spirit for use today, these are generally not put on a par with Scripture, though there is an underlying source of conflict and tension here. Nevertheless, they are not considered to be a rule and authority in the same way as Scripture is. It is important to realise that this canon has not been defined by God in the Scriptures themselves. Though the last verses of Revelation are sometimes quoted to refer to an end of the canon of Scripture, these verses only refer to the book of Revelation itself, since at the time of its writing, the canon had not been formed. Cohen argues (4) that the Scriptures as a whole assume an intellectual posture as to their own interpretation and that this resides in depreciation of whatever is exterior to the Bible. Now it is a fact that the various writings may hold this view, but the scriptures as a whole do not have a view of themselves. These various writings were not gathered together fully until a few hundred years after they were written, so the writings never take a view of themselves as a whole assembled group. The exact process by which these books came to be known as authoritative is not known.

Who wrote these books and how were they preserved? For the conservative evangelical, these books were written by the declared authors: Moses wrote the first five books. Matthew, Mark Luke and John wrote the gospels, and Paul wrote many of the New Testament letters along with Peter and John. Historians and scholars take different views. According to LANE FOX (5) the earliest known authors are from the 8th Century B.C., known E (Elohist) from the northern kingdom of Israel, and later, J, (Yahwehist) from the southern kingdom. The actual earliest surviving documents are from about a century later and shortly after this, covenant ideas were added to J. Following the fall of the northern kingdom, the work of E was brought to the southern kingdom, and following the collapse of the south, most of the Old Testament material was gathered together and/or written during the period of exile by D, (Deuteronomist). Following the return to Jerusalem after the captivity, another source was added, P (Priest) when the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were added. The other two divisions, the prophets and the writings were selected out of a larger body of literature, some of which is mentioned in the Old Testament itself: The book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21 v 14), the book of Jasher, (Joshua 10 vl3), the book of the Acts of Solomon, (I Kings 11 v 31), the book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the seer, (I Chronicles 29 v 29). Fifteen or more such books are mentioned in the Old Testament. LANE FOX argues (6), that some material was written as late as 160 B.C. He argues that there was much forgery and a wide range of documents, but as such, no Old Testament canon. This suggests a different approach and understanding of the Scriptures by these Jews than that of fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals today. The oldest surviving list of the Old Testament canon dates from A.D.170, from a Christian scholar, Melito of Sardis, who made a trip to Palestine in order to determine the order and content of the Hebrew Bible. Neither his order nor content agrees with our modern Bibles. LANE FOX also argues that there appears to be a wide diversity of meanings and emphases between translations and particular groups, of which we see evidence in various manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proto Masoretic and Masoretic texts. He argues that the debate about just which texts were holy went on well into the end of the first century.

LANE FOX (7) argues that Jesus treated the Scriptures as other Jews: the Law was most important, other texts were important but we do not know which. At this time, there were lots of debates about gaps in Scripture, and considerable freedom in their interpretation, much more freedom than the fundamentalist-s views held today. In fact, there were few if any principles of interpretation, and passages were sometimes taken out of context. Acts 1 v 20 itself gives us an indication of no known modern principles of interpretation being used in the quoting of Old Testament texts and their fulfilment in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus Himself accepted Jewish Scriptures as the Word of God. They supported His work and person via prophecy but did not control it absolutely. So, for example, there is no record of Jesus planning a New Testament, or instructing his disciples to write such a document. Neither did His communication of the gospel largely rely on Scripture, but rather on His own unique teachings, His parables and so on. So the idea that Scripture is our only guide for religion does not come from Jesus. Rather, it arises from a particular interpretation and tradition of viewing Scripture.

Paul received teaching from Christian followers within a year of Christ's death, and within twenty years, the Hebrew text became the Old Testament, though it took a while for a Christian interpretation of Ecclesiastes or Esther to be formed since they had no obvious relevance. Jude quotes books other than the Old Testament canon which we now use. The use of proof texts by Christians from the Hebrew texts widened, some of which were not considered authoritative, and it is perhaps for this reason that an Old Testament canon was formed. But the debate as to which was authoritative and which was not, continued into the 16th Century. (8).

Similarly, there is debate about the scope, authorship and writing order of our New Testament. Some have been and still are considered suspect, such as the letters to Timothy and the letters of Peter. The grounds for doubt arise from their sense of history, style of writing and doctrine. The earliest list containing only the books which we use appeared in A.D. 367, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Justin Martyr for example, argued for only the four gospels. Much discussion took place regarding the content of a canon in these early centuries. The books that we have are drawn from a larger collection of writings, such as another letter to the Corinthians, a letter to the Laodiceans, I & II Clement, and the Teachings of the Apostles. At the same time, there were a number of fraudulent documents around. However, an ecumenical council, in Carthage in 397 A.D., appears to be the first undisputed decision as to what was canonical. But even here, there was no central authority to decide the canon. The Syriac, Ethiopian, Greek Orthodox and others all issued various canons, despite great care being taken in deciding which was of the canon and which was not. The Old Testament apocrypha, a collection of thirteen books have at times been rejected and accepted by various groups. The reformers rejected them, but Luther considered them profitable. The Coverdale and Geneva Bibles included them, but the British and foreign Bible society, after much debate excluded them from it's Bibles in 1827, the American branch soon following suit. (9). The point I am emphasising is that this has been a much-debated human decision. The final canon that we know is not absolutely, clearly defined by God for us. In the main, one of the criteria seemed to be that any document other than that from an Apostle, was rejected, the Apostles having been eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Except of course Paul, who was one called out of time. For the fundamentalist, this helps to give authority to these New Testament books, but again, it must be remembered that these were human beings, prone to sin and error, (Galatians 2 v 11-21, Acts 15 v 36-40), and that the authorship of some of these books is disputed. The assumption is, certainly by modern fundamentalists, (because Scripture does not declare it), that the Apostles were, in effect, like the modern Pope, infallible in doctrine, therefore, their writings are infallible.

I am concerned to show at the moment that human beings, perhaps sincere believers in the church, have created the canon of Scripture over a period of time, with much debate, and with disagreement even amongst reformers and modern Protestants, and that there is no God defined canon. This raises the possibility that our present canon almost certainly excludes some inspired revelation, and that it may also contain some non inspired works. For this latter, one need look no farther than the end of Mark's gospel, (16 v 9-20), which though previously accepted as canonical is now prefixed by the statement '(the most reliable ancient manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16 v 9-20)'.

As we look at the Reformers we find a much more flexible approach to Scripture than the identification of a hard and fast canon. Luther denied the canonicity of James, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Hebrews and Revelation, (10). It did not matter to him if some of the writings of the Old Testament have passed through revising hands. 'What would it matter if Moses did not write the Pentateuch?' (11). He called James 'a right strawny epistle'. (12). Calvin doubted the Petrine authorship of II Peter and excluded the book of Revelation (13). Calvin places Psalms 74 and 79 to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes, far later than usually acknowledged. (14) Calvin argues, 'it is not by David...it is probable that many Psalms were composed by different authors after the death of David. (15). The point that I want to make here is that it is clear that the reformers, or some of them were ready to make some critical literary judgements on Biblical texts. The fact that these were made at all suggests that with fuller evidence, they may have gone farther along this line.

The canon then is like a room with contents of furniture and decoration from different dates to which we have agreed not to add or take away. The contents DO add up to a new whole, but they do not lose their individual natures. However, by placing them in association we alter our perception of the individual items. Nevertheless, the individual items still retain their meaning. In Scripture, whether in our particular canon or another, the Song of Songs is still a collection of erotic poetry. (16). But, by lumping the texts together there is a high chance that the community will misread them. (17) It adds another way of reading them which may quite often be wrong. Furthermore, as we have seen, scholars argue that the Bible documents are not in the main, primary sources. Rather they are an amalgam of previously written material, which are not necessarily accurate and later authors none of whom had a critical eye for accuracy or good method. They simply took earlier accounts as fact. (18)

THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.

Now Scripture declares an inspiration of Scripture. 'All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.’ (11 Timothy 3 v 16), and 'for prophecy never had it's origin in the will of man, but ‘men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' (II Peter I v 21). But, as we have seen, when Scripture appears to look at itself, it does not in fact have the canon of Scripture in view as we know it. This canon, this rule of faith was not formed until some considerable tine after these writings had been circulated and the authors themselves had died. As such, the Bible has no view of itself as a complete entity. Any writers commenting upon Scripture were referring to the Old Testament and possibly other documents.

The word for inspiration in the New Testament is Theopneustos, and means 'God breathed'. (19). Our question must be, what is the nature and decree of this inspiration? For example, does it extend to the very words, accents, vowels and punctuations? Some conservative evangelicals will insist that it does. They use a prophetic paradigm: As God inspired and breathed His Word into the mouths of the prophets such that they spoke God's Word without error, so in the same way. God inspired the Scripture writers. But in fact there are linguistic problems here, since in the Hebrew language, in the case of some Old Testament books, the vowels were not added until a few hundred years later as the language changed, more importantly, such a view leads to a mechanistic view of inspiration. Here the writers are not even penmen in God's hands, but merely pens. Now it does seem apparent that in some cases, God did give commands and statements by audible voice and so on, and in some cases they were written or commanded to be written down. For example, Numbers 7 v 89, Daniel 4 v 31, Exodus 3 v 4. But such a view of inspiration cannot account for the diversity of styles and accounts from Scripture writer to writer. The individual authors' style and personality can be seen to vary from person to person in the various books of the Bible. Neither is this God's normal way of working as indicated in Scripture itself. God does not dictate and dominate the person so that they are a mere puppet or automaton. God uses the individual's gifts and abilities.

STRONG, (20) outlines various views of inspiration. Some argue that it is a heightened sense of man’s natural powers, knowledge and insight. The fundamentalist will argue that, while it is true that man can aspire to nobler powers and insights, as regards religion, such insights are often corrupted by mistaken affections arising from his own corrupt nature. It is especially as regards God and righteousness before Him that the Scripture speaks of our corruption. Also there is a contradiction, since by such inspiration, men are supposed to have written the Bible, the Koran and other religious works. Since these books contradict one another on basic ideas, then one man has been inspired to utter what a second man has been inspired to pronounce false. Thus, they argue, we enter a realm of subjectivism, and the end result is that there is no objective reality independent of men’s opinions concerning these things. Ultimately, they argue, such a view of inspiration denies God, and elevates man to the highest intelligence. Another view, similar to the one above, argues that the religious perceptions of the believing writers were intensified and elevated by the Holy Spirit. Here, the writers, not the writings were inspired, and no objective truth beyond the believing writers ability to conceive and understand were communicated. Certainly, the fundamentalist will argue, there may be instances where the writers were illuminated in this way, but such a view is not sufficient to account for the revelation of new truths in the evolving nature of Scripture. The giving of a new truth by revelation is different not only in degree but also in kind.

If we are to propose a theory of inspiration at all, we must move to a more dynamic and interactive theory. I will suggest that firstly, we must hold that inspiration is not merely natural but a supernatural act, an immediate work of a personal God in or on a person or persons. This of course assumes the existence of such a God. Because of the way that Scripture is written, it is not as simple as God inspiring a single Scripture writer, but also those who compiled and selected the various works at various times. Secondly, the inspiration extends not only to the writers, but also to their writings. The degree and extent to which this takes place is not known. The writers themselves were sinners, and further corruptions nave entered over time and through copying and translation, but taken together, if we are insisting on an idea of inspiration, such writings would constitute a more trustworthy and sufficient record of divine revelation than mere human speculation. One analogy is that Jesus is both God and man. He is not a composite, or superhuman but both God and man. If we could have physically examined Christ we would have found nothing extra in his body to make Him more than a man, yet He was also God. His divinity exists alongside His Humanity. So too, we look at Scripture and find them written by ordinary, sinful men, and it is in many ways no more than an ordinary book, yet it is inspired. It has all the weakness and variability of a human work, yet it is the Word of God through which He communicates to us. In such a work, we would expect to find a broad and main unity and agreement be they in the canon or not. Thirdly, such writings would contain a human as well as a Divine element, such that the revealed truth is shaped and adapted to ordinary human minds, customs and cultures of the time. To describe such writings .is the Word of God then, is in some ways a misnomer. Rather, it is a joint work, of man and God, which would contain in some places, the literal words of God, as spoken by Him, audibly. The Bible could be seen as a collection of such writing, gathered together after much debate by various people, handed down, changed and sometimes uncertain in origin, being neither solely the work of God, nor solely the work of man, but a joint work. This view takes into account the Divine side of the Scriptures and the human side, and the customs, culture, limited knowledge and traditions of this human side in both the formulation and writing of Scripture together with the sinful nature of the writers. But this leads us on to our next theme, the inerrancy of Scripture.

THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE

The over emphasis of the God ward side of Scripture by fundamentalists, to the point where it is regarded as the ‘Word of God’ has led to a conclusion that the Scriptures are inerrant or totally without mistake. In fact, many who believe the Bible to be inerrant have never fully read it. Rather, it is a matter of faith, and logical argument based on presupposition. This logical argument goes something like this: -

It begins with the assumption that God is perfect, infallible and true. The idea that because God has inspired books they too must be perfect is essentially an idea of Greek origin, an idea that presents perfection as the essence of God. However, in Scripture, God is represented as personal and active. He can change his mind, regret what he has done, be argued out of positions chat he has already taken up and operates in a narrative sequence and not out of static perfection. (21). But this idea of perfection is an assumption for the fundamentalist, since it's basis is also implied from Scripture itself. For the fundamentalist, God is the Author of the Bible as a whole, that is, He is the author of the canonical books by the third person of the trinity of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. The conclusion from these two assumptions is that therefore, the Bible is perfect, infallible and true. This makes no allowance for the human element in Scripture writing, and has to be a mechanistic view of inspiration. But, it is a problem, with such detailed inspiration as inerrancy demands, to explain the variations of linguistic style of the writers, and the substantial variation between different manuscripts. For confirmation of this view however, the fundamentalist enters a circular argument: - the Bible says that God is perfect, infallible and true. If God is infallible and He inspired the Bible, then it must therefore be infallible also, and we know that this is true because the Bible says that God is infallible.

This then leads to two further conclusions: if an idea is consistent with the Bible, then the idea is true. If an idea is not consistent with the Bible, then the idea is false, because the Bible is perfect, infallible and true. But this connection between inspiration and inerrancy is a philosophical rather than a Biblical argument. Thus the Bible as inerrant frames the fundamentalist believer’s worldview. It is a global, underlying philosophy that underpins their outlook. That which is outside the framework is mistaken, false, corrupt or not particularly relevant. But, there is a sense in which the framework is not complete. Because there are vagaries, and because there are areas not covered by Scripture, the framework is extended. It is extended by common sense, by self-interest, by personal philosophies and worldviews outside the scope of Scripture and so on. In the area of guidance and worship, spiritual gifts may supplement or even contradict the Biblical framework, ' especially for those with a low tolerance of ambiguity. Nevertheless, it is felt by many that if one side of this triangle of perfection, truth and inerrancy with regard to Scripture fails, then all fails, therefore, there is much attention given to interpretation and harmonisation of Scripture. Theologically however, it is a closed system. Anything which threatens this view is either avoided or attacked.

How else then it is argued that Scripture in inerrant? There are further approaches: - One is an ascending argument which states that the historical accuracy of Scripture is so great that the theology must be true. Another is a descending argument which states that the theology is so marvellous and convincing that we can be sure it contains no error of any sort. Also, important people in Scripture testified that it was so. Jesus and the Apostles said it was so. If it is not, if the Bible contains error, then these people were wrong or not trustworthy. Here, personal loyalty is used to force people into a fundamentalist position. But, if a professor of mathematics gives mistaken directions, his professorship or sincerity is not in doubt; rather he has made an error. The fundamentalist will argue that it is different when we are talking about the Son of God, and reassert the infallibility of Jesus as a person and the Apostles when it comes to doctrine. In the case of Jesus, his manhood and his context of talking to a particular generation is ignored. But the fundamentalist believes the Bible anyway: these verses merely formulate his existing belief which he comes to through the personal and moral pressure of the fundamentalist community, and through a pressure to come to terms with and develop a framework for dealing with such existential issues such as death, finiteness and meaning.

Conservative evangelical attempts to prove inerrancy make little or no contact with Biblical or textual criticism. In these approaches, texts are studied to look for differences which indicate different authors, functions and traditions. Criticisms slay be raised such as those raised by Calvin on the Psalms, and questions relating to myth, function, formulation, customs, history, discrepancy and error are asked. It is through this sort of approach that the last verses of Mark are now suspect. The basic difference is that fundamentalists see Scripture as a unified whole, to be harmonised, whereas the critics see the writings as separate texts, with the differences being of interest. Our model of -inspiration puts us between these two views...the Bible is more than human, it has an element of unity because it assumes that a single person, God, inspired it, but, because of the profusion of documents, copies and the human authors and context in which they were written, we should be carefully critical, not only of which books we include in the canon, but of the content of those books. To move from the dogmatic position to maximal conservatism where say, MOST of Deuteronomy can be attributed to Moses or the date of an apparently Davidic psalm is 'near' to David's time is LESS satisfactory, because it is less honest and more prejudiced. The dogmatic position may merely become a concealed norm and evidence may be slanted in favour of those concealed norms.

THE HISTORY OF THE FUMDAMENTALIST VIEW OF INERRANCY

Where has this particular fundamentalist view of inerrancy come from? What is its history? The establishment in the reformation of ‘Scripture only’ effectively cut off any philosophical theology or philosophical dialogue with the world, and it was this that made way for the birth of full fundamentalism. (22) Indeed, within this framework, people have believed that the Bible is true for many reasons, as illustrated in the Westminster Confession. Such reasons include the testimony of the Church, the heavenliness of the themes, the effectiveness of the doctrines, the majesty of the style, its harmony and scope, and the way in which reveals the way of salvation. But the Hodges and B. B. Warfield in Princeton in the nineteenth century were maintaining a high Calvinist view against a background of rising Biblical criticism. Hodge took what the Bible said about inspiration to be a doctrine. When faced with the question, 'How do we know it is true?’ Hodge declared this to be beyond theology, and anything purporting to be a theology should accent this without question. However, he did not insist that inspiration was congruent with inerrancy. But Warfield did not allow this relaxed approach to stand, possibly because of perceived threats from Biblical criticism. Warfield argued that it was inerrant because it was inspired. This was a doctrine designed to prevent those who were already fundamentalists from abandoning that position. It was worked out by and for the conservative evangelical position. It does not give reasons to the non conservative why Biblical inspiration should be essential, apart from the fact that the Bible says so, which is a proof only for those who already hold the fundamentalist position. It is a circular argument because it is meant to be. The outsider can break in only by abandoning his objections and accepting entirely the worldview of those within. Equally, it forms a tight circle around existing believers...they can escape only at the cost of a deep and traumatic shattering of their entire religious framework. This is exactly what is intended. Nevertheless, it is little known among conservatives that Warfield asserted that Biblical inspiration was not an essential of Christianity. (23)


PROBLEMS WITH INERRANCY

There are a number of problems for the view of inerrancy. I have already indicated that Scripture has no view of itself as a canon, and that this view of inerrancy demands a detailed inspiration that requires a mechanical, deterministic approach contradicting the varieties of style Chat we nave between the Scripture authors. To have suggested that a device using personal loyalty is used to persuade people of this view, and that the argument is philosophical and circular rather than Biblical. To these we may add another question. If sin is as pervasive as fundamentalists make out, does it affect the authorship and inerrancy of the Bible? According to fundamentalists, not at all. (24). Arguments are put forward to counter this suggestion, namely, that God held hack the effects of sin in the writers as regards their writings. Again, this is a logical, philosophical argument, rather than a Biblical one. It is logical once one accepts certain suppositions and wishes to maintain inerrancy. But, if this modern view of inerrancy is correct then there can be no mistakes in Scripture whatsoever, whereas the view of inspiration that I nave proposed earlier allows for mistakes, indeed, we would expect some mistakes. There are indeed many detailed passages which create problems of coherence for Scripture.

Compare:

I Samuel 17 with II Samuel 21 v 19 and I Chronicles 20 v 5. Just who DID kill Goliath?

Matthew 27 v 9 puts Jeremiah for Zechariah.

Was Jairus's daughter dead, or nearly dead? Matthew 9 v 18 with Mark 5 v 22,23 and Luke 8 v 42.

When did Jesus cleanse the temple of moneychangers? Was it early in His ministry as John 2 v 13, or late as Matthew 21 v 12, Matthew 11 v 15-17, Luke 19 v 45,46? To insist on two cleansings is to ridicule the gospels as literary works.

A comparison between Genesis 1 and 2 reveals two different accounts of the order of creation.

There are contradictory accounts about how Judas Iscariot died. (Acts 1 v 18, Matthew 27 v 5).

There seem to be many contradictions between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles:

Compare:

II Samuel 3 v 4: 1,700 horsemen, 20,000 foot taken by David.
I Chronicles 18 v 4: 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen, 20,000 foot.

II Samuel 10 v 6: 20,000 + 1,000 + 12,000 mercenaries of Ammonites.
I Chronicles 19 v 7: 32,000 chariots + army of King Maacah.

II Samuel 10 v 18: 700 charioteers + 40,000 horsemen slain.
I Chronicles 19 v 18: 7,000 charioteers + 40,000 horsemen.

II Samuel 24 v 9: Israel 800,000, Judah 500,000 (census).
I Chronicles 21 v 5: Israel 1,100,000. Judah 470,000.

II Samuel 24 v 24: 50 shekels (price of threshing floor)
I Chronicles 21 v 25: 600 shekels.

I Kings 4 v 26: 40,000 stalls for chariot horses.
II Chronicles 9 v 25: 4,000.

I Kings 7 v 26: 2,000 baths (Capacity of the sea.)
II Chronicles 4 v 5: 3,000 baths.

There are problems too with fitting the stories to the facts. Even the most ardent Creationists tend to admit to some kind of gap in the genealogy of Genesis, by talking about a MINIMUM of 1655 years from Adam to Noah's flood. (25). There are problems with fitting the creation account into modern scientific knowledge. There are problems finding evidence of a major poll tax at the time of Christ's birth, or that people had to travel for such a tax. In other words, the Scriptures do not seem to fulfil the two commonly accepted definitions or requirements of truth, namely, a coherent internal system, (there are contradictions), and correspondence to facts.

Such contradictions and difficulties have long exercised the minds of believers, and, in the face of such problems, another approach was used by fundamentalists, which is that of declaring that the Scriptures were inerrant as originally given, but that through time, via copying, some corruptions have crept in. In theory, this allows for some space in the exceptionally rigid doctrine held by Warfield. In practice, Evangelicals regard that to criticise one part is to affect the whole. But some flexibility in translation means that 'we are delivered from the paralysing fear that if one single discrepancy should found in Scripture we should have to abandon all belief in it's authority.’ (26). BUT, no actual instance of error is permitted. This 'flexibility' has no effect other than to avoid the psychological consequences entailed if complete inerrancy was affirmed as an absolute doctrine. (27). Other problems with this idea of Inspiration as originally given are that it excludes as far as possible any active role of church tradition in the formation and preservation of scripture. Also, in fundamentalism, there is practically no awareness of original texts at all. Finally, the original inspired documents will never be found, so the position cannot be disproved. Lane Fox (28) argues that this idea of reconstruction of the original texts is strongly present in non-historians. But the starting point for such a quest is the late Masoretic text, which itself excludes earlier alternatives and is only one arbitrary system, which has been hallowed by use, not by history. The New Testament texts do not take us beyond variants and alternatives a hundred years after the gospel's likely date of composition.

BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

What then is the attitude by fundamentalists to Biblical scholarship? The believer is encouraged to read only 'sound' literature, that is literature which expounds and conforms to the conservative evangelical point of view, very often, for the Calvinist at least, older literature from the puritan period, or eighteenth century. The attitude to literature is similar to the attitude taken to speakers at meetings, who are vetted one way or another by the leadership to allow only 'sound' speakers. Thus, non-conservative books should not be read. (29), and non-conservative, speakers do not enter the pulpit. There is, of course, modern conservative literature, and this particularly, serves the function of giving assurance. It displays the fact that there are people full of erudition about Biblical matters who are yet fully reliable in their evangelical belief. Yet, though these people may write for conservative encyclopaedias and so on, and write on a conservative view, they may not themselves hold those views, though this is not made plain. In this sense, the function of the literature is propagandistic. This is confirmed by the reluctance of fundamentalists to read other non-conservative literature. (30) Fundamentalism generally has a tendency to fall back onto dogma, which is not respected by scholars. (31) Interestingly, the main area of study is not the Bible, but environing fields, like archaeology and customs. Problems of the Bible are approached from outside the Bible. Thus, a religion that depends exclusively for truth on the Bible turns increasingly to non-Biblical sources for verification. The reasons for this include unwillingness by fundamentalists to be involved in Bible Criticism. Conservatives argue that the Bible truth is betrayed into the hands of scholars who arrogate to themselves the right to decide what is truth and what is not. But there is a lack of polemic against fundamentalists because they are considered weak. (32)

The idea that archaeological findings confirm the Bible is a propagandist use of archaeology and conceals the limits of what can be demonstrated by these means. All archaeological finds have to be interpreted. Fragments of clay, and diggings in ancient cities all have to be interpreted. The archaeologist, who is interested in the Bible, interprets his findings within that framework, but it may be hopelessly wrong. Claims have been made before that findings represent Biblical locations and times, such as those made by Leonard Wooley in the 1920's regarding Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham's town, with, beneath it, evidence of the flood in a large clay deposit. But qualifications and retractions had to be made with later investigation. Wooley was sympathetic to the Bible stories, and they framed his interpretation of his findings, which later had to be modified. Archaeologists today are more cautious. The approach of fundamentalists to archaeology is to stop criticism before it starts. In this controversy, HISTORICAL evidence is more important than doctrine, because history is EMPIRICAL. So too with literary matters, such as styles, discrepancies e.t.c. Therefore, if the fundamentalist can show accuracy here, then there are implications for the more philosophical, doctrinal part's. Attitudes to history work out as follows: Historical demonstration is probabilistic, but conservative evangelical historical statements are not limited on the ground of their probabilistic nature. Conservative statements are put forward as fully reliable knowledge and they cannot be disproved except by the most final, coercive proofs. (33) BUT, when it comes to critical judgements of the conservative view from a historical perspective, these are regarded at best as HYPOTHESES, requiring final coercive proofs. Thus, conservative statements have to be fully disproved, whilst criticisms have to be fully proved. Similarly, the use of parallels in other near eastern cultures to those of the Bible is a precarious area. (34). The fact is that if the interpretation of the Bible is a matter of history, then the changes of interpretation and possibilities of history must be our destiny...there is no certainty to be had. (35). In fact, on the synoptic problem, conservative evangelicals have shown a marked slide toward the Biblical Critical position. (36)

One may, on recognising the hopelessness of the fundamentalist position try to follow the broad lines of fundamentalism. Here is a test though...How far is it distinct from actual fundamentalism? How far does it make clear to fundamentalists that a quite different understanding of the Bible has to be found? How far does it lead to a fresh theological explanation? (37)

THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

How then do conservative evangelicals interpret Scripture and what problems are there? As we have seen, their view of the Scriptures is part of a long tradition that results in emphasis of certain texts and the ignoring of others. The basis of their approach is philosophical rather than Biblical. The Scriptures themselves are seen as harmonious and perfect, implying a close connection between God and the text. In fact, though this is often denied, as we have seen, the only connection close enough is dictation, but this does no justice to the authors, to the contents or to God, who appears to lie and contradict. Fundamentalists argue that if there appear to be contradictions, and then we have not understood correctly. They view the canon as a coherent system, bringing each book into a new relationship with its neighbours which affect the perceived meanings of the texts, such that denial of the afterlife in Ecclesiastes is reinterpreted to a meaning within the context of the canon. This gives authority to the Bible as a whole, though originally, these were separate texts, scrolls and letters. With this idea of inerrancy as a foundation of interpretation, certain questions like: - Is this a Myth? Is this mistaken in historical fact? Is this passage generated not by external events but by problems in the inner experience of the church? DO NOT OCCUR. The framework of belief PRECLUDES certain questions like this. (38). Some argue that fundamentalists take the Bible literally. This is not so. Swings occur from literal to figurative to ensure inerrancy. Sometimes this is done badly, as in certain interpretations of Genesis; it's genealogies, and the gap theory. This is just one technique used to preserve inerrancy and harmony of interpretation. The quality that distinguishes a Pastor of a fast growing conservative church..is..delving into the Bible relating one passage to another...to find consistency, unity and continuity in it. (39) This is a process called harmonisation, and because Scripture is seen as inerrant, a great deal of harmonisation is required, sometimes to the point of absurdity. It is a major activity to preserve inerrancy.

The techniques of harmonisation include:

a) Multiple events: Two cleansings of the temple for example to explain why in John's gospel, the cleansing is early on in the ministry of Jesus as opposed to later in the other gospels.
b) Literal/figurative: Switching from literal to figurative and vice versa to accommodate difficult passages.
c) Gaps/telescoping: As in the Genesis account to cope with various scientific and other difficulties.
d) Vagueness: For example the idea that the varying accounts in the gospels shows the genuineness of the authorship. Vagueness is related to the raising of critical suggestions, which are usually dismissed in a vague way as though not too important. Whereas in fact, they are very important to a position of inerrancy, and the onus is on those who hold this position to explain them in detail.

Scripture is also graded by evangelicals. Though it is all considered to be inspired, and inerrant, some parts are more important than others, say for example, Romans is more important or relevant than Ecclesiastes. However, if NON-evangelicals do grading, then it is considered to be downgrading: a scholar setting up his own judgement against God.

When it comas to teaching the bible, the only way to maintain evangelical thinking is to avoid non-evangelical thinking. As already mentioned, recommended books are essentially propaganda, and only speakers ‘approved’ by the leadership are permitted to speak. The teaching method is essentially didactic, that is, meant to instruct, though often, Scripture is not even opened up and explained, but rather, conservative evangelical ideas are repeated.

When it comes to miracles and the supernatural, miracles are confined to a zone identical with the Bible, except for modern displays of 'gifts'. Any 'miracles' outside this zone are depreciated as superstition. Thus, conservative evangelicals' use of the supernatural is occasionistic and opportunistic. (40). Sometimes, where scientific knowledge is used as the basic dictum, miracles are either got rid of or down graded to a naturalistic explanation. They are de-miracularised. (41). On other occasions it can be stated that anything can happen, everything is supernatural. But the problem here is that there are no rules for governing this kind of explanation. (42). If God could put Jonah in a large fish for three days, and even prepare this fish, he could give Jonah a writing desk and chair in the whale while he was there.

Critical approaches to Scripture of the kind that I have just outlined are rarely if ever entertained by Fundamentalists, and they are dismissed largely as the product of sinful minds.

Although Calvin is often quoted as having the basis of a more critical approach to Scripture, in fact he had a very high opinion of Scripture, as John Murray shows. (43). He was certainly aware of apparent contradictions in Scripture, and he was concerned with them because of his high view of Scripture. The mistakes he points out, such as the wrong name in Matthew 27 v 9, and errors of number as in Acts 7 v 14-16 with Genesis 23 v 8—18 he largely assigns to errors of transcription. (44). Calvin, as his Institutes of religion show, was certainly against the idea of the church judging Scripture in the way proposed by liberals. (45). The authority of God resides in the Scriptures rather than the church for Calvin, as one would expect of a Protestant reformer. Murray concludes that Calvin's approach was similar to that of John Owen which I outlined in an earlier chapter. Calvin distinguished between an authority that was intrinsic to Scripture and our persuasion that Scripture is authoritative. The Scriptures carry their own evidence as to their authorship, but the perception of this evidence proceeds only from the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart. Therefore, says Murray, faith in the authority of Scripture is not established until we are indubitably persuaded that God is its Author. The highest proof of Scripture is always taken from the character of God, and we know that the Scriptures are from God via the internal testimony of the Spirit. There is no authority higher than God, and He appeals to no higher authority, rather He is a sufficient witness to Himself, and there is, says Calvin, Owen, Murray and other fundamentalists, ample evidence in the Scriptures themselves that God is the Author. But men will give no credit for the authority of Scripture unless it is sealed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. (46).

To state the argument again, Calvin argues that Scripture evidences itself to be from God like coloured objects evidence their colours. (47). Owen argues that Scriptures evidence themselves to be of God like light evidences itself, requiring no further proof. Murray argues that Scripture has a special, divine quality by reason of it's inspiration, (48), and faith in the authority of Scripture as God’s word rests in the perfections inherent in Scripture by reason of this inspiration by God, and is elicited by the perception of these perfections (49) via the internal operation of the Holy Spirit. It is reasonable to ask then, just what are these evidences? What qualities are we to perceive that will evidence God’s authorship? They are those which I have already outlined in an earlier chapter: -

i) The holiness, power, majesty and knowledge of God in Scripture.
ii) The sublimeness, mystery, scope and heavenliness of the subject matter.
iii) The efficacy of the doctrines to move and save people.
iv) It is still applicable and relevant despite it's age.
v) Despite it's diverse styles it has unity and authority.
vi) Despite its many authors and lengthy period of writing, it has a harmony, symmetry, agreement and consent.
vii) Its prophecy was accurately fulfilled.
viii) Its doctrines are confirmed by miracles and signs.
ix) It has survived attempts by men to eradicate it.

Now some of these are simple evidences. They are not of the same nature as light or colour being self-evidencing. They require examination, reason, logic selection of evidence, and balancing of argument. It is true that certain of these qualities may seem more apparent to a person at certain times more than at others and so on. But they are not simple and self-evident. Neither do they necessarily prove divine authorship. The fact that the Scriptures have been preserved does not necessarily prove that God is their Author. They may have been preserved for reasons other than this. Neither does its subject matter, or continuing relevance, or the fact that it still affects people constitute definite proof of authorship.

What then if you are not persuaded of these evidences, as many are not? According to the fundamentalist, this reveal? Your sin. According to Murray, 'when we bring a SOUND mind it compels our submission and obedience.’(50). If we are thinking rightly, we cannot but submit to and obey Scripture. The fact that we are not submitting or do not perceive these evidences as compelling does not mean that the evidence is weak, or that or that Scripture is not what it claims to be, but that we are not thinking correctly, are unwise, unsound in our thinking and sinful. This obviously has a powerful effect on the sincere fundamentalist believer who is plagued by doubt. He is directed not to examine the evidence, but to examine himself and presumably seek a stronger faith and freedom from doubt by confessing the sin of unbelief. 'The effect of sin is not only that it blinds the mind of man and makes it impervious to the evidence, out also that it renders the heart of man utterly hostile to the evidence. (51). In this way, many fundamentalists dismiss critical approaches to Scripture and doubts as regards it's authorship: they examine themselves or dismiss others who take this approach as blind, sinful and mistaken, because their minds have not been enlightened to perceive that God is the Author of Scripture.

I have sought to lay the axe to the root of the tree of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism argues for a very tight notion of inspiration, whereby every word is God breathed and as such, because God is perfect, there can be no errors in scripture, which then forms a closed authority for faith. I have tried to show that there are problems with this view. The arguments have been out forward very briefly and inadequately, but I hope, give us a flavour of the sorts of problems that the worldview of fundamentalism faces. If we wish to accent the idea of inspiration for writings such as those in Scripture, then we must argue for a looser view of it, which does not demand such an absolute connection with inerrancy, but which allows for the fallibility, social historical context and uniqueness of the writers as Strong suggests. We must also recognise that the writings that make up our Bible have been ordered in a particular way and selected to form a rule of faith by a church that is itself fallible. The content of Scripture itself seems to demand this softer view of inspiration. Before I move on to other perspectives as regards gifts, I want to look a little more at the area of the fundamentalist system and then move on to a study of what some fundamentalists really believe about gifts.
CHAPTER EIGHT REFERENCES
1) COHEN, E.D. (19S6) 'The mind of the Bible believer' Prometheus Books. New York. p.10.
2) BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SCM Press. London. p. 36.
3) COHEN, E.D. (Ibid) p.50.
BARR, J. (Ibid) p.1.
4) COHEN, E.D. (Ibid) on. 57,58.
5) LANE FOX, R. (1992) 'The unauthorised version. Truth and fiction in the Bible.'. Penguin. London.
6) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) pp.88-100.
7) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) pp.116-118).
8) LAME FOX, R. (Ibid) p.123.
9) ELWELL, W.A. (Ed) (1934) 'Evangelical dictionary of theology', Marshall Pickering. p1l40.
10) STRONG, A.H. (1907) 'Systematic Theology' Pickering and Inglis, London. p.238.
11) STRONG, A.H. (Ibid.)
12) STRONG, A.H. (Ibid) p.236
13) STRONG, A.H. (Ibid) pp. 236-237.
14) BARR J. (Ibid) p.135.
15) CALVIN, J. (1847) 'Commentaries on the Psalms'. Calvin Translation Society. Edinburgh.
16) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) pp.157, 158.
17) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) p.155.
18) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) pp. 161-174
19) VINE, N.E. (1940) 'An expository dictionary of New Testament words’ Oliphants. London.
20) STRONG, A.H. (Ibid) pp.202-212.
21) BARR, J. (Ibid) p.277.
22) BARR, J. (Ibid) p.182.
23) BARR, J. (Ibid) pp.260-266.
24) BARR, J. (Ibid) p. 178.
25) WHITCONB, J.C. (1988) 'The world that perished’. Baker. p.55.
26) BARR, J. (Ibid) p.54.
27) BARR, J. (Ibid) p.55.
28) LANE FOX, R. (Ibid) p.156.
29) BARR, J. (Ibid) pp. 121-122.
30) Ibid. p. 23
31) Ibid. p.127
32) Ibid. pp. 128-132.
33) Ibid. p.93
34) Ibid. pp. 135-138.
35) Ibid. p.153
36) Ibid. p.143.
37) Ibid. o.l57.
38) Ibid. p.51.
39) COHEN. E.D. (Ibid) p.48.
40) BARR, J. (Ibid.) p.239.
41) Ibid. p.245.
42) Ibid. p.253.
43) MURRAY, J. (1979) 'Calvin on Scripture and Divine sovereignty'. Evangelical Press.
44) Ibid. pp.28-29.
45) CALVIN, J. (1989) 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' Translated by H. Beveridge. Eerdmans. Michigan U.S.A. I vii 1. pp. 68-73
46) MURRAY, J. Ibid. pp.44-48.
CALVIN, J. Ibid. I vii 4 p.71.
47) CALVIN, J. Ibid. I vii 2 p.69.
48) MURRAY, J. Ibid. p.49.
49) MURRAY, J. in WILLIAMSON, G.I. (1964) 'The Westminster confession of faith for study classes.'. Presbyterian and Reformed publishing Co. Ltd. p.8.
50) MURRAY, J. (1979) Ibid. p.50.
51) MURRAY, J. in WILLIAMSON, G.I. Ibid. p.8.

This article may be quoted for non-commercial and personal use in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without the express permission of the author. It may be quoted for non-commercial study purposes, dissertations e.t.c., providing that the quotes do not amount to a complete chapter of the new study or paper, or more than 25% of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

With regard to commercial publication, all rights reserved. In this regard, no part of this article may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author.

Copyright 2000-2007

A CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM AND CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS

AN OUTLINE CRITIQUE THE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST SYSTEM

This study forms chapter 9 of the full version of 'An introduction to spiritual gifts'

This study is only an overview, in order to get something of the flavour of the major criticisms and observations concerning fundamentalist theology, the fundamentalist system and the fundamentalist believer. Having spent twenty-five years in a Calvinist fundamentalist environment I support most of the following observations. The arguments are only briefly presented here since it is not the purpose of this study to examine at large the structure of fundamentalism. I present the observations rather as a context for this study of the Calvinist's approach to spiritual gifts. Those who wish to examine the arguments and observations more fully should refer to the books listed at the end of this chapter for further reading.


FUNDAMENTALIST THEOLOGY

What sort of theology is created by a system that depends upon the inerrancy of Scripture? Fundamentalists do indeed have a theology but: -

a) It is a fossilised theology based on l8th Century revivals and the conservation of l9th Century Calvinism. But, because of discoveries and insights gained since these times, changes have taken place as regards the approach to Scripture by scholars. The reformers were not aware of these discoveries, and created an integrated system of theology which at the time was appropriate and made sense. But WE are aware of these discoveries of literature, archaeology and science. If then we still hold to certain of the reformers views, we are DIFFERENT from them, because we have knowledge that they did not possess. (1). It is like us holding to the notion that the earth is flat or that that sun goes round the earth. At one time, these seemed plausible, but new evidence has caused us to abandon or modify these ideas. If the reformers were sincere seekers after truth, I am certain that they would reappraise and modify some of their views in the light of subsequent discoveries.

b) The older theologies required a thoroughly worked out system, with interdependent parts carefully stated and worked out in detail, such as the Westminster Confession of faith. Many groups within modern fundamentalism, including Charismatic groups, merely pick out parts of these systems and have no concept of interrelatedness. Rather, adherence to vital, nodal points is required as tests of orthodoxy. (2). But the claim that the theology is orthodox must be questioned when the holistic, systematic interrelatedness of earlier systems is abandoned. It would have bean unthinkable at the tine of the composition of the Westminster Confession to merely extract certain features and leave others. Rather, the whole works together. (3). But in much fundamentalism, elements of doctrine are conserved in such a way as they have to be affirmed, even though that doctrine may not play a great role in the life of the believer, such as for example, the virgin birth of Christ. One of the functions of this doctrine is to act as a sign of the correct conservatism of the believer. This process is called formalisation.

c) Claims of orthodoxy are emphasised by fundamentalists, who trace a line of thought back to the reformation and to the early church fathers. But claims of orthodoxy must again be questioned. As with documents like the Westminster Confession, only certain parts of the theology of these people are selected. Augustine's emphasis on justification by faith for example. But other, more Catholic ideas adopted by Augustine are ignored. So when appeals are made to certain historical figures, there is a selection of ideas and doctrine, such that some aspects are emphasised and others ignored. Similarly, they may appeal a line from Athanasius and his doctrine of the incarnation and the trinity, but ignore the integrated ideas that went with it, including the priesthood, liturgy and vestments. For similar reasons, there is a break with orthodoxy when using documents like the Westminster Confession, but not only because of selective use of passages and loss of integration. There is also a different purpose. This document was drawn up to be imposed upon every person in England and Scotland by the state, but it is not used in that way by fundamentalists today. Not only is its integrated approach ignored but it is used for a different purpose than that for which it was intended.

d) It is inactive. There is no new work for theologians to do other than conservation of ideas brought out in the reformation, revivals and nineteenth century, and their reiteration. There is no progression of theology other than a reframing of it for today's world. Thus: -

e) There is no challenge to the institutions, assumptions and traditions of fundamentalism except within it's main framework of belief. Forms of church service may be changed, so that choruses are sung as well as hymns, or something similar; methods of evangelism may vary, but basic assumptions about the nature and interpretation of Scripture are not addressed. In this sense it is totally complacent and lacks self-criticism. (4)

f) Because of it's views on the authority and inspiration of Scripture, and the belief that it's interpretation is correct, preserving a long line of pure Christian thought and doctrine against the error, corruption and heresy of liberal and Roman Catholic thinkers, it has no conception of a catholic community of theological thinkers in discussion. It insists that the one question of theology is Scripture authority. (5). There is little understanding of what non-conservative theologians think and no incentive to find out. (6)

g) As regards the Lord Jesus Christ, whilst fundamentalists acknowledge that Christ is both God and man, the emphasis falls heavily on the God-ward side. He is God walking about and teaching in a man's body. Any approach that starts out seeing Jesus as a man falls under suspicion from fundamentalists and tends to be rejected, or qualified with a stronger assertion that He is God. (7). Jesus becomes more like God giving out eternally correct information through a human mouth rather than a God/man speaking under the conditions of his time and situation... he is made into a superhuman and inhuman person. (8). One of the effects of this is to infer the downgrading of the suffering, pain and anguish of Jesus.

h) With regard to Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, there is a shift of emphasis, away from orthodoxy, intellectualism and absolute doctrinal correctness, with the coldness and formality that these imply, towards a personal experience of God. (9). There is in fact the potential for conflicts with Scripture via the 'inspired gifts' of tongues, prophecy and so on, but since there is less emphasis on the intellectual side of Scripture and the formulation of a systematic theology, such conflicts, unless very obvious, may not be noticed. Also, grading takes place, where the Scripture is seen as pre-eminent over displays of gifts in terms of authority.

i) The introduction of New Translations may force ecumenicity on fundamentalists, especially with loss of the A.V.; There is greater awareness of contradictions between sources of Biblical documents. Thus, there is a contradiction in dates as regards the Israelites time in Egypt before the Exodus between Paul quoting the Septuagint in Galatians 3 v 17 and the references in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Masoretic text. (Genesis 12 v 4, 21 v 5, 25 v 26, 47 v 9). Differences between source documents and the exact rendering of words force openness to alternative interpretations to the protestant evangelical one.


THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL SYSTEM

Having looked at problems with the foundation of fundamentalism on the idea of infallible Scripture, and having looked at some broad aspects of the theology it creates, I want to expand on some of the facets and criteria for this group as follows:
Contrary to many views fundamentalism does not rest:
in simplism.
in concreteness of approach.
or in intolerance of ambiguity. (10)

1) The fundamentalist system consists of themes of separation and alienation of believers from the surrounding world, from modern theology and from modern Bible study methods. Anything perceived as threatening to the fundamentalist ideology is to be avoided and/or criticised. In mentioning to certain fundamentalists that I was reading ' Fundamentalism' by James Barr, which is critical of fundamentalism, I was reminded by them that this was 'dangerous'. The fundamentalist position often consists in a depreciation of whatever is exterior to the Bible in their interpretation.

2) There is in fundamentalism a characterisation of the believer as chosen by God in His sovereignty, and that those who do not share this believer's worldview are not really true Christians. Fundamentalism tends to argue that fundamentalism is the one true faith, and those who embrace other Christian systems are false Christians. But, this basis of faith in Scripture alone is not sufficiently coherent to maintain one interpretation or faith. Other fundamentalist groups also hold to inerrancy and singleness of Scripture, such as the Christadelphians. The authority of fundamentalism fails to prevent the emergence and growth of numerous and violent contradictions within it's own scheme. This is because of the vagueness and gaps present in Scripture and the variety of traditions brought to its interpretation.

3) There is in fundamentalism an emphasis away from benefits and rewards in this life, and towards the life to come, when God will judge all things and complete fairness will be introduced. Thus tolerance of dissatisfaction, compliance to the status quo and lack of criticism is engendered. It is accepted that some things are not fair now, but rather than change them, an appeal to a better life to come with humble acceptance of one's lot now is made.

4) There is a negative characterisation of the individual person apart from their condition as a believer. This may serve to confirm the beliefs of those who have low self esteem that their self estimation is right, and that the gospel message is true by reason of it's accurate diagnosis of their person. Sin is a valuable intellectual resource to fundamentalism, without it, it could not get anywhere, yet fundamentalists do not have a deeper or fuller awareness of sin than other aspects of Christianity. (11).

5) The conservative approach accepts older views, though it is selective. It seeks to preserve rather than rebuild, though within Charismatic groups there are progressive elements. The Charismatic influence is by no means limited to protestant fundamentalism; it is to be found in Roman Catholicism and liberal theological groups.

6) There is today, within fundamentalism, no social gospel. One reason that there is no interest in social action is because of eschatology...the doctrine of the last things. There is an expectation of things getting worse as we enter the last days before Christ's return. Fundamentalism has departed from its fore bears in this respect. (12)

7) There is an anti clericism, such that theological scholars and academics are often not recognised, and ordinary laymen with little or no theological training may get up and speak on the Bible. The qualities looked for by fundamentalists are conformity to fundamentalist practice, an accurate repetition of fundamentalist theology, and an absence of any scandal or overt sin such as continual thieving or overt sexual immorality. Academic qualities, if not conforming to fundamentalist ideas, are simply liberal and wrong as far as the fundamentalist is concerned.


THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM

How does the fundamentalist system maintain its influence? Many people like or want to believe that there is, somewhere, some book that is absolutely true and correct, and in European and American culture, that book is likely to be the Bible. But, does the Bible distinguish itself from this non-religious appetite for belief in a true book, or does it pander to those emotions? (13) We have seen that the approach to Scripture is worked out by and for the conservative position. It does not give reasons to the non conservative why Biblical inspiration should be essential, apart from a claim that the Bible says so, which is a proof only for those who already hold the fundamentalist position. It forms a tight circle around existing believers... they can escape only at the cost of a deep and traumatic shattering of their entire religious outlook. (14)

Furthermore, Conservatism is often not content to preach the gospel as a message of salvation. Rather, it may use the gospel as a weapon to attack man, undermine his security, overcome him and force him into submission to the conservative way of thinking. (15). The person who accepts such a faith soon finds that he has to live within a conservative evangelical community which also holds as essential a whole lot of other things and the personal dynamics of the group are used to enforce conformity with these opinions. (16). Conservatives present a benign persona of the Bible and of themselves as conservative evangelicals rather than fundamentalists, i.e., extremists. But there is a real danger of unbalanced and/or superficial teaching, within a system that we have already found psychologically binding.

There is also a depreciation of the world...(there is none good but God). That which is outside fundamentalism is presented as wrong, unhealthy, displeasing to God, e.t.c.. This is done partly by emphasising 'conversion' which distinguishes between 'real' and 'nominal' Christians, and partly by mistrust of others arising out of a desire for purity of doctrine. Having said that, of course, it is equally true that philosophies and assumptions essential to science and social science theories in turn may and sometimes do depreciate religion. Any world-view may be prejudiced, superficial and blinkered, including evangelicalism. The Apostle Paul analysed and carefully observed other religions, (Acts 17), so, for the fundamentalist, there, should not be intellectual abandonment of religions and schemes outside their own framework. But such abandonment there is, and it may serve to protect believers from experiences that threaten their indoctrination.

There can be a danger of what Cohen calls logocide. There is a danger of not adequately defining and qualifying words from Scripture. More dangerously, there may be too many meanings assigned to one word, which effectively destroys the word, and thus false interpretations of the gospel may be offered. Thus, in problem situations with the fundamentalist scheme, believers may be told that a particular word or phrase does not mean what it appears to mean, but has other meanings, spiritual meanings, literal or allegorical meanings or subtle shades of translation, or that the word may be used in a number of different ways, such that the word 'heaven' may mean the sky, the universe, or paradise.

There is a tendency to repress any tendency to think critically about one's beliefs. (17) This may be done by becoming involved in teaching others, and thus suppressing, one's doubts whilst reiterating beliefs to others. (18) Thus there is a stifling of inner apprehensions that the believer has nothing to see, hear, touch or handle or something better in lieu of these. (19). Indeed, the only TANGIBLE evidence of God in these groups is the Bible.

There is the use of Holy terror. Much has already been written on this elsewhere. A system has been created where there is fear of judgement or apostasy or punishment for in effect not conforming to the system. Whilst Holy terror may to some extent guard the basic ideas, the believer is not necessarily in an attitude of fear, but may be quite stable, balanced and happy.


THE CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL BELIEVER

What then is the believer like? Contrary to a lot of views, he in fact tolerates too much ambiguity. He lets artificially induced confusion reign where he ought to throw it off. As we have seen, the Scriptures do not offer a full and comprehensive guide to life. Rather, the believer is likely to make himself dependant upon a Pastor's rendition of arcane pseudo-issues to deal with practical matters when common sense should be sufficient. (20). Cohen, looking at sub conscious and unconscious factors considers that a process of dissociation induction takes place.

By dissociation is meant a process whereby a coordinated set of activities, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions become separated and function independently. (21). So, for example, information, experiences, and impressions are gestated unconsciously. Whilst it is true that we do apply implications and principles without fully understanding, nevertheless we want to keep reworking ideas that do not fit the evidence of our senses. The believer however is obsessed with God and God's thoughts as expressed in the Bible. All other thoughts are to be avoided or else there will be a deterioration of faith. The inner man is seen as full of corruption, and desires to rework ideas may be thought of as part of this corruption, a sin of doubt and or error regarding our attitude to the inerrant Scripture.

There is often intense group loyalty. The common convictions of the group come to dominate the individual. They do not interpret the Bible individually, but rather there is a reiteration of the normal fundamentalist interpretation. If the band of doctrinal purity is drawn tight enough, freedom and spontaneity can easily be lost. The loss of contact with non-conservatives produces an in-group mentality. (22). The social and religious organism has a closed mind. (23).

There is a general tendency to accept entirely from science it’s picture of natural conditions in the world and to manoeuvre the interpretation of the Bible in order to find a place for it's narratives within this picture. Fundamentalists do NOT accept science as the controlling arbiter of reality, ultimately, they go to the Bible, but for a simple account of the world and how things work, they accept the scientific picture and work within it. (24).

The life of the Christian is defined in such a way as to provide for the acceptance of the secularisation of the surrounding culture...and it's economic structure. (25). This includes preponderance to the right and extreme right, a tendency to sanction the capitalist system and laissez-faire approach to society, and to look with favour on the use of military power. The system becomes the ideological guarantor of the rightness of the existing social order, and it may be a focus of nationalistic feeling. (26). Whether these characteristics are. good or bad, right or wrong is not the issue here, they are merely pointed to as observed by others a prevalent within this group.

Needless to say, Barr is not without his critics, and perhaps the most scholarly is a work by Paul Ronald Wells called 'James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a new Liberalism'. This book is hard going, and uses many long and technical words and arguments, but ultimately, in many ways, it fails to address the main issues that I have outlined above, Wells argues that fundamentalism is consistent in its argument regarding similarities between the dual nature of Christ and the dual nature of Scripture, and that it would nave to be shown to be inconsistent to be disproved. Here again, the onus is thrown upon the unbeliever to disprove the fundamentalist’s position rather than the other way around. In any case, surely consistency and proof are different things. Wells argues that the fundamentalist aligns the authority of Christ and the authority of Scripture in the context of the revelation of the Father. Again, Wells argues that 'all Scripture' in II Timothy indicates an organic scriptural unity, and that they were viewed as one code, though he concedes that it is not possible to assert which books are in 'all Scripture'. He further argues that the distinction between the 'original inerrant manuscripts' and later faulty copies is a logical one, and that one can do theologians such as Warfield an injustice in implying too much calculated maintenance of Calvinism by his arguments. Wells maintains that the fundamentalist concerns about inerrancy are not to do with maintaining a series of doctrines or a system, but are rather about sin as a corrupting and God rejecting factor, however, as we have seen, too much emphasis on this leads to a position whereby all doubts and contradictory positions are sinful.

Wells argues that revelation has to be put in the context of the relationship of Divine and human elements, which are not neutral. These elements are in a context of the unity of the Spirit of God and the people of God. He argues that the real duplicity is between communion with God in the Spirit and the breaking of that communion in covenant breaking disobedience.
As God communes with man, the word of God to man takes on the use of created means such as words, language and consciousness. This communion is not known to man until it enters human form, the human factor, history and created reality being necessary for this communion to be realised. The human is not an appendage to the Divine. This leads Wells to consider the problem of the letter of Scripture and it's relationship to the Spirit. He argues that Calvin recognised the problem:

Inspiration can be spoken of in a fallible sense, whilst Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light - there must be a distinguishing mark of authority. Wells argues that Calvin transcends the duality problem by stating that the Spirit is the Author of Scripture and the Spirit is consistent with Himself. However we are merely in a philosophical argument here and we still have no evidence that Scripture really is what fundamentalists claim it to be. Once again, Wells cops out by insisting that fallen reason is no judge of the truth of the Spirit. Wells argues that the Spirit takes men's words into service so that these are divinely authorised to seal the covenant communion. However, this cannot be considered in a formal way as a problem of how the divine and human are united, and that such an undertaking would be an unwarranted attempt to penetrate the mystery of the Spirit's work. In other words, Wells can't solve the problem either, and of course, to try and do so is sinful. Wells then goes on to say that Scripture is fully a work of the Spirit, and of man in restored communion with God, and that therefore, the truthfulness Scripture cannot be considered in isolation from the work of the Spirit in the new creation. He argues that it cannot be declared as having errors by taking fallen human reasoning principles and applying them to the new creation, or by looking at correspondence with certain factors accepted as true, because this sets correspondence with present human knowledge as an authority over Scripture. Here again is the 'everything outside of scripture is sin' argument, counted with the idea of insight and elitism of those in communion with God. What then are the criteria of inerrancy according to Wells?

He argues that errancy/inerrancy cannot be established or disproved by human reason but through consideration of the scope of Scripture and its ability to restore man to communion with God!! It is not that factual correspondences are eliminated, but they are not central. In other words because Scripture affects some people such that they are drawn to God, converted and so on, we should accept Scripture as inerrant. By this argument, the Koran is true also. I find Wells' argument wholly inadequate. Beliefs are supported by correspondence with perceived reality, evidence, logic and so on, and discrepancies lead to doubt, lack of commitment, conflict, dissonance and unsettlement, promoting either a change of beliefs, or, if this is too costly, attempts at denying or reinterpreting conflicting evidence, redoubling one's efforts at increasing faith, or self condemnation. If acute enough, it would lead to rejection and rebellion. Wells then addresses the issue of how Scripture is to be interpreted. He argues that if we interpret Scripture empirically, then theological connections are severed and the Bible becomes merely a human document, and it's interpreter becomes trapped in socio/cultural relativism. However, Wells suggests that we place our interpretation in the context of the renewing work of the Spirit, thus seeking the material content of the renewing work of the Spirit in the human form of the text.

Notice that Well's view has not even addressed discrepancies in Scripture, or the issue of which books are in the canon. He has rather argued for a special insight, knowledge and understanding which is a privilege gained by the believer through his renewed and restored relationship to God. Once again then, we have certain assumptions, the building up of an internal logic system linked to pleasing God. Though raising some interesting points, I think Wells fails to dismiss Barr’s comments in full or to any great degree.

At best, what is supported is a softer view of inspiration, where boundaries between inspired and uninspired books are blurred and the extent of inspiration is not clearly defined.
The relational/communion perspective proposed by Wells allows for some mistakes via copying, translation and in the originals whilst still allowing for considerable unity, harmony, coherence and correlation to commonly accented truths. Human reason plays an important part in evaluating scripture: 2+2=5, is this true or false? 100 chariots or 1000? Both cannot be true. Scripture ideas are complex and human reasoning incomplete; therefore this entire issue is difficult and not absolute. This is the best that we can say.


WHAT THEN IS FUNDAMENTALISM?

Fundamentalism is a conceptual framework which structures and gives meaning to the world and Scripture in a particular way.

It centres primarily on the Scriptures, but the Scriptures, like facts, do not speak for themselves. We have to bring to Scripture concepts in order to categorise and make sense of the material that Scripture contains. Fundamentalism draws out one of many possible interpretations of Scripture for its system.

The theological meanings are created and maintained through a framework of interpretation where texts are graded, such that some are seen as more important than others, some are taken figuratively and others literally and so on. These meanings are also heavily influenced by a sense of tradition or orthodoxy that is selective in the information that it uses and which interacts with today's world, it's thoughts and experiences.

Thus for example it's strengthening of the idea of Scripture infallibility is a reaction to the rise of science and Biblical criticism. Fundamentalism is a collection of particular ideas and in that sense is an ideology, which is maintained and preserved by repetition and by avoidance of contrary ideas that are seen as dangerous and corrupting to the 'true' faith.



FURTHER READING:

BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SCM Press. London.
BARR, J. (1984) ' Escaping from fundamentalism' SCM Press. London.
COHEN, E.D. (1986) 'The mind of the Bible believer' Prometheus Books. Maw York.
LANE-FOX, 'R. (1992) 'The unauthorised version: Truth and fiction in the Bible'. Penguin. London.
WELLS, P.R. (1980) James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a new Liberalism. Presbyterian and reformed Publishing C o m p a n y. N e w J e r s e y.



REFERENCES

1) BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SC'M Press. London. p.173
2) Ibid. p.166
3) Ibid. p.163
4) Ibid. p.162
5) Ibid p. 163
6) lbid. p.165
7) Ibid. p.160
8) Ibid. p.171
9) Ibid. p.208
10) COHEN, E.D. (1986) 'The mind of the Bible believer' Prometheus Books. 'New York.
p.57,58.
11) BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SC! Press. London, pp.177-179.
12) Ibid. p.112-116
13) Ibid. pl39.
14) Ibid. p.260-266.
15) Ibid. p.225.
16) Ibid. p.266.
17) COHEN E.D. (1986) The mind of the Bible Believer' Prometheus Books, New York. p.240.
18) Ibid. p.245
19) Ibid. p.244.
20) Ibid. D.244.
21) REBER, A.S. (1985) 'The Penguin dictionary of Psychology' Penguin. London, p.208.
22) BARR, J. (1977) 'Fundamentalism' SCM Press. London, p.317- 319.
23) lbid. p. 323
24) Ibid. p.97
25) Ibid. p.99.
26) Ibid. p. 109-111.

This article may be quoted for non-commercial and personal use in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without the express permission of the author. It may be quoted for non-commercial study purposes, dissertations e.t.c., providing that the quotes do not amount to a complete chapter of the new study or paper, or more than 25% of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

With regard to commercial publication, all rights reserved. In this regard, no part of this article may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author.

Copyright 2000-2007

PERSONAL TESTIMONY

In 1967, a new minister, B_____ T_____, arrived at our local church, following the merging of the Congregational church with the local Railway Mission church. Many of my friends were impressed with this new Pastor, a young man in his early twenties from a working class background in Manchester and fresh from Bible College. He developed an instant rapport with the young people and the church youth club had grown in popularity as a result. It was about six months after his arrival that I started to attend the church youth club with my friends. Being a church youth club for the youth of the church, it was expected that those who attended the youth club should also attend church services on Sunday mornings. Though no pressure was put on me, I began to attend church, a little begrudgingly, and the youth club seemed worth it. I attended with an open mind, considering myself a Christian. Over a period of six months it became clear to me that the message being preached by T_____ was different from what I had heard before. These sermons were preached from the Bible passages and texts and it appeared that they were faithful to the verses and passages. The messages declared that I appeared to be in danger of a 'lost' eternity, because a just God demanded that sin be punished. I saw that my failures and disobedience against God demanded punishment and weighed against me when put in the balance. I saw the sword of God's justice hanging over me, rightly and fairly because I had offended a just and pure God. But I also saw the opportunity for deliverance by trusting in Jesus Christ to bear my deserved punishment on my behalf.

Through August and September of 1968 these things occupied my mind and I sincerely wanted to believe and trust in Jesus and 'asked Jesus into my heart' many times. But I was not sure of my deliverance. I began to change my behaviour; to shun things that I felt were displeasing to God and to seek to do those things which it appeared that God approved of. At that time I bought a gospel record by Little Richard, the Rock and Roll singer of the 50's. It still remains an excellent Gospel album of spirituals by the likes of Thomas Dorsey. Whilst listening to that album, and particularly the track ‘Peace in the valley', I had the experience of assurance of salvation. I knew that I was going to have 'peace in the valley some day' and that my sins were forgiven and that I was welcome by Jesus. I wept with joy.

By 1971, I was asked if I would serve as a deacon, considered at that time to be a role that lasted one year, and which was then open for election again by the membership. Deacons dealt with various odd jobs around the church, organising communion, and dealing with things like decorating, heating and so on. With some reservations, I agreed. During this time I developed a growing respect for Scripture, but it was not until two or three years after my 'conversion' that I considered the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. Various arguments coupled with an increasing faith and commitment moved me to an acceptance of Scripture as God's inerrant word, and eventually to a position of being a young earth creationist. I was encouraged to lead the occasional Bible study and to preach, and these meetings obviously met with some approval since I was asked to preach and lead again at various occasions.

At the end of 1971, T_____ received an invitation to pastor another church and after prayer and consideration, he accepted. He helped us in our search for a new Pastor and following a few months where the Diaconate looked after the church, H_____ M_____ arrived in January 1973. H_____M_____ was a different man altogether. A schoolteacher in his mid twenties, he had come up through the ranks of an independent reformed church, where he served as an assistant Pastor. The cold wind of an austere Calvinism crept into the fellowship. T_____ had taken a Calvinist stance, but H_____M_____ introduced a more intellectual and austere approach, and by now, I was already locked into a worldview that had Scripture as God's inerrant word: an authority that shaped my view of everything. It was no longer an easy thing to dismiss apparently Biblically based ideas. The young people's humour and flamboyance and the church's free and open structure was interpreted by H_____M_____, as he later admitted, as a form of Antinomianism: too free in it's approach to morals, having to much licence, and a stricter more disciplined approach began to take shape. H_____M_____ had also seen problems in the then emerging Charismatic movement. He had seen at least one church divided and broken up by charismatics and this had produced an acute wariness of ‘experiences’, of hand clapping, chorus singing, tongue speaking or other emotional displays. But he also introduced a reasoning, intellectual approach to Scripture, though like all fundamentalists, this intellectual approach was strictly within the bounds of fundamentalist Ideology. He wore a minister’s gown in the pulpit to help assert his authority and insisted that he be addressed as Pastor rather than H_____. A new church manse was built via member's contributions, the men of the fellowship built a baptistry, and the church was redecorated. A church constitution was worked through and adopted, with the authority of Elders being more firmly established together with the importance of respect for and submission to Elders in so far as they follow Scripture. An integrated doctrinal system took shape, based very much on the reformers like Calvin and the high Calvinists like Warfield and Hodge. The church became fully independent, not relying on any grants, or on special meetings relying on public donations, supporting it's own full time minister with provision for pension in retirement.

For me, over these first few years under H_____M_____'s ministry, Christianity became a burdensome affair. The joy and spontaneity disappeared, and a soberness and seriousness descended. The sense of community continued, as did a sense of achievement and growth. But it seemed to me that if things were bad, or we weren't enjoying our religion, then it was portrayed as basically our fault, our sin, our transgressions, our fallen human nature, because, after all, God's law was perfect, and delighted in by a righteous man. We did in fact descend into a legalistic form of Calvinism, one of its heights being the placing in the church hall of a poster of the Ten Commandments. Someone wrote at the bottom, 'the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life' (II Corinthians 3 v 6) and other similar verses.

This tension between freedom in the Spirit and the continual application of law which made me feel guilty and weak as a Christian continued to grow. As an antidote I began to read yet more fundamentalist Christian literature, and was particularly shaped at this time by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's writings, especially his Romans 5 volume. I had a number of meetings with H_____M_____ both by myself and with one or two other like-minded individuals, but the outcome was always the same: no real movement, an inability on my part to get him to see the problem, and his inability to see the difficulty. Tensions came to a head when a group of us went to an evangelical meeting called 'Come Together' in 1974. This was an American originated evangelism type of event. For the first time in a few years I saw people enjoying themselves in worship.

Those of us who went decided to meet together for prayer, both to get ourselves ‘right with God’ and to pray for the church. Ultimately, house meetings started each Friday evening, though it took some persuading to get the pastor to agree to these meetings. They ran for about two years, after which many of the young people who attended got married and moved a bit further away or went to university. These meetings were the source of almost a mini revival for some. There appeared to be at least one 'conversion', a sense of liberty and spontaneity, a deepening of spiritual fellowship and communion with each other and with God.

In 1977 however, through overwork and too much study, I suffered bouts of anxiety and severe depression, being suicidal a number of times. Though fundamentalism helped in some ways, it caused further problems at other levels. It insists that man is a sinner who can do nothing to save himself. Indeed, ALL ATTEMPTS AT SELF HELP ARE VIEWED AS INDICATIONS OF PRIDE, which only deepen sin. I was never the same again. As I emerged from my depression at the end of 1977, all the bitterness, frustration, anger, exhaustion and hurt boiled over. Just as I thought I had overcome, I was overwhelmed by these negative feelings. The church and H_____M_____ in particular became the focus of my venom, (rightly so I felt at the time). I resigned from the Diaconate, and left the church in early 1978, with my longsuffering wife and a close friend and his wife, who interestingly enough had gone through very similar depressive problems. We left very much under a cloud, portrayed as backsliders, divisive and so on. I ceased going anywhere. I was spiritually exhausted and in conflict. I could no longer bear to see Christian books on my bookshelves and they were all packed away.

During this time I perused a number of self help psychology books, and my slight interest in psychology deepened as some of these books provided positive help in remedying my low self esteem, guilt and lack of confidence. There is increasing evidence that reliance upon church or state or astrologer or some other external authority fosters a passive dependent lifestyle in which responsibility for personal growth is evaded. I decided that I had to take some of that responsibility on board, and I felt that no one had a right to deny me or anyone else access to views and arguments that in promising to help also promised to challenge me and my faith. If the faith was correct, it would stand up to any such challenges. I went through periods of rebellion and then through attempts to re commit myself to the Christian life. I remained unstable in mood and opinion. I went back to P____E____ Church for a while, but I was like a square peg in a round hole. Even though I still accepted the Bible as the word of God, I placed a different interpretation on much of the practical outworking of it. I was aware of much superficial thinking and hypocrisy. I also knew that I would only be accepted if I conformed. I recognised that my interpretation was my opinion, one view of reality, and I could not be dogmatic about it, or accept the dogmatism of others. I was beginning to become dissatisfied with the 'established church dogma'. When I presented cogent biblical arguments for my views, these were rejected with statements like 'you cannot prove everything from the Bible!' This from fundamentalists! I resented anyone telling me what books I should or should not read, and it was becoming clear that for them, lack of firm dogma meant lack of commitment. All the various Christian views were just competing shades of grey to me. Nothing was black or white. If things were not so certain, then I could not give a great commitment to them.

I began to study more widely. My first shock came on reading 'The mind of the Bible believer' by Edmund Cohen, a critical essay on fundamentalism by an ex fundamentalist. I had never read anything by an ex fundamentalist. All the people I knew who had 'left the faith' had either faded away or left in rebellion. Either way, it was considered that either they were 'backsliders' and would return eventually, or were never 'true' Christians in the first place, and had never really understood the doctrines of grace. Here, in Cohen’s book, for the first time for me, was an ex fundamentalist actively criticising fundamentalism. It was clear that he understood fully the doctrines of grace and had once embraced them. He was now clearly and eloquently rejecting them. Alongside this, the inadequacies of fundamentalist arguments for inspiration, inerrancy and authority of Scripture were becoming clear. I began to take the view that if Scripture really were the word of God, and that the doctrines I had drawn from it were correct, then they would stand up to human argument. It would not be possible for humans to effectively criticise God. What good would a faith be that cannot stand up to simple questions and criticisms?

However, Calvin, Owen, Luther, Packer, Young, Strong, Warfield, the Westminster Confession, Sword and Trowel and the rest were all failing to supply adequate arguments for Scripture inspiration and inerrancy. It occurred to me that rarely was this subject dealt with in fundamentalist circles. If it was, specious arguments were often given, which when combined with existing beliefs and commitments, seemed to be sufficient. Other books such as Lane Fox's 'The unauthorized version' compounded the problems. Inconsistencies in Scripture were outlined. The final nail in the coffin was James Barr’s 'Fundamentalism'. Further inconsistencies of Scripture and other problems in fundamentalism were outlined, many of which I readily identified with. The arguments against fundamentalism seemed unanswerable. Furthermore, fundamentalism seemed now to be a stagnant, dogmatic, right wing conservative authoritarian structure. It was censorious and closed to open debate.

The axe had been laid to the root of the tree of fundamentalism. Without the authority of inspired revelation in the form of Scripture, the entire edifice began to collapse. It was not a pleasant experience, and by 1994, I was in the middle of it. My whole orientation and identity appeared to collapse. I was not sure who I was, where I was going or why. I alternated between bitter resentment of fundamentalism and a longing to return to its cosy security. But every time I returned to it, the doubts and evidence against it soon caused me to reject it. Yet it was also a liberating experience, a freedom from constraints and standards which I no longer agreed with or which no longer reflected my views, or which no longer seemed to work.

I have mixed views of my fundamentalist years. They gave me a social life, companionship, purpose and probably kept me from some excesses for a while and from others completely. They encouraged a maturity, literacy, responsibility and self-discipline that have served me well. It has given me a sense of history (albeit selective) and a love of philosophy. It also caused me periods of guilt, low self esteem, a suspicion of others and probably a missing out of some pleasurable experiences. It signally failed to produce compassion and love. Whether it actually caused my anxiety/depression is hard to say. It probably would have happened with something else anyway. Fundamentalism saw me through those bleak days, but provided no real solutions. In the end, it stifled and prevented my growth, by constraining me to a position that seemed less and less tenable. It also put me into a position where I allowed myself to be manipulated by others, especially fundamentalist leaders. A tremendous sense of loyalty and fear, especially concerning God, was instilled by fundamentalism. To leave fundamentalism was to betray God, with all the guilt and fear that such a position creates. I think only exposure to critical literature and the collapse for me of fundamentalism's root of inspired revelation enabled me to leave without fear and guilt.

I think that the greatest difficulty is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that is not rejecting spirituality and God completely. Much of the critical literature out there does a good demolition job, but almost always fails to put anything in the place of fundamentalism. This is usually because such criticisms arise from a secular, rational base which tends to be agnostic and critical of religion and spirituality per se. Fundamentalism did awaken my spiritual interest and secular humanism existentialism has completely failed to satisfy my spiritual needs. Of course, each individual takes their own path and their path is not my path.

Ultimately, I took a University degree in psychology, which though profitable and interesting, in the main, it failed to meet any spiritual needs. However in the end, one branch of it, Transpersonal Psychology, took spirituality seriously. Authors like Ken Wilber and Roberto Assagioli proved to be immensely helpful in moving me on in a spiritually positive way. For you it may be different, but there IS spiritual life outside of Christian fundamentalism if you want it.

Another, more metaphorical account of my journey in and out of Christian Fundamentalism (and what happened next) can be found at http://pathstogod.blogspot.com/ in Chapter One - Voyages and Landings

Interested readers might also care to look at http://spiritualminded.blogspot.com/

This article may be quoted for non-commercial and personal use in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without the express permission of the author. It may be quoted for non-commercial study purposes, dissertations e.t.c., providing that the quotes do not amount to a complete chapter of the new study or paper, or more than 25% of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

With regard to commercial publication, all rights reserved. In this regard, no part of this article may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author.

Copyright 2000-2007