LEAVING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

Paul and the Damascus Road experience

2011-11-27T07:33:00.003Z

REIFICATION AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

REFICIATION

Reification refers to the projecting of the contents of a subjective experience to some sort of external existence, such that these contents are considered to have an objective, independent existence ‘out there’. It is to transfer something subjectively perceived and imagined into something that has an independent, concrete, objective existence. In spirituality it is a danger that we have to be constantly aware of. With the reification of an experience there arises a whole raft of burden of proof: If we say something like, for example, an angel, exists ‘out there’ then it is quite right that people ask should ask for proof, for evidence of it’s objective existence and it is reasonable for people to want to observe, measure and have such proof or evidence for the existence of this angel. However, not all mystics or those who have spiritual experiences claim such objectivity to their perceptions and experiences – they do not all insist that their experiences have an objective, independent existence ‘out there’. The Hindu teacher Shankara, for example, argued that such notions of objectivity are a mere projection on our part and that the contents of these experiences have no substance.

REIFICATION AND THE JUDEO/CHRISTIAN TRADITION

However, reification is the tradition within early Judaic/Christian thought. Thus, if a person had some sort of unusual, subjective experience whereby they had an unusual, transcendent experience whereby they saw, let us say, an angel, then this experience became interpreted as being an objective occurrence – it was considered that an angel literally appeared to them in objectively real, physical space ‘out there’ and communicated to them - as opposed to any idea of the person concerned having an internal, subjective image and sound arising in their minds. When Jewish people in the Old and New Testaments had unusual dreams or had visions or heard voices, the tradition was that they were often understood as objective visitations. The Judaic tradition did not merely say ‘I had an unusual dream’ or ‘I had an ecstatic experience whereby I went into a trance and heard a voice or saw certain images’. On the contrary, their traditional interpretation of such experiences was to reify the contents of these experiences to concrete objective reality. Thus, they would say: ‘God appeared and spoke to me in a dream’, or ‘When I was praying the Temple, an Angel appeared to me and gave me a command from God’ and so on.

REFICIATION AND TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE

Indeed, it must be said that some mystical or transcendent spiritual experiences do appear very Real. This is because when we experience them, we operate in a different and non-usual mode of awareness. Normally, we are active in the way that we interpret our experiences and perceptions of the world – we actively categorise, conceptualise, label, systematise, synthesise and place values on our experiences in order to make sense of our world so that we can make effective predictions concerning outcomes and thus function and survive in the world. This means that to a great degree our experiences and perceptions are mediated through our conceptual, linguistic and value categories that we have created throughout our life – we assimilate experiences through a hierarchical web of meaning and value. Mystical experiences however are often described as Immediate or Non-meditated, and we are often Passive rather than active such that we feel that they are Received rather than actively created by us. Transcendent spiritual experiences, whether arising spontaneously, or through the practice of meditation or through the taking of drugs, tend to various degrees, to by-pass our usual, active-rational mode of being and functioning. Indeed, the taking of drugs or the practice of meditation or contemplative prayer serves to quieten and subdue our active-rational mind. It is this temporary bypassing of the active/rational mode that gives the sense of Directness, Immediacy and Transcendence and thus the contents of such experiences appear very Real and True.

REIFICATION AND ASSURANCE

The cultural tradition that the contents of such unusual experiences have an objective existence ‘out there’, when taken together with the Immediacy, Directness and sense of Truth and Reality of this non-usual mode of being, can produce a very great certainty, assurance and confidence and may on later reflection lead to deep theological insights. It is common with mystical experience that afterwards, the powers and functions of the rational mind are brought to bear on it in order to evaluate and understand it. Such an insightful doctrinal scheme together with the confidence with which it is held may well carry on in those that become followers or advocates of the person who had the original experience and indeed, a new form of religious orthodoxy may well be established as a result.

PAUL AND THE DAMASCUS ROAD EXPERIENCE

I suggest that this exactly what happened with the disciples and the Apostle Paul after the death of Jesus. Their culture and tradition did not incline them to say: ‘I had a vision, dream or subjective experience where it seemed to me that I saw Jesus risen from the dead’. Rather, their tradition and culture inclined them to say: ‘The risen Jesus appeared to me in a dream or vision – therefore, he is literally alive and risen from the dead! I know that that this is true because Jesus has appeared not only to me but to others as well!’ Paul, after his Damascus Road experience, went into effectual retreat for a number of years during which time he had more immediate experiences, the contents of which informed and shaped the theology which he established and formulated in the light of his experiences, background and culture. He avoided communicating with the disciples of Jesus for quite some time, eventually meeting with them to verify his understanding and become an associate with them. It is this theology that dominates the New Testament literature and also makes up its oldest texts, written about 18 – 20 years after the death of Jesus. Three of the gospels, though seemingly based on an older narrative of the life of Jesus, were not to be written for another thirty or forty years. The fourth Gospel attributed to John is written last of all and takes a more mystical strand.

Returning to the Apostle Paul, the writer of the Gospel attributed to Luke, potentially an associate of Paul, gives three accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience in the book of Acts in Chapters 9, 22 and 26. They stand together reasonably well in agreement:

Saul as he was then known, was a strict traditional Jew – a Pharisee, one skilled in Judaic law, and he was ardently and obsessively opposed to this disruptive and upstart sect of Christianity that had emerged within Judaism. Saul went around issuing murderous threats and persecuting Christians, arresting them and having them put to death, approving for example of the stoning of Stephen. He went from synagogue to synagogue preaching against them, having them punished and forcing them to blaspheme. He obtained letters of authority from the High Priest to give authority for his actions and he even went to foreign cities to hunt Christians down.

It was on one such journey, to Damascus, that about noon, a bright light in the sky blazed around Saul and his companions and they fell down. Saul heard a voice in Aramaic saying:

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Saul asked: Who are you, Lord?”

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” the voice replied. “Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”

The men travelling with Saul were speechless; they saw the light and they heard the sound but did not see anyone and they did not understand the sound.

Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So Saul’s companions led him by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded him. He was blind for three days and did not eat or drink anything. Eventually Saul’s sight was restored by Ananias. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among the Christians there?” Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by showing from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah.

Saul then seems to return to Jerusalem and while praying in the temple there fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking:

‘Quick! Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’

“‘Lord,’ he replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

Then the Lord said, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul gives us his own account of what followed:

‘The gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. You have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me. Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Now I am not qualified to comment on Saul’s state of mind as he persecuted the early Christians and indeed after all these centuries, any such assessment can only be speculative. Luke seems to quote Saul himself in the strong descriptions of his obsessive opposition to Christianity. Certainly, on the Damascus Road, something external happened – a flash of very bright light from the sky that one way or another seemed to blind Saul for three days – they all seemed to see this light and they all heard a sound – but only Saul made sense of this sound in terms of a voice speaking to him. This puts some considerable doubt on the external objectivity of this voice – though perhaps not on the fact that there was a sound – because only Saul heard it in this way. Typically and consistent with his Jewish tradition, this whole episode was reified into an external appearance and communication from Jesus. That Saul was the one most affected may say more about his mental and emotional state at this time than about the nature of any of these external events. Saul certainly seemed to have a predisposition to trances and ecstatic experiences, because on his return to Jerusalem, he has another trance experience, reified again as God speaking to him and telling him to leave Jerusalem. According to his letter to the Galatians, he relied on further visions and trances, because he says quite plainly – ‘…the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ’…that is, in and through a set of reified experiences. It was quite a few years before he actually met the disciples in order to verify his message. The gospel that he preached was approved of by the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and he was regarded as one sent to the Gentiles or non-Jews, just as Peter had been sent to the Jews – both of them declaring Jesus as the Messiah.

This reified view is how these events are presented to us in the narratives – as though some external event occurred – as though Jesus literally appeared in the objective external space ‘out there’- in front of the disciples or Saul, just as if you or I might stand in front of someone. Thus we read that Jesus appeared to hundreds of followers following his death. It does not read that hundreds of followers had subjective impressions in their minds concerning Jesus. This second interpretation also sounds far less impressive in terms of any miraculous event. This way of presenting these events in the New Testament narrative – that Jesus actually and objectively appeared – often gives further weight and bias in our own interpretation of these events, a bias towards an objective event occurring instead of a subjective one, thus reinforcing and continuing the more miraculous-sounding reified view. I am not suggesting in any way that the disciples or the Apostle Paul for example were in any way duplicitous or dishonest in this. I consider that this is the traditional, cultural way of interpreting these kinds of events for those within Judaism. I think that Paul firmly believed that he had met with Jesus on the Damascus Road, not in terms of a subjective experience, but in terms of an objective encounter. In the light of this understanding of the experience and in the light of Paul’s cultural background and learning in Judaism, he applied his Pharisaic Judaic theology and extended it to accommodate this new situation and the Pauline theology of Justification by Faith emerged as a result. What Paul considered to be the objective appearance of Jesus after his death on the cross was accommodated and assimilated within Paul’s Judaic understanding as a Pharisee, which in turn, was extended and developed to what we know as the predominant New Testament theology, since the bulk of the New Testament is either written by the Apostle Paul or by his close followers or assistants – though there still remain in some writings – in the Gospel of John in particular – a more mystical interpretation.

By the time that what we now know as New Testament accounts were put in writing, anything between twenty to seventy years had passed since the death of Jesus – and more and more fantastic stories and claims about him were being made. The view of Jesus changed from him being an influential itinerant preacher and healer to being the Word of God Incarnate, born of a virgin, resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven, surrounded in his earthly life with miracles and extraordinary powers. This was becoming the new orthodoxy and soon, those holding alternative interpretations and views, such as the Gnostics, would be classed as heretics and systematic attempts to burn and destroy their writings and silence their teachers and advocates would follow. In the end, only a few documents would make it into the canon, or rule of faith known as the New Testament and these would those documents thought have been written by first-hand witnesses of the resurrection – namely some of the disciples and Paul. Through this sort of process, the reified view held by Paul and the disciples, gained almost total supremacy as the orthodox Christian view.

If we consider that Paul and the disciples were mistaken in taking a reified view of these experiences, then we end up with a much more subjective spirituality – a spirituality of it’s time in the sense that we could say that God met Saul just where he was – full of anger and venom concerning Christianity – and led him to deeper insights using the forms, symbols, types and figures that he was trained and educated in. Instead of opposing Jesus, he embraced Jesus – but still accommodated Jesus within his Judaic tradition. Paul did not stop being a Jew – he came to see that to be a Christian was to be a True Jew – not to be one circumcised outwardly only, but rather, inwardly, in the heart. He did not leave his Jewish heritage but extended and applied it to accommodate Jesus as the Promised Messiah.

THE ASSIMILATION OF TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE

This is true for all of us – God meets us where we are – and though there may be some radical change in our understanding and insight as a result of a mystical or transcendent spiritual experience - there usually also remains a continuum and extension of what we have learned. We absorb the insights gained according to our capacity. Sometimes our existing system of faith may become more established, more firmly held, with a deeper conviction. Sometimes we may appear to take on novel and new interpretations that make those of an orthodox persuasion feel uncomfortable – or make them feel that in some way we are becoming unorthodox or heretical. Nevertheless, sometimes, we may even change our belief system, say by moving from Christianity to Islamic Sufism or to Hinduism. In this present age of trans-cultural global knowledge via the Internet and so on, such outcomes as these may be more common. But whatever theological scheme seems best suited to our experience our cognitive scheme is nevertheless a delimited and bounded form that ultimately cannot embrace the Formless Infinite.

But the worst thing that we can do with regard to transcendent, mystical experience is to reify the contents of the experience as Paul and the disciples did, because then the contents are presented to others as objective facts. I have already said that this then results in a burden of proof being laid upon those who follow such reified ideas. A fine example is the six-day creation story in Genesis. This is not necessarily an example of reification, but it is a passage that can be read metaphorically or literally – as though it were a series of objective facts. When this passage is read literally, as though it were an objective series of facts, then people naturally look for evidence to substantiate the narrative. Thus we have had more than one archaeologist claiming to find evidence for a worldwide flood in Noah’s time, only to be subsequently proved wrong. In the same way we have the Creation Research groups who constantly seek to show scientific evidence for a young earth and a literal six-day creation. Arguments and debates like these can soon become burdensome and distracting to true spirituality. A similar process and similar set of problems arise when we reify the content of a transcendent experience. But in addition to this, reification also brings in the danger of ultra-orthodoxy. Since the contents of the transcendent experience are portrayed as actually happening ‘out-there’ then these events become enshrined as THE objective truth. Paul in particular constantly refers to the fact that he and others were witnesses of the resurrection (via his reified understanding of the Damascus Road experience and others like it) and that he had received teaching from God and in turn had faithfully declared to others what he had received. These followers in turn, must remain faithful to this teaching, received it is believed through a literal, concrete, objective appearance of Jesus. Thus to deviate from this teaching and tradition is to fall into error, or worse still, to hold to ideas that are false and deceitful. Those who persistently hold on to such erroneous ideas may be classed as guilty slanderers who hold forth a lie – as heretics who deserve to be cast out in case their deceit and lies corrupt the true disciples and lead them astray. Before long the leaders of the church itself persecute them, with bishops ordering that their studies and written works should be burned. The end result of this imposition of orthodoxy – of one belief and practice – are of course organisations such as the Spanish Inquisition, or events like the Crusades and witch hunts. There is little room in theologies arising from reified experiences for tolerance, the use of metaphor, or for mutually existing but different theologies. At stake, in Christian terms at least, is an eternity in a literal heaven or hell.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIANITY

If we acknowledge that these experiences are subjective rather than a perception of objective phenomena, then the whole view changes. For a start, in the example we have been considering, we see this very much as Saul’s personal spirituality – an individual having a transcendent experience that is interpreted within his own personal world-view. When we compare the Apostle’s teaching with that of Jesus and the Disciples – Paul adds to and enriches their theology with his own insights that he has gained through this subjective experience. But it is nevertheless a very powerful theology – as attested to by its prominence and survival down to this very day. It speaks to people’s needs and desires in many ways. But it is also a theology that is less and less tenable in the light of the scientific discoveries that have been made in the last century or so. Part of its power has been in the fact that many of the statements in Paul’s writings and in the Bible as a whole, could not be disproved or seriously questioned. But these days, in the light of our scientific discoveries, it is difficult to hold to the six-day creation story in Genesis for example. The reified, supposed ‘facts’ of Genesis contradict and oppose discoveries made in geology, archaeology, astronomy and physics – and this has a knock on effect in Paul’s theology, as we shall see in a moment.

The Gnostics sought a more metaphorical view of ideas such as the resurrection – they thought in terms of Jesus being spiritually resurrected or raised from the dead and indeed, had a whole range of different metaphors referring for example to the creation. But early Christian teachers like the Apostle Paul criticised these teachings as phantasms and as mere empty imagination in contrast to the basis of his faith and practice which was based on what was for him a literal physical, objective occurrence – the bodily resurrection of Jesus, of which he, through his reified mystical experiences, was a witness. For Paul, his theology was not based in metaphors, symbols, figures, types and empty imagination, but in real, concrete, objective facts. But this theology of Paul’s integrates within it the entire Judaic system. Paul refers to characters such as Abraham and Moses to show how their lives and teaching foreshadowed the message that Paul is preaching. In his explanation of the Headship of Christ, Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam and Paul makes comparisons between the first Adam as the head of all humanity and Jesus as the Second Adam as the Head of all who have faith. Paul’s exposition seems to demand a literal view of the Genesis account: ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!.’ [Romans 5 v 12, 15. My italics]. If we embrace Paul’s theology properly, then we are obliged to embrace his view of a literal Genesis account and much more of the Old Testament in a similarly literal fashion too.

But I have already said that the Judaic culture had a tradition of reifying transcendent experiences and indeed, the whole of the Old Testament mixes the reified content of such experiences with literal events such as battles, the reign of kings and the general history of Israel. This is why it is so difficult to take a metaphorical view when using the Bible as a spiritual guide: the writings of the Bible constantly bring us to what seem to be concrete, historical events, (however they are debated and interpreted by historians) – we have biographies, journeys, rivalries, love affairs, battles and wars, temples being built, people being taken into slavery and captivity and so on – all mixed in with the reified contents of transcendent experiences – so that amongst these events and narratives, we have the world created in six days, God appearing, Angels appearing, the devil deceiving, commandments written in stone by the finger of God, bushes burning without being consumed, the waters of a sea being parted, people wrestling with God and so on – all described as actual, objective events. And this is before we consider how these writings may have been written in such a way that myths and magic stories became added and infused into them for one reason or another. As soon as we try to adopt a metaphorical view of these Judeo/Christian narratives, we seem to be brought back down to the objective, everyday events within which these magical and metaphorical images are reified and embedded, making it difficult to take a purely symbolic and metaphorical interpretation as the early Gnostics sought to do.

The embracing of these Judeo/Christian ideas and concepts is no longer a tenable option for me. Even as symbols and metaphors they just no longer work for me and I find that the Bible constantly draws me back into a more literal view which in turn generates a reified view of God – usually as ‘Big-Stern-Old-Man-in-the-sky’. But modern discoveries have also rendered many of these narratives as questionable in content and historical accuracy. Of course, this is not the case for many believers, who still sincerely hold to beliefs and loyalty with regard to their view of Jesus.

Where then can we go with this? Is there any way that we can find a spiritual path through these varying, conflicting, contradictory spiritual beliefs and loyalties without finding ourselves either intolerantly dismissing or condemning a whole swathe of sincere, spiritually minded people to the dustbin of heresy and hellfire? Can we make any sense of all this or do we have to consign all spirituality to the drawer marked ‘Irrelevant nonsense’?

FORMS OF THE FORMLESS

Some mystical traditions refer to the Divine Absolute as being Formless – no form, concept or object can adequately encapsulate Divine Spirit. But, we are creatures of form – we have a bounded form ourselves by having a physical body, and we live in a material universe that is made up of different bounded forms. To try and relate to an Absolute Spirit that is Unmanifest and Formless is therefore actually quite difficult for us and though it is a spiritual path that is sometimes followed by a few, the formless, iconoclastic nature of such a path makes it seem very arid and dry indeed. We are creatures of form and used to relating to forms and concepts. Even within Christianity, there is a large section of the Christian community that makes use of altar pieces, paintings and statues of Jesus, angels, the virgin Mary and so on as objects and forms that assist worship by giving us some thing or form to focus on. In other Christian circles, the use of such statues and paintings is regarded as idolatry. Indeed, in the Old Testament, carved images of the Divine are forbidden because such forms cannot encapsulate the Divine and may even be seen as demeaning of the Divine Spirit. Of course, similarly in Islam, there is a prohibition on depicting Allah and even the prophet, for similar reasons. The Apostle Paul contrasts his own faith with that of idol worship, which on occasion greatly distressed him. He felt that such worshippers were giving adoration to lifeless blocks of wood and stone whereas in contrast, he served an objectively existing, living, resurrected Son of God as opposed to these lifeless carvings or mere figments of the imagination. Whatever our approach to such paintings and carvings, it is clear that we all tend to have some form or image before us when we worship. With the more austere Calvinist Christians, they may well strip away all these church ornaments such as stained glass windows, altar pieces, statues, candles and crosses in order to not be distracted and to have a minimalist environment, but nevertheless, you can be sure that they will have an image of Jesus at the forefront of their minds and imaginations.

In all of this, to whatever degree images and concepts of God are used, whether our worship environment be very minimalist or very ornate, whatever the object or image, however different, diverse and even contradictory these various forms of the Divine may be, the intention of the worshipper/believer/disciple is Transcendent Absolute. The forms of the Divine may vary and contradict, the systems and organisations may vary, but the intention of all is the same – Transcendent, Formless, Absolute. The Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu and so on all vary and differ in their approaches to and forms of the Absolute. These different schools of thought cannot be harmonised without losing some of the essential qualities that distinguish each approach. In places they contradict one another. But the intention of all sincere disciples is Absolute Formless Spirit – That which has no form – which Transcends the limitations and boundaries of all forms. Problems arise when we fail to recognise this Divine Transcendence and try to limit the Divine exclusively to one set of forms, concepts, systems or images. Rather, at all times, the transience and limitations of all forms of the Divine should be borne in mind – such forms can only point to but never encapsulate Absolute Spirit. Indeed, some thinkers argue that Absolute Spirit is always presenting or manifesting to us in different and new forms that reveal or point to different aspects of the Infinite Spirit – a position known as Perpetual Transformation. Whether this is so or not, different, even contradictory religious or spiritual forms of the Divine, point to different aspects and perspectives of Absolute Spirit, but all such forms and conceptual systems ultimately fall far short of describing what they point to.

This therefore should lead us to humility at the paucity of our understanding of Absolute Spirit and a tolerance for others who seek Absolute Spirit but come from a different pathway – a different culture and background, a different context and perspective.

It may well be that Christian forms of understanding are suitable and acceptable to you. You may find them very useful and helpful in your spiritual journey. But we have seen that Christian ideas and theology are by no means infallible – one of its foundations – the Bible – is increasingly open to question with regard to its historical accuracy – even though it continually draws us back to what appear to be objective historical events. Even the core foundation of an objective, physical resurrection of Jesus is open to doubt because of the tendency of the Judaic culture to reify subjective experiences into objective reality.

BUILDING A CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN FAITH

In many ways I have been deconstructing the influence of the Apostle Paul in this essay. Over the centuries, a Christian theological edifice has been created – much of it based of the Apostle Paul’s thinking - but now this building is very much under threat and this threat is right at the very foundations of the construction, with the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles. I have indicated some of the potential fault-lines running through these foundations and some of it may make uncomfortable reading for sincere Christians. But this has to be done – we cannot paper over the cracks any more. In order to make the building sound, we have to make sure that the foundation is sound. But it is not my intention to demolish the Christian faith – the word ‘demolish’ implies random destruction. Rather, I have deliberately used the word ‘deconstruction’ – we are examining the building carefully, doing a structural survey if you like – and our attention has been drawn to the foundations that urgently need attention. I am trying to be systematic rather than random and I am seeing if we can remedy the situation before the building collapses. In other words, I am trying to remove those aspects of the building that are causing it to be unsafe or in danger of collapse. Only when the foundations are right can we begin to build a new structure.

In order to build a twentieth century Christian faith we have to try and get back to who Jesus really was and what he taught. To be a Christian means to follow the teaching of Jesus - but getting to the essence of who Jesus was and what he taught means getting not only beyond the Apostle Paul and prior to the Apostle Paul’s experiences and theological interpretations and applications, but also getting to grips with exactly what sort of documents the gospels are, when they were written and who actually wrote them rather than who they were attributed to. It means trying to get to their core content before the more magical and miraculous embellishments were added and gained orthodox acceptance.

Who do men say that I am?

2010-12-21T20:46:00.000Z

'Who do men say that I am?' is a new study by Pilgrim Simon concerning the person of Jesus Christ. For Christian Fundamentalists who want to consider an alternative interpretation of how Jesus is portrayed in Scripture, this may be of value. This study explores trends in the early church, the origins of the Apostle Paul's mission and message and the undercurrent of mysticism and Gnosticism present in the church in the first century. It explores the Bible documents - their authors and the date of their writing - challenging the Christian Fundamentalist view of the Bible. You can read it or download it for free by clicking here!

ABSOLUTE TRUTH – FUNDAMENTALISM AND GOD

2010-05-12T18:11:00.001+01:00

ABSOLUTE TRUTH – FUNDAMENTALISM AND GOD

In discussing fundamentalism in this essay I am referring particularly to Christian fundamentalism and that from a Calvinist perspective. Even so, some of the concepts and ideas put forward here will apply to any religious fundamentalist system and so those from systems other than Christianity may be able to apply such ideas to their own framework.

Christian fundamentalism is considered to be a conservative movement – not necessarily politically, but in terms of seeking to conserve or preserve the traditional doctrines and practices of the group. In fact the more theology-based fundamentalists may even be described as ultra-conservative. Christian fundamentalists claim a line right back to the Apostles and disciples of Christ seeing themselves as preservers and inheritors of the truths which they declared. As far as they are concerned, these truths were laid down by the Apostles in the gospels and book of Acts of the Apostles and particularly by the Apostle Paul in his various letters that make up most of the New Testament of the Bible. These writings are seen by many fundamentalists as the inspired Word of God, because fundamentalists consider that God in the Person of the Holy Spirit breathed as it were these ideas, insights or revelations into these writers, withholding the effects of sin and transgression such that in their original form at least, these writings are inerrant: that is they contain no mistakes or errors. God is Perfect, has inspired these writers, withheld the corrupting effects of sin and so therefore these writings are without error. Since then, there have been through time, in one place or another, those who have conserved and maintained the purity of the teachings that these writings contain. For Protestant fundamentalists, these truths became obscured and hidden under the Roman Catholic system, which, they say, over time, became distorted and corrupt, especially by late medieval times. Nevertheless, these truths were brought back to the forefront at the reformation in Europe in 16^th and 17^th centuries. Religious leaders such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and others led a protest movement against what they saw as the mistakes and corruptions of the church, reforming the church so that it was based upon the Bible or Scripture alone instead of on the dictates of the Pope. Furthermore Scripture was made available to everyone by translating it into the language of the people, instead of keeping it in obscure Latin which was only understood by educated priests. So fundamentalists particularly trace their history back to this period. They will speak of the Puritans, of the heroes of the faith such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, John Knox, the Covenanters and others. These and their successors such as Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Howell Harris, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Lloyd-Jones and many others are all seen as ‘sound’ teachers – that is they adhere to and conserve this line and tradition of teaching, refusing to compromise it in the face of ‘unsound’ liberals and academics within the church and unbelievers outside of it.

It is in these kinds of ways that ‘sound’ teaching becomes elevated: such teachings are seen as the inspired, inerrant teachings of God under the light of which every idea and practice of the believer and church is examined. From the Apostle Paul to the protestant reformers and beyond, leaders began to set out and define systematically the teachings contained in the inspired writings. After some divisions and errors within the early church in the first centuries after Christ and after some debate amongst church leaders, the writings were closed so that no other writings could be added to them. Some writings were included in the canon, some, such as the Gospel of Philip and Shepherd of Hermas, were excluded. It should be noted that the actual principles on which these decisions were made can now be seen as weak and even spurious, such that with the extra knowledge and analysis that we have benefit of today concerning these writings, some of the letters now included in the New Testament would have to be excluded on the basis of this new evidence. Nevertheless, a canon or rule of faith was defined and bordered by this set of writings and with it, an orthodoxy and orthopraxy – one belief and one practice for the church. The ideas of heresy and apostasy were put forward: failure to conform to the canon, or conversely, the suggesting alternative or new concepts concerning God which contradicted the canon or which were simply were not present in it, meant that a person holding such views was an outcast and could even suffer the penalty of death for holding such contrary ideas to those of this set of writings and the teachings they proclaimed. Indeed, some religious leaders made it their business to enforce conformity, demanding the burning of writings that were contrary to those of the canon, such as the Gnostic gospels. In this way, as they saw it, they thoroughly purged the church of impurity and corruption. Even so we should note that Protestant leaders such as Calvin, Luther and later Wesley, all excluded some of the books that we have in our New Testament. We can also note that the Roman Catholic Church included a set of books known as the Apocrypha, whilst Protestants rejected them.

With the advent and onslaught of the Age of Reason, modern science and thinkers such as Charles Darwin, these traditional ideas came under increasing scrutiny and stronger and stronger challenges. As a result, the Fundamentalist’s approach to Scripture and thus the teaching contained within it, hardened and became less flexible. Certain doctrines, such as for example a literal six-day creation period and/or a young earth theory, whereby through calculating dates in the Bible, the earth was said to have been created between 6,000 and 10,000 B.C., became ‘badges’ of identification – ‘markers’ of a ‘true believer’ holding steadfastly to and conserving the traditions of truth held to by previous generations of born-again believers.

What this systematic, ultra-conservative orthodoxy does is, amongst other things, define and conceptualise God for believer and it does so in a way that is unquestionable. This literature is the Word of Infallible, Perfect God, written by men inspired by God in such a way that all corrupting influence which would give rise to false and mistaken ideas about God is restrained. To question this teaching therefore is to question God. To doubt it, is to doubt God. To suggest alternative or contradictory ideas to those of Scripture is to fall into error, to be self-deceived or deceived by the devil, or to oppose God.

It is recognised by fundamentalists that there are different interpretations and different degrees on emphasis on different passages of Scripture and that these in turn lead to different practices. Thus we have Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and so on all within the protestant fundamentalist banner. This is accepted and tolerated so long as the main principles, plainly understood verses and truths of the Scripture are agreed upon.

But what the Fundamentalist has done is to elevate these writings and the ideas and concepts that they contain to an Absolute level and it is this that is one of their mistakes. Let me give an illustration. Christians call God the ‘Father’ – ‘Our father who art in heaven…’ Yet if the point is pressed, many fundamentalists will agree that God is not male and certainly not female (since fundamentalism is male orientated and patriarchal). They will acknowledge that the term ‘Father’ is a metaphor for a God that cannot be defined by gender: a God that transcends gender. Nevertheless, the word ‘Father’ is useful for describing the relationship that the believer has with God, for the way God deals with humanity. It engenders the whole Christian theology of the only begotten Son – Jesus Christ, as well as the Apostle Paul’s approach whereby believers are thought of as adopted as sons of God and heirs, by reason of adoption, to the promises. But when it comes down to it, fundamentalists do not see God as a literal ‘Father’ or even as ‘Male’, but rather use the term in this ‘useful metaphor’ way. Fundamentalists are not always as literal in their interpretations as is usually made out. Many fundamentalists with regard to the creation account in Genesis take a similar approach. Because of the advances of science, instead of being inflexibly defensive, many fundamentalist believers find the literal interpretation too difficult to maintain, so they will talk about the six days of creation not in terms of literal twenty-four hour days but in terms of ‘figurative days’, that is periods of unspecified length symbolically described as ‘days’. As long as the main principles and ideas of the fundamentalist faith are not compromised, such ideas may again be tolerated.

Unfortunately, the Scriptures do lend themselves to a literal interpretation. The books of the Bible are full of history – the reigns of kings, court intrigues, conquests and battles, heroic leaders, defeat and conquest, a human named Jesus living at a time of Roman occupation, claiming to be the Son of God, performing miracles as evidence, being put to death and being resurrected after three days. These fundamentalists take literally. They are quite averse to the pre-reformation approach of analogous interpretation. Thus, medieval Dominican Friar Meister Eckhart may consider the verse ‘Jesus went into a house’ and elaborate a doctrine concerning the mystical presence of Christ in the heart, whereby the house symbolises the Interior Castle, or heart of a person which is the proper dwelling place of Christ. For fundamentalists, Jesus just went into a house. They simply argue that using this kind of analogous interpretation can lead to any doctrine that you care to construct – that you can believe anything. So fundamentalists differentiate between scripture passages: some are historical, some biographical, some are parables, some are symbolic and metaphorical, some are concerned with practical behaviour or conduct, and some are doctrinal, though as we have seen with Genesis, some literal sounding verses may be interpreted figuratively for convenience. Either way, the Scriptures and the main teaching inherent within them are elevated to an absolute degree: Scripture and the concepts and ideas it portrays are the Final Authority for faith and conduct. The believer may be reminded of the watchwords of the reformers: ‘Sola Scriptura!’ – Scripture alone!

The question we have to ask is: Are such forms absolute? Are such ideas and concepts Ultimate? I suggest that they are not and we see a clue why in the approach by fundamentalists themselves to the Divine Name ‘Father’. The concept, attribute, Name, quality, characteristic, relationship of ‘Father’ is not Absolute because God transcends gender – God is neither Male nor Female and therefore not ‘Father’. I suggest that there is a higher view of the Divine than that which is encompassed and bordered by conceptual ideas and forms, whoever may advocate them – Christian, jew or Muslim. God is transcendent of the concepts and formulations of ‘Father’, ‘Creator’, ‘Love’, ‘Judge’ and so on. These are all limited, finite, relational terms but God as Absolute is Infinite, Transcendent and Unique. God alone is Real – God alone has Self-sufficient existence – all else is dependent upon God. The Absolute is transcendent of these limited forms, names and designations. They are in fact just useful metaphors that stand between us as creatures of form and the Formless, Infinite Absolute God. We stand in relation to God and these are relational terms that reveal aspects and facets of an Absolute that we cannot comprehend or encompass with forms, ideas and concepts. God transcends any philosophy or theology.

One mistake that fundamentalists fall into then is to elevate the language and conceptual ideas of Scripture to the level of Absolute – such that these main ideas must be conserved and defended at all costs. The attention of the fundamentalist is taken away from Absolute God and instead directed to relative level of Scripture and scriptural ideas which are then falsely elevated to the level of Absolute. This focus on form and concept actually distracts the attention away from the Absolute Transcendent Divine. The eyes of the fundamentalist are often not on God, but on conformity to and agreement with a set of conceptual forms which fall short of Absolute God.

This means then that forms are Ultimately transcended, or to put it another way, as we draw close to Transcendent God in experience, these concepts and forms of the Divine may fall away and be rendered useless – inadequate to express and encompass the Vastness of the Absolute. Systems of theology and doctrine are not the Absolute but rather occupy a relational middle ground – they are useful as far as they go. In turn this means that we can be more open and tolerant of other religious systems, rather than seeking to defend our own conceptions of the Divine at all costs. This does not mean that different religious systems or schools can be merged. Though Ultimately they all point to Absolute God, yet these systems and their concepts exist in relation and thus exclude as well as enclose. What becomes important for the individual is internal consistency and coherence – an integrity and good fit of concepts whilst at the same time recognising their middle status in transcendence.

For those who would like to read a further discussion on theme outside of the reference of Christian Fundamentalism, then they will find a downloadable essay at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31213927/Divine-Attributes-and-Devotion-a5

FUNDAMENTALISM, THE BIBLE AND LITERALISM

2008-02-12T11:13:00.000Z

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

2008-01-08T11:58:00.000Z

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?

2007-11-05T16:00:00.000Z

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

2007-11-05T15:59:00.000Z

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

2007-11-05T15:58:00.001Z

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

2007-11-05T15:58:00.000Z

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

LEAVING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM WITH DIGNITY - IS IT POSSIBLE

2007-11-05T15:57:00.001Z

You can never leave Fundamentalism with dignity - that's what I found. Christian Fundamentalism is ultra orthodox - it prides itself on conformity to a particular understanding of the Bible: a form of belief and practice that all its members seek to aspire to. Woe betide you if you should have some doubts or continued questions about the particular perspective of fundamentalism. By questioning the status quo; the accepted order and interpretation of things in Fundamentalist circles; you enter into a cycle of rejection. Your questions and your persistent doubts challenge the very identity and coherence of the group which is marked and defined by these beliefs like a badge. Worse than that, Fundamentalists identify themselves by these beliefs - these beliefs define who they are as people. You may be seeking after truth, but fundamentalists, under the guise of truth seekers, seek only to maintain the orthodox status quo, and the unity and identity of the group. By challenging the status quo, you challenge their unity and individuals as people, you challenge who they are. There is no room for compromise here - no room for different opinions and debate on any basic issues. You will probably be seen as:
Backslider,
Rebellious,
Traitor,
Spiritually immature,
Apostate,
Never really converted or born again,
Divisive,
Obstinate,
Inflexible,
Proud,
Lacking in a submissive attitude to God
Lacking in surrender to God's will,
Undermining the truth,
A person to be avoided,
A person to be excluded or left out,
Threatening to the unity of the group
Threatening to the unity of the faith,
Deceived by the devil,
Deceived by the world,
Possessed/oppressed by evil spirits,
One to whom terrible things will happen if you leave/refuse to change
Be the recipient of disapproving/disappointed looks and glances
Be patronised
Find your questions avoided by using a formula repetition of the gospel and Bible verses.
Told not to question but to trust (in the status quo doctrines about God)

In other words, there is no room for spiritual growth outside the boundaries of fundamentalist doctrine and practice, no accommodation of such ideas. You cannot leave with dignity (as far as they are concerned) only under a cloud of disappointment and disapproval.

Make no mistake - leaving fundamentalism costs. It will cost some of your friendships, it will cost a way of life, it will be disorientating, challenging, unsettling and so on. The longer you have been involved, and the higher up you have been - such as teacher, deacon, lay preacher e.t.c., the harder it will be.

But there is life, even spiritual life, outside this closed fundamentalist circle. There are more things in heaven and earth than can be encompassed by a fundamentalist ideology. This site does not tell you what to believe or practice: that's up to you. It does give you some helpful articles to critique and see through the Christian Fundamentalist mind set. It gives you some reading lists as pointers to widen your horizon. Eventually it is hoped to include a personal testimony of leaving fundamentalism. Whatever your path is, if it be honest, and true and good, then may you find encouragement here.

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

SPIRITUAL AND MORAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH

2007-11-05T15:57:00.000Z

SPIRITUAL AND MORAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

This document retains a fundamentalist approach to God but questions the fundamentalist emphasis on Scripture as inerrant and infallible. The questions it seeks to answer are:-

1) From where does the church obtain its authority on spiritual and moral matters?
2) How does God reveal Himself and His will to mankind?
3) What does the word 'canon' mean?
4) Which sacred writings are in the canon of Scripture?
5) Has God told us directly which books are in the canon?
6) Are there other sacred writings in existence?
7) Were all of these genuine religious writings?
8) Who decided what books to include in the canon?
9) How was the Old Testament canon formed?
10) Was this selection accepted by all Jews?
11) How did New Testament believers form an Old Testament canon?
12) How was the New Testament canon formed?
13) Why was the New Testament canon formed?
14) What principles were used in forming the canon?
15) Did the church have any other defences against error?
16) What is a creed?
17) What is apostolic succession?
18) What is the common theme of these defences?
19) Who and what were the Apostles?
20) What did the Apostles do?
21) Were the Apostles and their teaching without error?
22) What was the early church's view of the canon?
23) What is the position of the canon today?
24) What does inspiration mean?
25) Is inspiration limited to the Scripture writers?
26) How can we check if someone really has been Inspired?
27) If a person is inspired is what they say without error?
28) What evidence is there that Scripture is inspired?
29) What can we conclude about this evidence?
30) What can we conclude about inerrancy?
31) What can we conclude about the Bible?
32) Which books are written by the apostles?
33) Has the church altered the canon?
34) What about those people who have never had a Bible?
35) What evidence is there in creation for God's existence?
36) Who or what is the Holy Spirit?
37) How was He given in a fuller way?
38) Where is the Holy Spirit?
39) What does the Holy Spirit do?
40) How does the present work of the Spirit relate to His work in the apostles?
41) What does the Spirit do in Christians?
42) What does He do to both Christians and unbelievers?
43) How do we recognise His work?
44) What are the evidences of His work?
45) How does the church know what is right and wrong?
46) Is there an order to these authorities?
47) Is the church united in all that it does?
48) What lies behind the need for spiritual authority?
49) What about texts from other religions and faiths?
50) What can we conclude about spiritual and moral authority?

INTRODUCTION

I could have called this 'Questions I wish I'd asked.' or Questions I wish I'd had straight answers to.’ I have been a Christian for almost thirty years, and largely been involved in that group of Christianity known as Fundamentalists, those who consider the Bible to be the Word of God, and therefore absolutely without error of any kind. Everything is examined by this group in the light of what the Bible says. The Bible is THE authority for faith and behaviour. It is regarded as a spiritual authority, because it is the Word of God on unseen, non-material matters. It is the authority on God, Angels, the Devil, unclean spirits and so on. It is regarded as a moral authority because it is the Word of God on what is right and what is wrong, and about the judgement of God because of evil and wrongdoing. But are fundamentalists right in their insistence on a collection of writings that are God inspired and without error? Following a study on spiritual gifts that I did in the 1970's nagging questions started to arise about this position. I would do a little bit of research, find some sort of answer to my question, and carry on for a while, but eventually, the answer turned out not to be an answer after all, and the nagging questions returned. There also arose an increasing dissatisfaction with fundamentalist ideas on other issues, such as politics and so on, which came to a head after reading Christian critics of fundamentalism, as well as criticisms by non believers. Fundamentalism seemed to me to be narrow stagnant, right wing, intolerant and indefensible. Once I rejected fundamentalism, the great danger was to throw the baby out with the bath water as it were, and to reject the whole of the Bible as a myth, as a fake. I lost the [false] sense of authority, everything was open to question, and I know that for a good twelve months I felt adrift in a sea of conflicting religious and moral ideas. I no longer seemed to have a base from which to work in terms of spiritual and moral matters. Hence I have written this study on spiritual and moral authority. It is an attempt to deal with some of these questions, hence it's question and answer format. It is not a deep study, but it has served as a way for me to get my various strands of thought together in a more logical way, and think through a reasonable basis and authority for my faith and conduct. As such, it may be of help to others also.

SPIRITUAL AND MORAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

1) From where does the Church obtain its authority on spiritual and moral matters?

The Church obtains its authority from God in three Persons.
i) God the Father is the absolute and final authority.
ii) God the Father mediates or communicates through the middle person of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
iii) Jesus Christ, at His ascension, made way for and gave the Holy Spirit to dwell inside believers, who together make up the true Church, the Spirit being an influence towards holiness or purity and truth.

2) How does God reveal Himself, His will and thus His authority to mankind?

The Church declares that there are a number of ways in which God reveals Himself and His will to man:

i) According to the Church, God is revealed through the things He has made, like a painter is revealed by his paintings. Creation is declared by the Apostle Paul to be a universal witness to all mankind of the existence. Divine nature, might and invisible qualities of God, such that all are without excuse. This continues despite the church also declaring that man's disobedience to God affected and spoiled the whole of creation. This knowledge that each person has may be suppressed by wickedness and exchanged, in the name of wisdom, for other ideas. Similarly, God's provision of the seasons, of rain and sunshine to grow crops in their season, is another witness to God and His character. Even calamities such as famine, plague and earthquake may declare God's moral character and His hatred for sin. This revelation is a universal but impersonal revelation of God. It is limited in scope in that it is not God speaking personally; neither does it reveal the way of salvation. It is categorised by theologians as Natural Theology, but Reformation theologians generally rejected the competence of fallen human reason to engage in Natural Theology. Whether this is entirely correct is open to dispute. In their zeal to emphasise the dominion of sin in every part and faculty of a person and the resulting inability of a person to earn salvation, the Reformers may have gone too far as will be suggested later. What is evident is that a person cannot live up to even this limited revelation.

Over and above this universal but limited revelation is a more personal and special revelation. Broadly speaking it has three modes or forms:

a) PHYSICAL PHENOMENON of various kinds, such as the burning bush, or pillar of fire. Also under this heading we find miraculous signs, visible symbols and theophanies, or physical appearances of God to a person, as with Moses.

b) INWARD SUGGESTION such as through dreams, visions, and voices, as when the prophets say: 'The word of the Lord came unto me.’

c) CONCURSIVE OPERATIONS. This is where the Holy Spirit works in, through and with human activities rather than superseding them. B.B. Warfield argues that there may be no consciousness of God working with us in this way.

In more detail. God is revealed in the following ways:

ii) He is revealed chiefly through Jesus Christ, who declared himself to be both God and Man in mysterious union. Jesus' claim is backed up by His ability to perform wonders and miracles as testimony and witness to His Divine qualities, especially by His death and resurrection. He is such a full expression of the Father, so like the Father in character, that Jesus said, 'He who has seen me has seen the Father.’ This is the fullest and most personal and most physical expression of God to man. But of course, Jesus is no longer physically present with us, and we only have the written records of His life and teaching

iii) God is revealed by the miracles and wonders performed by some of His people, such as Moses at the Red Sea, or Elijah, or the Apostles. Miracles are above nature, implying a SUPER natural cause. Their unusualness causes them to draw attention to themselves, and they often act as signposts of new eras or developments in the Church. They serve to qualify the authority and truthfulness of a person's teaching, because only God can act in this supernatural way, thus spiritual enemies of God seek to make false miracles to draw people into mistakes, or to make genuine miracles seem less unusual.

iv) God is revealed through spiritual messengers called Angels. The Church considers that there is a whole hierarchy of spiritual beings who God may use at special times to communicate with people, such as the angel visiting the Shepherds at Christ's birth. Such interventions appear to be rare. Some of these beings have rebelled against God, but they are still under God's control as their effective King and Lord.

v) Sometimes, God may reveal Himself by appearing directly to a person, as in the case of Moses on Sinai. This appears to be very rare indeed.

vi) God may communicate His will, purposes and commands to a person in an extraordinary way by the Holy Spirit, revealing hidden information or giving God breathed utterances in known or unknown tongues. This sort of communication is usually given to believers, but may be given to unbelievers as well. There are many diverse views on such influences. Some believe that they ceased shortly after the death of the Apostles, some that they continue in limited form for special reasons or at times of revival, and others believe that they continue in full form in the present day. The teaching of the Apostles and Jesus Christ usually tests such influences.

vii) God is revealed through the Church, because of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and leading them to honour God and live Holy lives. Not that the Church is perfect, because sin still remains. Because sin is still present in each person, no single person has the completely correct view of truth about God. But as believers come together, bringing their various gifts and skills, a more balanced view comes about. However, a tradition among protestant churches is to have influential leaders, and thus it has many groups following particular interpretations of the Bible. The groupings and gatherings of Church councils: Elders, that is spiritual leaders of the church who have evidenced suitable qualities to hold such a position, gathering together to make decisions on certain Issues, are seen as very important aspects of the Church discovering the will and purposes of God.

viii) According to the Apostle Paul, the requirements of God's law is written on people's hearts, in that:-
a) People have a moral nature, humankind being made in the image of God. They know right and wrong.

b) People have a conscience that bears witness to this even though it is affected by sin.

c) People's thoughts accuse or excuse them. Those who do not have the Law and commands of God in written form will be judged at the end of time by these factors according to the Apostle.

ix) Some churches place authority on the tradition of the Apostles, and all place authority in the writings of the Apostles. These are men chosen by Jesus Himself to preach and teach the good news. More will be said on Apostles later.

x) God is revealed through the special, sacred writings of various authors, such writings being known as the Bible or Scripture. These are considered to be very special. The Scriptures are usually considered as the main authority for many churches in these days of the absence of the physical presence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Certainly, this is the case in Protestant Churches, and especially in the case of fundamentalists, who consider that the Bible has no mistakes or contradictions except for minor instances due to translation or copying errors. This is because the Bible is considered to be the inspired Word of God. Very often, even in churches where spiritual gifts are practiced, it is Scripture that is appealed to in terms of deciding on which gifts may be acceptable, and/or how they should be practiced. It is important to remember that the Scriptures or Bible is not one book, but a collection of many books and letters written by different people over a long time. The position that R. M. Horn, a respected fundamentalist, takes and which other Christians may well take is that God is active in all of history. He is a sovereign God, in control of all things. However, God discloses himself in only some history. Furthermore, though God has acted, these actions are open to wide interpretations by different people who bring different world views to such events. However, Horn argues. God HAS spoken and given us His servants to interpret these events for us in the correct way. Thus:-

The Exodus is interpreted for us by Moses, but the Egyptians, who had no revelation. Interpreted the events in a different way.

The Apostles interpret the Crucifixion for us and to some extent the Old Testament writers, but it has different interpretations by others who have had no revelation.

Peter interprets Pentecost for us, but the bystanders who had no revelation interpreted the events as the result of too much wine.

Therefore, R. M. Horn argues, a God given interpretation must accompany facts and events. Horn is certainly right to argue that facts do not speak for themselves. All facts are perceived through the 'spectacles' of our world view, which we use to interpret facts and events, which imbues them with values and which causes us to be selective in our attention. Revelation, argues Horn is events plus God given Interpretation. Horn further argues that this is why Scripture is in the form that it is. It sometimes appears to put great emphasis on apparently trivial historical facts, whilst ignoring what we would consider to be apparently important historical events. Scripture selects and interprets events in history to bring out meaning without contradicting history. Therefore Scripture is not just a collection of catechisms or doctrinal propositions or a list of commands. God speaks in a personal way through Scripture, often using analogy to illustrate the nature and character of God. The claim that the Scriptures have no mistakes in them and are the inspired Word of God, and that they alone are to be the authoritative guide and rule for Christian faith and conduct is the particular Interest of this article. I have already tried to show, using ideas drawn from the Scriptures themselves that there are a number of ways in which God may reveal His will, purposes and commands to people, quite apart from Scripture itself. This immediately puts doubt on the idea that Scripture ALONE is the authoritative rule. But I am now going to examine these ideas about Scripture a little further by asking some more questions.

3) What does the word canon mean?

The word 'canon' means 'measuring rod' or 'rule'. When applied to sacred writings, it refers to those writings which can be used as an authoritative measure in determining matters of religious conduct, issues of faith, and matters to do with God, His nature, will, commands and so on.

4) Which sacred writings are in the canon of Scripture?

There are 39 books in the Old Testament, from Genesis to Malachi. There are 27 books in the New Testament consisting of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, letters by the Apostle Paul, and some other books including Revelation.

5) Has God told us directly which books are to be included in the canon of Scripture?

No. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave us a list of books that would make up the canon of Scripture. They sometimes quoted from books included in the canon, but also from other sacred writings also, such as the book of Enoch quoted in Jude.

6) Does this mean that there were other sacred, religious writings in existence?

Yes. There are works such as the books of the Wars of the Lord, the Letter of Barnabas, I Clement, the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Shepherd of Hermas, Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon and Esdras. Some of these books have been lost and their existence is known of because they are quoted from in parts of Scripture. Others are still in existence. Some of them are contained in the Apocrypha, a collection of writings from between the Old Testament and New Testament writings.

7) Were all these books and letters genuine religious writings, written by people close to God or moved by the Holy Spirit?

Many were written by sincere believers and leaders of believers, but also, there were many false books and letters, especially as the New Testament age began. To make things even more complicated, both believers and unbelievers considered it quite normal to write a letter or book but sign it in the name of an Apostle or leader. This was not necessarily thought of as deceitful, but rather, the work, if written by a believer, was considered to be a reflection of that leader's or Apostle's teaching. So, there were many religious writings, claiming authoritative writers, some were genuine, some were written by faithful believers, some were forgeries.

8) Who decided which books to Include in the canon of Scripture and which to leave out?

Essentially, the community of believers, especially through the guidance of its leaders, made these decisions over a long period of time.

9) How was the Hebrew or Old Testament canon formed?

No record exists of how this came about. We can only make a reconstruction that seems reasonable. The following factors seem to be involved:-
i) Sacred writings were certainly treated with respect and care. For example, the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments were carefully placed in the Ark of the Covenant.

ii) Israel almost certainly followed other countries in its dealings with sacred literature. For example, a body of official, standardised religious literature existed in Mesopotamia 2000 years B.C.

iii) It appears that sacred documents were carefully stored in temples.

v) The Old Testament can be divided into three groups:

THE TORAH - the books of the Law- that make up the first five books of the Old Testament were treated in this way, and their canonisation probably took place in the period of the exile in Babylon, when the national identity of Israel was under threat, between 600 and 538 B.C..

THE NEVIIM - the prophets- were probably assembled and ordered during the Persian period. Israel's exile in Babylon and later restoration greatly increased the reputation of the prophets. Their canonisation probably took place somewhere between 500 and 300 B.C.

THE KETUVIM - the rest of the books- were debated over for some time. It seems as though the debate was finally settled at a synod, or meeting of religious leaders at Jabneh in 100 A.D. Again, the destruction of the Jewish state and a collapse of the Jewish central authority following it's overthrow by Rome, made it important to identify a canon or measure of faith, an authoritative collection of sacred writings which would not be added to.

10) Was this particular selection of books accepted by all Jews?

No. The Samaritans only accepted the first five books, the books of Moses. The Alexandrian Jews rearranged the Prophets and the rest of the books into categories of history, poetry, wisdom and prophecy. Esther and Daniel contained extra material. Other books were also mixed in, such as I Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon.

11) How did New Testament believers react to Jewish sacred writings and form an Old Testament canon of their own?

Christianity arose out of Judaism, and the Church received its Old Testament canon from Greek speaking Jews. Most converts were Hellenistic, and the Greek Bible of Alexandria became the official Bible of the Christian community. Some writings, written late in the Old Testament period and now known as the Apocrypha, (containing Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon and Maccabees, amongst others), were part of the canon, but people were not united as to their Inclusion. Some early Christian leaders, such as Origen, only had 22 books in their canon, and Josephus, a Jewish historian also only had 22 books. Eventually, the Apocryphal books were rejected by Protestants, but Included by Roman Catholics.

12) How was the New Testament canon formed?

The 27 New Testament books are what are left of many 1st and 2nd century religious writings considered sacred by Christian groups. There was a continuous Interplay between historical and theological writings such that the church finally selected these 27 books in the 4th century. As we have seen, many books were written by different authors, and by the mid 2nd century there began to be an awareness of history by the Christian community...the Apostles had died, Christ had died and ascended, but not yet returned, and a clearer difference was becoming plain between the time of Christ and the Apostles, and the later situation that believers now found themselves in. The actual process of canonisation was long and fluid, such that some churches held certain books to be canonical, which other churches did not. In the main, the church stressed the gospels, the letters of the Apostles and their lives and the tradition of the Apostles. By the late 2nd century, canons similar to the present one were in evidence, though different churches used different canons. Some churches were quite unconcerned about canons, and Clement of Alexandria made use of the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Letter of Barnabas and others. These varieties continued through the third century A.D.. The disputes seemed to be settled at a council of leaders in Carthage in 397 and 27 books were accepted as canonical. Even so, in later documents, there is sometimes no distinction between these and other material such as the Shepherd of Hermas and I & II Clement. By the 1500's with the church in reformation and Counter Reformation, the disputes continued. The council of Trent set the canon as the Vulgate...Jerome's Latin version, whilst on the side of the reformers, Luther rejected Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, though he bowed to tradition, placing these at the end of his New Testament. Calvin doubted that Peter was the author of II Peter, and rejected Revelation. These reformers continued the tradition of examining documents for their qualities of authorship, to see if they were suitable for Inclusion in a set of documents used as a measuring rod and authoritative guide for faith.

13) Why was the New Testament canon formed?

The Christian communities had relied for some time on an oral tradition: accounts handed down from one to another by word of mouth, but after the Apostles had died, this began to deteriorate. By the end of the 1st Century there was also a conscious production of gospels, such as 'The sayings of Christ' which began to contradict the tradition of the Apostles being handed down by word of mouth, and these were seen as heresy: that is, contrary to normal standards. There were also claims of revelations: of people being spoken to directly by the Holy Spirit, and receiving hidden information, teachings and so on. Some of these were also suspected of being in error, and the church needed a once-and-for-all revelation. Also, a number of groups began to appear which were not considered as following normal Apostolic practice, such as the Gnostics, and charismatic Montanists who had ecstatic trances, visions and new revelations, and Marcion, who set up his own canon, or set of authoritative books which rejected anything Jewish. Because of these kinds of problems, the church decided it needed an authoritative set of books that would not be added to, and which could be referred to in order to establish standard practice and truth in an authoritative way.

14) What principles were used in forming the canon?

The principles that would be used began to emerge in the 2nd century. These were:-
i) Apostolicity.
ii) True doctrine.
iii) Widespread geographical use by 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 identified three classes of sacred writings:-

i) Those undisputed by the church of God throughout the known world.
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
Acts
14 letters of Paul, including Hebrews that 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 -
James.
Jude.
II Peter.
II & III John.
b) Those called spurious but which were not impious or foul:
Acts of Paul.
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter.
Letter of Barnabas.
Didache.
Hebrews, possibly.
iii) Heretically spurious:
Gospel of Peter.
Acts of John.

However, Eusebius felt free to make authoritative use of disputed writings. Certainly at this time, the canon and authoritative revelation are not yet considered as the same thing.

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.. 27 books of the New Testament were accepted. Nevertheless, in later documents there was still no distinction between these and other works such as the Letter of Barnabas.

At the protestant reformation, a protest against problems and corruptions in the Roman Catholic church, such that the church was reformed, or re organised, the Reformers again questioned the canon. Luther's principles were:
i) Apostolicity.
ii) That which leads to Christ.
Since he could not find this latter quality in Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, he rejected them, though 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 excluded.

This leaves a problem for fundamentalists because fallible human councils have determined the extent of Scripture. Since Scripture alone is their only authority they are obliged to look to Scripture itself for evidence. This in itself is a circular argument, and makes an assumption that Scripture is already a unified whole and Inspired by God. Arguments put forward in 'Sword and Trowel' 1994 No.4 by Malcolm H. Watts provides the following fundamentalist argument:
i) A book is canonical if written by a prophet. But he interprets this to mean ALL OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS, based on the idea of the 'Law and the prophets.'. He argues that the historical books were either written by or originated from prophets. He similarly argues that the Apostles, though not called prophets directly by Scripture, clearly were prophets!!! I think that this whole argument stretches the definition of the word prophet and clearly does not take Scripture alone as an authority.

ii) Canonicity is confirmed by predictions and miraculous events. Fulfilment is INDISPUTABLE proof that they are divine!! However, not all fulfilled predictions, say in astrology, are divine and Watts admits that MANY not all prophecies have been fulfilled. What of the rest? What if they are not fulfilled in the end? Clearly this evidence is far from Indisputable. He further argues that MIRACLES confirm the prophet’s commission. But have ALL Scripture writers performed miracles? His argument only points out key persons.

iii) The testimony of contemporary witnesses helps to establish the canon. Now we are back to fallible human beings. He appeals to Scripture verses that indicate punishments for false prophets and the fact that predictions fail which all indicate a false prophet, but this is hardly great evidence for a prophet. Consequently, he falls back for the New Testament on the gift of discerning of spirits. By this gift, a person would know INFALLIBLY whether God was speaking to another person or not. In a similar way Peter in one of his (spurious) letters affirms the inspired nature of Paul's writings. This whole argument assumes that these people were inspired and had the gift of discernment, provides no evidence to us but the word of these people as supposed authorities, and is not testable or falsifiable. That is, it cannot be shown to be false, (or true).

iv) Canonical status can be JUDGED, (Assessed, interpreted) 'TO SOME EXTENT' by internal evidence. He admits that this is not always apparent in the more difficult and obscure books. Despite these statements, he still insists that 'the Word is able to assure us of its own canonicity'. This is clearly a contradiction. Also, what appears true of parts is assumed to extend to the whole, which is a false argument.

v) He then presents another unfalsifiable argument: Inspired men of God communicated to us which books are canonical as INSPIRED AUTHORATATIVE CRITICS. For example, Joshua confirms the inspiration of Moses' books (Joshua 1 v 13). Peter confirms Paul (2 Peter 3 v 16). Problems with this are that firstly we cannot test the claims of these critics to Inspiration, thus again this is unfalsifiable. Secondly, the canon was not complete until after the Apostles deaths. Thirdly, is every writer endorsed in this way?

vi) The canon of Scripture has continuity and harmony. It has design and development. This argument will be looked at later, but suffice to say now that there is evidence of contradiction in Scripture.

vii) The canon was accepted by the New Testament church. However, as we have seen, this was over a period of time, and there was not complete agreement.

I conclude that these and other fundamentalist arguments are all weak and Inconclusive, and that we must return to the more fallible human church counsels and their theologians.

15) Did the church have any other defences against error?

Yes. Besides defining a set of sacred writings as Authoritative norms or standards for the church, they also:-
a) Had Apostolic creeds and rules.
b) Had an apostolic succession of Bishops or Elders

16) What is a creed?

It is an oral and later written Apostolic tradition of the church to serve as a defence against error. This usually consists of a brief statement of Christian teaching, such as:-
'I believe in God the Father, and His son Jesus Christ, who died and rose again on the third day..' e.t.c..

17) What is Apostolic succession?

This is making the position of Elder as leader, teacher and shepherd of believers a legitimate or lawful position. Christ appointed the original Apostles, and they in turn established churches and set up overseers, signifying the authority of these new overseers by the laying on of hands. Thus they became official successors to the Apostles. Thus this practice continues, and no one can lawfully set themselves up as an Elder on their own, under normal circumstances, without this ceremony that shows approval of the person selected, both by the church and it's leaders.

18) What is the common theme running through all these defences?

Apostolicity. All these ideas are connected to and derive from the Apostles.
These defences are:
i) Apostolic writings.
ii) Apostolic rules and traditions.
iii) Apostolic successors.

19) Who and what are the Apostles?

The term 'apostle' means 'one who is sent', or more accurately, one who is given a commission: authority to carry out a specific task. The word is quite general. Church Elders could make someone an apostle by giving them authority to carry out a specific task. It is in this sense that Biblical characters like Barnabas, James, Andronicus and Junius are referred to in Scripture as apostles. (Galatians 1 v 19, Romans 16 v 7, Acts 14 v 4, 14, I Corinthians 9 v 3-6.). There are also false apostles, men who transform themselves into God's servants, but who are really no such thing. (II Corinthians 11 v 14, Revelation 2 v 2.).

But there is another, more restricted usage of this word, which is determined by who does the sending. Men, leaders of the church, sent the above apostles but some were sent by Christ Himself, to teach and deliver the message of salvation. These are the twelve Apostles, 12 disciples selected from at least 72. (Matthew 10 v 2, Luke 10 v 1, 17.). One of these, Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus, and was replaced by Matthias, (Acts 1). God chose him by both the disciples and through the casting of lots, (the last example of the casting of lots before the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost). The number here seems limited to twelve, a reminder of the twelve tribes of Israel. The qualifications for these twelve appear to be:
i) A direct commission from Christ. (Matthew 28)
ii) They had to have been with Jesus since His baptism by John to His ascension, and therefore be a witness of His resurrection from the dead. (Acts 1, I Corinthians 15 v 8)
iii) They were marked out or signified by the miracles and wonders that they could perform.(II Corinthians 12 v 12).

There is one Apostle who is called extra to these, the apostle to the Gentiles or non-Jews, Paul. He too was called to be an Apostle by the command of God (I Timothy 1 v 1), but as one abnormally born. ((I Corinthians 15 v 8). He considered himself the least of the apostles because before his conversion to Christianity, he ruthlessly persecuted the church. (I Corinthians 15 v 9). His qualification was that he too had seen the risen Christ (I Corinthians 9 v 1), Christ appearing to him last of all. (I Corinthians 15 v 8). His ministry had produced true spiritual fruit, genuine converts amongst the gentiles, (I Corinthians 9 v 1) and he too was marked by signs, wonders and miracles. ( II Corinthians 12 v 12). He too was called, not by men, but by Jesus Christ and the Father, (Galatians 1 v 1). Fourteen years after his conversion, he went to see the apostles and was accepted by them as an apostle to the gentiles. ( Galatians 2 v 1-10).

All the apostles called by Christ received teaching from the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1 v 2, Ephesians 3 v 5, Galatians 1 v 11, 12.). It is these apostles, the ones called and taught by God, the twelve plus Paul that give apostolic authority. Robert Horn stresses the importance of these apostles receiving a revelation direct from God, and not mediated by men. Certainly the twelve apostles walked and talked with Jesus Christ and received teaching directly from Him. But Paul, received revelation from God's Spirit. Like other Scripture writers apart from the twelve, he does not appear to have seen Jesus directly. The emphasis on direct revelation is exaggerated when it comes to the Scripture writers, because most of them did not see Jesus directly.

20) What did the apostles do?

The apostles:-
Taught.
Performed signs and wonders.
Testified to Christ's resurrection with power.
Received gifts for distribution to the poor.
Suffered trials and beatings for the faith.
Resisted ungodly civil authorities.
Ceremonially appointed deacons and elders as successors who had been chosen by the church. They did this by the laying on of hands and prayer.
They investigated claims of conversion and gave help to new believers.
They passed on the Holy Spirit and/or the gifts of the Spirit by laying on of hands.
Along with Elders they helped settle controversial matters.
Along with Elders, they selected representatives for the church on different matters.
They were entitled to financial support from believers,
Were put on display for the whole universe, (I Corinthians 4 v 9)
Were appointed as the first gifts to the Church from the Holy Spirit. They were first in time and/or importance, providing, along with prophets, the foundation of the New Testament Church. (I Corinthians 12 v 28, Revelation 21 v 14).

21) Were the apostles and their teaching without any error of any kind?

No. Whilst the Apostles claim that their teaching is God breathed, making it something more than mere human invention, the sins of the apostles were not removed such that they were perfect. Paul and Peter argued over Christian practice for example. (Galatians 2 v 11-14). Jesus Christ did not leave any writings for us, but commissioned these apostles to teach the church, and it is to their authority that the church looks because, though not absolutely without mistake due to the effects of sin, they received instructions from Christ Himself and were commissioned by Him to teach. Furthermore, Jesus promised them the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to teach them and assist them, even to the point of giving them words to say in difficult circumstances. Therefore, the church considers that their writings form a good measure and authority for standards of religious conduct in the
New Testament.

22) What was the early church's view of the canon of Scripture?

It did not forget that:
i) The Scriptures are the result of a co working of God and man.
ii) It was the church that selected the books under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
iii) It was the church that fixed the canon, declaring that no more was to be added.
iv) That this was done because of the threat from heretical writings.

The Roman Catholic church emphasises, in contrast to Protestant churches that:-
a) The church existed prior to the canon.
b) The church in many ways is the source and origin of Scripture.

The Protestant church emphasises that:-
a) The truth of God and the plan of creation and salvation existed before the church.
b) God is the source and origin of Scripture that He created through human instruments.

Though these appear to contradict each other, in fact all these statements are true, and the issue is one of balance. Protestants over emphasise the God-ward side seeing the catholic emphasis as being too glorifying to man and taking away the glory of God. But in taking this position, the danger of Protestantism is to dehumanise the Scriptures in a very subtle way. Fundamentalists will always point out the human characteristics of the Scripture writings, but the emphasis on Scripture as the pure word of God nevertheless has a kind of dehumanising effect, turning the Scriptures into something that the original church might not recognise.

23) What is the position of the canon today?

The protestant reformation was firmly based on Scripture alone as the final authority and standard for Christian faith and conduct. It was considered to be the inerrant word of God. This tradition has continued, but in the 19th century, problems began to arise with this view as sincere believers had problems with apparent contradictions. Others sought to dismiss such claims for this literature, and criticism of various kinds began to emerge. Ancient manuscripts were re examined, styles of writing and composition of the various texts were looked at and so on. Thus it is now longer considered that the Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews. Some would cast doubt on whether he wrote the letter to the Ephesians. The authorship of II Peter is in doubt. Some Old Testament prophets are perceived to have been written by a number of authors rather than just one, and so on. On the basis of what we have seen as principles for establishing the New Testament canon, this would mean that books not written by the 12 apostles or Paul should be removed from the canon because they have been revealed not to be Apostolic, and therefore lose the qualification to be included in the canon. As a defence against these problems, some protestants argue that though these writings were not written by the apostles themselves, they were nevertheless approved by them and so should be included in the canon, though exactly how we ascertain which non apostolic writings received approval is not explained. Perhaps by apostolic tradition. This is a position that cannot be disproved or proved, and the debate concerning some non apostolic writings is therefore still open. Certain groups, particularly Reformed Calvinists, maintained that scripture was the very word of God, inspired by Him in every detail, and because God is without sin, and because an authoritative rule for faith is necessary. God withheld the effects of sin from the Biblical authors when He inspired them, their Biblical writing being without error of any kind, except for a few minor errors in translation that do not affect the main truths. In other words, there was a shift in emphasis to the God-ward side of the origin and creation of Scriptures. This was coupled with the implication that to criticise Scripture is to criticise God Himself. It has been argued that this was a deliberate move on the part of leaders such as B.B. Warfield to keep and maintain the fundamentalist type of believer in that form of belief. Some fundamental protestant leaders further argue that like creation, Scripture contains evidence within Itself that God is its Author. Since God inspired the writers, the character of God can be seen in the Bible writings themselves, just like the character and distinctive qualities of a writer can be seen in a letter or a painter in a painting. We shall examine this argument shortly. First we need to look at the nature of inspiration.

24) What does inspiration mean?

Primarily, it means God breathed. It means that inspired writings are more than mere human productions, because God has breathed the words and truths into them via human writers. Someone may be Inspired but not write anything down, rather giving speech that is God breathed.

25) Is Inspiration limited to the writers of the canon of Scripture?

No. Many fundamentalists argue that inspiration equals inerrancy, and that therefore it is limited to Scripture writers and their particular canonical writings because only these writings are without mistakes of any kind. However even some respected fundamentalists such as Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones recognise that people other than the Scripture writers have been Inspired. Dr. Lloyd-Jones in one of his Westminster lectures on Howell Harris, a leader of the Welsh revival in the 18th Century, argues that God through the Holy Spirit inspired Harris’ preaching. ('Howell Harris and revival' Westminster Conference 1973, "Adding to the church".) Similarly, other leaders, respected by fundamentalists, such as John Knox and John Flavel, appeared to have revelations and inspirations from the Holy Spirit. Despite attempts by some fundamentalists to use the latter part of I Corinthians 13 as proof that revelation. Inspiration and gifts of the Spirit generally have ceased; such an interpretation of this text is, in my opinion doubtful, and by no means shared by all fundamentalists anyway. There is a tendency in fundamentalism to see inspiration as a black and white issue: a person is either inspired, and thus what they say largely if not fully without error, or they are not inspired at all. I think that the reality is more complex, and that inspiration should be seen not as an all or nothing event, but rather as a continuum. In other words, there are various degrees of Inspiration, the influence is brought about by the Holy Spirit to a greater or lesser degree, and is by no means limited to the Scripture writers. I consider that God is able to, and does at various times influence believers and unbelievers alike, directly by the Holy Spirit, such that they may be inspired to varying degrees, and may also receive secret, hidden Information, or revelations by the Spirit.

26) How can we check that someone who claims Inspiration or revelation really has been inspired by God or had information revealed to them by God?

This of course was the problem in the early church. Some people had emotional experiences and thought that they were Inspired, some proclaimed teaching that they claimed or thought to be inspired, and some attempted to deceive the church by saying that they were inspired. Some moved to positions of contradicting the Apostles or encouraging practices which seemed extreme after declaring that God had commanded them directly to such teaching or practices. It is for this very reason that certain writings were included in a canon or rule of faith. Any opposition to these teachings was considered to be suspect, and to be treated with caution or rejected. So, the Scriptures, (however we define them) are considered by the church to be an authoritative guide in such matters, for reasons that I have already outlined. We would expect such influences to agree then with these Scripture documents. Indications are that people who experience such events do not lose their self control, and that the emphasis is on understanding and teaching, on glorifying God and on opposing sin. The powerful emotions that may accompany such an event arise from the powerful perception of God and aspects of His character. It is not the emotional feelings themselves that are the centre of attention. They are also often accompanied by a deep sense of unworthiness and absence of pride in oneself and even one's highest and best achievements, but not in such a way that one is made to feel depressed. However, they may be anxiety about salvation and a deep sense of one's sin before one is assured of mercy. There is no standard length of experience. Some may last a few moments, some for hours, and some for days. One may enter into a state of ecstasy, losing all sense of one's surroundings and sensations such as hunger. There appears to be no formula for creating such an experience, though often, they are preceded by deep concern over some spiritual issue, and/or by prayer or meditation. Such events cannot be announced beforehand, but are given, according to Paul, by God's own pleasure and to accomplish His purposes of which we are often ignorant. The influence itself contains its own evidence as to it's authorship in it's manner of coming, subject matter and general tendency and effects, and the Holy spirit may show very strongly the evidences of authorship to the person concerned.

Nevertheless, this area remains one in which there remain many problems, and where believers and unbelievers alike can easily be deceived. There are many psychological, group and emotional effects that can appear to be truly extraordinary, but on further Investigation, be found to have little foundation in spiritual terms. Great claims can be made, and the mind can have unusual effects upon the body, apparently causing healings, involuntary movements, shaking, and pseudo language speaking, even the speaking of foreign languages not learned by the speaker.

Thus we see again the need for some appeal to authority, and the church has agreed that the writings in the canon provide us with such an authority and guide for our faith, as being the results of high degrees of inspirations and revelations that have withstood usage, time and investigations, in many ways.

27) If a person is inspired by God, does this mean that what they say or write whilst inspired is without error?

No. This would depend on the degree or amount of inspiration. To have no errors at all would mean that every letter, word and punctuation mark would have to be given by God, and this could only be done by dictation. Robert Horn like many fundamentalists recognises that such dictation contradicts the variety of styles present in the Scripture writings, and so like most fundamentalists rejects the idea of dictation. He suggests that truths were given in units of meaning where words are symbols, and Inspiration extends to single words in the sense that these words are servants of phrases, sentences, arguments and books, and one cannot hold up a single word as inspired because it has no meaning without its context. Nevertheless, such arguments and doctrines may hinge upon single words. He concludes that '...the actual production of any part of Scripture is always to be viewed as the final stage or act in a series of processes - providential, gracious, supernatural and historical. This taken as a whole culminates in a recorded revelation in which words act as component parts of units of meaning. These words convey through their human authors and features the authentic and PURE WORD OF GOD. (pp. 54-55. My capitals). This is a very round about way of saying that a number of events and circumstances worked together under God's guidance, together with the Holy Spirit working in the author, to produce the pure word of God. There was no strict dictation, neither was it an accident, but these things working together gave us an inspired word from God to the point where the writings are totally without error.

This has a certain appeal because it does less violence to the character of the authors than direct dictation. Again however, we are in the realms of philosophical speculation, and we must look at the evidence to see if this kind of argument for inerrant revelation is sufficient. Do all these Imperfect factors somehow come together to create something perfect? Some of the problems with dictation are:
a) There were changes in the Jewish language such that accents and spellings were changed, some of which did not occur in the originals, and therefore, older manuscripts had to be interpreted.

b) Human perspectives, and limitations together with social and historical perspectives clearly shine through. The writer of Matthew is clearly different in style from that of John and both are different from Isaiah. The degree of inspiration required for dictated inerrancy is not there.

c) There is no evidence that God held back the effects of sin in the writers as regards their writings, this is a logical, philosophical argument, rather than a Biblical one. It is logical once one accepts certain suppositions and wishes to maintain the idea of no mistakes at all.

Problems with inerrancy in general are:
a) Biblical verses which indicate that all Scripture is Inspired, and therefore without errors, cannot be used as 'proof because which books and letters are in the canon and which are excluded had not been defined when these verses were written. This verse could only be used in a more general way to say that all religious, sacred writing is God breathed and therefore helpful in Instruction.

b) With Inerrancy there can be no mistakes in Scripture whatsoever, however, there are indeed many detailed passages that create problems of unity of truth for Scripture, of which we can only look at few.

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, Matt 11 v 15-17, Luke 19 v 45,46? To insist on two cleansings is to ridicule the gospels as literary works.
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 8 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.
Some, but not all of these can be ascribed to errors by copyists.

Some prophesies are not fulfilled:
Ezekiel prophesies concerning the fall of Tyre, that God declares it will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and never rebuilt. Ezekiel 26 v 9-14. But, sixteen years later, Ezekiel begins Chapter 29 from the evident fact that Nebuchadnezzar failed to destroy Tyre. Ezekiel 29 v 17 - 20.

II Samuel 24 v 1: The Lord incites David. I Chronicles 21 v 1: Satan incites David.
I Kings 15 v 14 with II Chronicles 14 v 5: Did Asa remove the high places or not?
Ephesians 4 v 8 with Psalm 68 v 18: Were gifts given or received by God?
Mark 6 v 7-9 with Luke 9 v 1-3: Did the disciples have to take a staff or not?

c) 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 1656 years from Adam to Noah's flood. In other words, 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, (it fails to have complete and absolute unity of Information), and correspondence to facts, (there are difficulties in finding Independent evidence to support some of the major events described).

Of course, those who believe that the Scripture has no mistakes will often find explanations for these difficulties. One of their major tasks is harmonisation: relating together and explaining difficulties like those above. The question that has to be asked is: How believable are those explanations? How reasonable do they sound? Are their alternative explanations that sound better? Obviously, each problem has to be considered separately, as there are different difficulties with each one. But even writers like R.M Horn are forced to admit that they cannot reconcile and solve all these contradictions and problems. Many fundamentalists like Horn then shift their ground. They argue that these verses have not been proved to be untrue, and until they are, we can live with them. They shift the burden of proof to the unbeliever, requiring them to disprove the verses. Similar approaches are often used with supportive disciplines like archaeology, which are quoted and appealed to when they support the fundamentalist’s position, but if they do not, the burden of proof is shifted so that archaeology has to absolutely disprove historical statements in the Bible. However, as we have seen earlier, this will never be the case because facts have to be interpreted. Fundamentalists may also argue that we live and function every day with ideas that have not been proved to be true, but which serve us well. If we all took the position that everything had to be proved before we accepted it we would get nowhere. Of course, it is true that we do accept many ideas without having proof. But it is usually because we have good reasons for doing so, and because we have not come across evidence or Indications suggesting that our position is incorrect. I have not circled the globe, and have not proved to myself that the world is round rather than flat. Nevertheless, I believe it is round because I see lots of evidence and reports to suggest that it is so, and no serious evidence to suggest that it is flat. Fundamentalists make the claim that Scripture is inerrant. The onus is upon them to show the evidence that this is indeed the case; especially in the light of the sort of problems we have just seen. Putting the onus on fundamentalists is consistent with the older arguments put forward by puritans such as John Owen in his 'Reason of faith', namely that Scripture carries within Itself its own evidence of Divine Authorship. It is quite legitimate therefore to ask: ‘What exactly is this evidence?'.

28) What evidence is put forward to suggest that the writings in the canon of Scripture are inspired, or God breathed?

i) The contents are so grand and awe Inspiring, far above anything else. Their content is so full of secrets and matters that cannot be explained that they could never be just a human invention or discovery: For example, it declares a Trinity in the Deity, it describes the Person of Christ, the corruption of man, the plan of salvation, the law of God, and comprehends a universal history of the world, past, present and future.

ii) It is very old, yet still very much means something to us today, such that we can use it's ideas when other ancient writers have lost their application to us, or have been replaced by new and better ideas.

iii) They are written in a style that cannot be copied, with a style of authority, despite being written by a number of writers, over a considerable length of time.

iv) There is a character of purity in the writings, condemning sin and extolling goodness.

v) They have a harmony and balance, an agreement and consent, which are maintained despite the time span of writings and variety of authors.

vi) Its prophecies have been fulfilled accurately.

vii) It's teaching was confirmed by miracles and signs
.
viii) These writings have survived many attempts to eradicate them by both men and Satan.

ix) It has a tremendous range and scope of subject matter.

x) It's teaching is effective: lives are changed.

xi) The church has had a high esteem for Scripture, regarding it as inspired.

29) What can we conclude about this evidence?

That depends on who is doing the evaluating and what assumptions and beliefs they already hold. Some would say that these reasons prove beyond doubt that the Scriptures are Inspired and therefore without error. Others will say there are problems with each of these ideas. There are other books with grand, awe Inspiring ideas which do not claim to be written by God. There is other old literature still of relevance, including some of the books not included in the canon. There are other very moral and even God glorifying writings that are not in Scripture. Other religious systems often have a harmonious well worked out system. It is questionable whether all the prophesies of the Bible have been accurately fulfilled. Nevertheless, these ideas go some way to showing that the Bible is a special collection of books, highly regarded by the Christian community, and quite possibly something more than a mere human invention. Here again, fundamentalists often resort to philosophical/theological argument to maintain their position. They argue basically that Scripture is inerrant because written by God. The evidence of this is there in the Scriptures themselves. But humankind, because its nature is fallen, is blind towards God, biased against Him, and has a preference for self interest over and above interest in God. The evidence is there, but we are blinded, hardened and biased by sin. This is a circular argument that to the fundamentalist only serves to confirm the sinful state of those who do not accept the Bible as God's inerrant word.

30) What can we conclude about inerrancy then?

Some of the evidence listed may Indeed point to the fact that the Bible is a special collection of books and letters, to the point of being Inspired, having something of the influence or breath of God infused into them, but not to the point of being without error. Internal and external evidence points to contradictions and errors to a degree where the claims of fundamentalists do not seem to be proved. The onus of proof is indeed upon them, but their arguments appear merely philosophical or circular in nature, or they shift their ground attempting to put the onus on others to disprove the fundamentalist position, which is not possible.

31) What can we conclude about the Bible then?

The bible is a collection of letters and books written over a long period of time by various authors. The items which have been Included and excluded have been decided upon by the community of believers, and have been much debated and have varied to some degree. They were assembled as an authority for faith because of the collapse or threat to the Jewish nation and it's Identity, and because of mistakes and heresies coming into the new testament church following the death of the Apostles and the worsening quality of word of mouth accounts, together with the rise of false written accounts. It's qualities and preservation, together with the miracles and wonders performed by some of it's writers, indicate this collection to be something special, but not to the degree that they are without mistake or contradiction of any kind. Some of the literature excluded from the canon may also be inspired, or God breathed, though parts of them were thought to have qualities that were not quite right. The main quality for New Testament inclusion was Apostolic authorship. Scholarship and information has improved since the early church decided on the New Testament canon, and some of the New Testament is now considered not to be written by Apostles. Problems within and between the writings themselves, and in confirming some of the events recorded from other independent sources, mean that though inspired, they are not without mistakes and human limitations, reflecting certain ideas of the time, and that therefore, inspiration does not mean that they are totally without mistakes.

32) The church has defined the existing New Testament books as being inspired by God. Which of these are now considered to be written by Apostles and which by others?

To give an answer requires a very complex and long series of facts and theories well beyond the scope of this study. Needless to say, there is not agreement amongst scholars, who approach the subject from different angles. However, a typical overview of the New Testament might be something like this:
For three of the gospels, which are very similar in content, it is thought that there was firstly Mark, itself a copy from a now lost original source, and another lost original source, called by scholars Q. Matthew and Luke drew from both Mark and Q, and thus these three are very similar. Matthew and Luke add a small amount of unique material of their own. The titles, the gospel of Mark, e.t.c., were not part of the originals, and these works are not thought to be written by any of the twelve apostles. One of the gospels, John, is quite different, and many think that it is indeed and eyewitness account. Acts is written by the same author as Luke. Of the letters assigned to Paul, many are not in doubt as to their authenticity. Some express doubts about Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians, but a really powerful case is not presented. II Thessalonians is doubted to be by Paul quite often. Most doubt that Paul wrote the pastoral letters of I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus, because of problems with style and content. Hebrews is not considered to be by Paul, but possibly by Barnabas, or Appollos. I Peter is disputed by some because of it's accomplished use of Greek, but most think it genuine. II Peter is doubted by most as being by Peter. The letter of James is thought to be by the leader of the council in Jerusalem at the time of the apostles, James the lesser. (Acts 15 v 13). A very influential and important leader, but not one of the twelve apostles. I John is considered genuine, but quite a few scholars express doubts about II John and III John. Jude is thought to have been written by Judas the apostle, or Judas the brother of the Lord, but not one of the twelve. Revelation is thought by many to be written by John, one of the twelve apostles, or by John the Presbyter, a John who is not one of the twelve.

33) Has the church altered the canon in response to these findings?

No. At the present time, the various groupings within the church have kept their particular canons.

34) Fundamentalists place a great deal of importance on Scripture as the only way of knowing salvation. If this is the case, what about those people who do not have or have never seen a Bible? Are they automatically lost, or bound for hell?

There are obviously many people who have lived and died without ever knowing of these writings, or about the Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, the church considers it an important matter to make these writings available to as many as possible, and some Christians have been imprisoned or died trying to do just that. The position of people without the bible must be similar to early Old Testament believers. Abraham for example did not have any of our scriptures: Moses had not yet been born. Neither did people of this time have any understanding of Jesus or who he was. They could not look forward in time to see Jesus or what He would be like. Some, like Abraham were privileged to have God speak to them directly, but not all believers had this kind of communication. Nevertheless, Abraham's faith, and the faith of those like him, was reckoned to them as righteousness. Abraham was a sinner like everyone else. His works condemned him in God's sight. But Abraham, like other Old Testament believers, trusted God. God's plan was not fully revealed, the method of salvation was not clear at all, but these people trusted God for deliverance, and that faith was counted as righteousness, according to the Apostle Paul. (Romans 4 v 3, Genesis 15 v 6). Paul argues that the man who does not work, who is not in the position of earning favour or righteousness by good deeds, but rather trusts God is in a position where his faith is credited as righteousness. The details of how God can do this and maintain consistency with His pure character, and the details of how this plan is accomplished vary in their clarity. For some, these details are vague and obscure. As we have seen, it is possible to know that God exists and to know something of His character by our own moral human nature, thoughts and conscience and from evidences in creation. It may be also that God may speak to us directly, but this is rare. Nevertheless, there is a universal testimony and witness to God's character and existence in creation. What scripture does then is to refine and define in a fuller way what this God is like, making His character and plans more plain, and revealing more than creation and human nature can about God. And for this reason it is very precious. As we have already seen, people without Scripture will be judged by the standards of their thoughts and consciences and their trust in a God revealed to all through creation in such a way that all are without excuse for not trusting God. Even if such a faith may be poorly defined and not well Informed, it will be counted as righteousness and that faith revealed to others by the behaviour of that person. The one who has scripture is able to see God's plan for saving people and to understand more fully Gods dealings. With this extra knowledge comes increased accountability. The more we know of what God has revealed about Himself, the more grievous our sins are and the greater the punishment may be, because we ignore or go against such a high degree of knowledge. Those who believe God, or trust in Him, apart from any self righteousness have their faith credited to them as righteousness, and are the children of Abraham in that they are heirs to the promises made to Abraham. (Galatians 3 v 6). The object of that faith may be slightly defined through creation, or more precisely defined through the more personal and detailed inspired revelation of Scripture. The fundamentalists, in depreciating the power of natural revelation through creation because of the effects of sin are obliged to lay greater emphasis still upon the Importance of Scripture as the ONLY way of finding salvation. I suggest that this position is one of imbalance.

35) What evidence is there in creation of God' existence?

First of all it must be emphasised that we cannot point to one element or part of creation and from it conclusively prove that God exists. God cannot be proved in this way at all. Secondly, theology drawn from Scripture tells us that the earth and creation are not as God created them. They have been blighted by the result of sin and God's curse. The harmonious paradise that God created has been spoiled. Thus for every glorious flower we can find some ugly, pernicious weed: alongside lush, fertile countryside, there exist barren deserts and frozen wastelands: and with every aspect of harmony we also find violence and cruelty in the struggle of species to survive. According to Scripture we find as a result that the earth is sometimes shaken by natural calamities, storms and earthquakes, partly as a result of the curse, sometimes as specific punishments or demonstrations of wrath against sin by God. The world then is not a perfect reflection of God's character as it once was. Nevertheless, the marks of its creation as being Divine are still present to some degree. Evidence for God's existence and character is indirect in the sense that some deduction or inference is necessary, and as we have already seen, it is limited in the amount of Information it contains. Paul argues that the provision of rain, crops in season, food and hearts filled with joy are testimony to God and His kindness. He elsewhere argues that God's Invisible qualities. His power and divine nature are clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. Thus, as the Psalmist says, the heavens declare the glory of God, without words they display knowledge to all.

Of course, it is quite easy to approach the universe and the daily provision of food with another perspective, and to interpret them differently. This of course is what happens. Different peoples have created different religions based on interpretations of creation, often worshipping creation itself. This is what Paul mentions in Romans 1. In other words, though the evidence is there, says Paul, it has to be interpreted. God's character and nature has to be understood from the things that are made, and of course, fundamentalists are correct in pointing out that the bias that sin creates in human beings against God means that people tend to suppress the knowledge of God that creation and providence gives, and exchange it for something else. Unfortunately, this seems to be as specific as we can get. Scripture does not elaborate upon what it is about creation that reveals God, and philosophers have probed the question to such a depth that the arguments are way beyond the scope of this study.
Arguments tend to revolve around the size, order and complexity of creation.

36) Another source of authority claimed by the Church is the Holy Spirit. Who or what is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead. There is one God in three persons:- The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force or power, but an actual person. Though these three are equal, they willingly submit to each other in the following way: The Son submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to Son, seeking to glorify the Son and the Father. As the Father sent the Son to live, die and be resurrected, so, when the Son ascended to heaven. He gave the Spirit, in a different and fuller way than had been known before.

37) What is this different and fuller way?

The Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, with signs that witnessed to this event. From that moment, the Holy Spirit Himself was given to Indwell or live in believers as an influence towards truth and purity and as a foretaste of promises to yet be fulfilled. Thus, when Individual believers gather together, and especially when church leaders gather together, (since they are chosen by existing Elders and church for their qualities of faith and purity), the Holy Spirit is present in a very special way, and the church has an advantage that unbelievers, however numerous or educated, do not have. This does not mean that the church is perfect or without mistake. There is still much sin present, and many mistakes can be made, and there are of course many divisions, groups and opinions in the church.

38) Is the Holy Spirit anywhere else besides living in believers?

Yes. He is God; therefore He is omnipresent, that is. He is in all places. In other words, He is not restricted to one geographical location like the angels or humans. He is at work all over the world. He deals with unbelievers as well as believers, but He has this special relationship with believers, and deals with them in ways that are unique.

39) What kind of work does the Holy Spirit do?

His works can be categorised into two types:
a) Common grace works. These are works done by the Holy Spirit that are common to all mankind and which are not limited to believers only. For example, the Spirit restrains sin in unbelievers, stopping them from becoming absolutely evil. He gives people gifts and abilities. He convicts or makes people aware of their guilt of sin.
b) Gracious or saving works. These are unique to believers, and are not shared by unbelievers. To believers, the Spirit acts as a Witness, Earnest, Sealer, Leader, Intercessor and Comforter.

All His works exist somewhere along a line between two
points:-
a) Ordinary works. That is, works that are frequent, or seemingly natural, such as the gift of being able to teach, or have a 'natural' ability to be a carpenter.

b) Extraordinary works. These are either rare, and/or unusually high in degree, for example being a genius as opposed to being clever; and/or supernatural, such as miracle working and prophecy.

40) How does this present work of the Spirit in believers relate to the work of the Spirit in the Apostles and their traditions and writings?

There is a tension between the inspiration of the Apostles and the current work of the Holy Spirit in believers. In the early church, the current work of the Spirit was emphasised, and there were many prophets for example, declaring messages from God. A typical group, in the 2nd Century were the Montanists, a prophetic movement in Turkey. Montanus was a recent convert who held no position of Elder. Eventually synods or councils of Bishops in Asia and elsewhere condemned it. Since this period, the church has favoured the authority of the Apostolic tradition, effectively recorded in their writings and creeds, over and above any new revelations or inspirations of the Spirit. Any claimed new Inspirations or revelations of the Spirit in believers are tested by the writings of the Apostles, to make sure that there are no differences in ideas or teaching.

41) In a little more detail, what sort of works does the Spirit do when indwelling the Christian?

He acts as a:
Witness. He reveals evidences of being a believer, and draws attention to Christian characteristics such as hope, joy, hatred of sin and so on, as they are present.

Earnest. His presence acts as a foretaste and guarantee of the reality of future promises of heaven.

Sealer. He establishes, by His influence, the character or likeness of God in a believer as a stamp of God's ownership.

Leader. He inclines the Christian to do the will of God and live in purity. He alters the taste or preferences of the person, such that they love the things that God loves and hate the things that He hates.

Intercessor. He steps in between the believer and the Father, pleading the believer's case before the throne of grace.

Comforter. He comes alongside believers, offering help, by energising, or causing them to remember teaching, or persuading of sin, and so on.

42) In a little more detail, what sort of works does the Spirit do to both Christians and non Christians?

The Holy Spirit:
Restrains sin. He holds back the effects and desires that are in opposition to God.
Awakens to sin. He makes people aware that they have done things that are not right.
Convicts of guilt. He persuades people that they are guilty of offending God.
Leads to repentance. He leads people to be sorry for their sins, confess them to God and turn away from them.
He gives gifts and abilities.
These include:
Prophets
Evangelists
Pastors
Teachers
Word of wisdom
Word of knowledge
Miracle working
Faith
Overseers
Tongue speaking and interpretation.
Some of these gifts are people, some are qualities, they are all given for the benefit of the Church, but in some cases, extraordinary abilities may be given to unbelievers, usually in connection with God dealing with that person in a very special way, perhaps to protect them, or protect believers in some way.

43) How are each of these works recognised?

Since all these things come from God there is expected to be some sort of unity in them. Therefore they are expected to conform to the character of God revealed in creation, Jesus and the Inspired writers and especially with Apostolic writings, traditions, teachings and creeds. The more extraordinary gifts evidence themselves by their very unusualness as well as having the above qualities.

44) What are the evidences of the indwelling of the Spirit?

This has to be inferred: to be concluded reasoned and interpreted from the facts available. The Holy Spirit's influence varies in degree, such that sometimes evidences are plain but at other times difficult to make out. With some extraordinary influences there may be a strong accompanying witness of the Spirit, testifying to the authorship of the phenomenon. As such, the person concerned may have great confidence as to the divine authorship of the gift or message. This is not merely great confidence, but a confidence based upon internal evidence of the nature of the influence's coming to the person, together with a very clear perception of the marks of God in the influence itself, its content and main thrust. The content and nature of the Influence is always consistent with the character of God, has a tendency towards holiness and moral purity, and does not promote the recipient of the Influence, who may be full of humility and self abasement as a result of their perception of God. For onlookers, who do not receive such an extraordinary work, they have to look at the event and interpret what is going on, as the onlookers did at Pentecost. It may be that the Interpretation given by a person moved by the Spirit will persuade others. In the more usual cases of the normal Christian life and experience, the chief evidence is in the quality of the person's life rather than what they say or claim to believe: The indwelling of the Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit.
This Is:
Love for God and man as opposed to hatred of God.
Joy in the Lord as opposed to misery.
Peace with God as opposed to restlessness with God
Longsuffering as opposed to impatience.
Gentleness as opposed to roughness.
Goodness as opposed to badness
Faith as opposed to unbelief.
Meekness as opposed to pride.
Self control as opposed to want of restraint.

Those not indwelt by the Spirit may have qualities in their lives such as:
Sexual immorality.
Impurity.
Too much involvement in pleasure for it's own sake.
Following other religions
Discord.
Jealousy.
Anger.
Selfish ambition.
Being divisive.
Being envious.
Drunkenness
These are not just isolated qualities. Obviously Christians may get drunk sometimes, or become jealous or angry. Rather, these are settled characteristics that last a long time. If a person is continually angry, or drunk, and hardly ever has peace with God or love for Him, then we may doubt them when they say that they are a Christian, and may doubt the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them. It is in this way that we reason and conclude the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Of course, since the moral qualities of the fruit of the Spirit may be present or appear to be present in those not professing Christianity, and since alternative interpretations can be placed upon the reasons for the presence of such qualities, we are left again with a variety of interpretations.

45) To return to our original question then: Where does the church get it's authority from? How does the church know what is right and wrong in spiritual matters?

The ultimate authority for these matters is God Himself.
God reveals Himself and His will by:
i) Direct appearances, which are exceptionally rare.
ii) Angelic appearances, which are also rare.
iii) Through Jesus Christ: His life and His teaching.
iv) Through miracles and wonders, which are rare.
v) Through Apostolic tradition and customs.
vi) Through various sacred. God breathed writings.
vii) Through the gathered church, or community of believers, each of whom is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and especially through it's leaders and their councils.
viii) Through gifts, both ordinary and, more rarely, extraordinary gifts from the Holy Spirit.
ix) Through creation.
x) Through a moral human nature, created in God's image, such that conscience and thoughts accuse or excuse a person’s deeds.

We are left with the fact that God, angels, and other heavenly beings are spiritual beings, invisible, not provable by scientific investigation. The suggestions are that:-
a) God has made himself a physical being in the form of Jesus, but He is no longer present with us in this physical form.

b) God Himself, or other spiritual beings with His permission can influence people and objects in terms of power, for example by transcending physical laws. Such events have to be interpreted, to assess their cause, and they will be interpreted by prevailing world views of the witnesses. Someone present may be influenced by God to give an interpretation, in which case see (c) below. These spiritual beings may change a person's life, and again, these changes have to be interpreted to ascertain their cause.

c) God Himself or other spiritual beings with His permission can Influence people by communication, such as revealing themselves or information via dreams, tongues e.t.c.. This is inspiration, but this does not appear to occur to a degree whereby there are absolutely no mistakes. However, since God declares Himself to be truth we would expect a high degree of truth and accuracy in inspired statements. The manner in which such Influences come, and the nature of their content have to be interpreted also, in order to assess their authorship. This Includes written revelation and Inspiration such as Scripture.

d) God has evidenced Himself to all through His work of creation and providence. The disposition of man is such that he tends to dismiss this evidence, which again has to be interpreted, and he tends to suppress it and exchange it for other world views.

e) The Judeo-Christian Church has taken certain writings and after consideration and interpretation of the evidence, considered them to be inspired to a degree that they can profitably be used for teaching and Instruction, and as an authoritative rule for Christian practice. The debate as to what should and should not be included in this rule has continued through the centuries. Further evidence and examination suggests that some of the New Testament writings are not what they claim, and perhaps not suitable for a rule of faith. The main qualification for inclusion was Apostolicity.

46) Is there any order or hierarchy to these? How do they work together?

This is difficult to express in diagram form, but a simple idea may look as follows:-

HIERARCHY OF SPIRITUAL REVELATION

GOD THE FATHER

-Revealed in CREATION...(Indirect)
via Things that are made.
Providence.
Human moral nature...
via Knowledge of good and bad.
Conscience.
-and through the CHURCH...
because of the indwelling of the Spirit.
via Apostles and their works.
Sacred writings.
Church leaders and councils.
Gathered Believers.

JESUS CHRIST

Direct visitations.
No longer physically present.
Full revelation-God made flesh.
Life and teaching recorded via
Apostolic writings inspired by
HOLY SPIRIT
Given to believers and at work in the world.

RIGHTEOUS ANGELS - Visitations.

FALLEN ANGELS - Visitations and influences Lies and Half-truths.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD

HIERARCHY OF HUMAN AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.

JESUS CHRIST
(Ascended to heaven and
no longer physically
present. So He gave..)

HOLY SPIRIT
(To teach apostles and
enable them to remember
Jesus' teaching and perform
wonders as testimony to
the truth of their message.)

ISRAEL'S
PROPHETS/ LEADERS ---------------------- APOSTLES GIFTS
(moved by Holy Spirit)
consistent with
Inspired sacred writings
Teaching - writings - traditions
creeds
Hebrew canon New Testament canon*
APOSTLES SUCCESSORS

Other sacred writings teachings-writings
creeds and councils

OTHER BELIEVERS - writings - creeds - councils - traditions

* Here, the New Testament writings are considered as Apostolic writings only.
Secular knowledge and expertise is assumed to pervade all human levels.

We can see from the first diagram that God the Father is the final Authority, with the Son submitting to him and the Spirit in turn submitting to the Son. The Son has been amongst us and taught men and demonstrated proof of Who He is by His miracles, but He is no longer present. He has left us with the Holy Spirit, working in various ways and degrees. Then there are the messengers of God, created spiritual beings called angels. God is revealed in all his works, but these are in the main invisible beings, and it does not seem to be usual for God to talk to us via these messengers. God is revealed in His works of creation, and though a universal witness to God, it is in many ways limited in what it declares. It is also affected by the fall into sin, such that though man has a moral nature and a conscience, it does not work properly because sin: a preference of self over and above God, distorts it. A written revelation inspired by the Holy Spirit is more detailed in its content and has some of the effects of sin overcome. It is also less open to misinterpretation. Therefore, in the absence of the physical presence of God, and in the light of the effects of sin distorting our sense of what is right, inspired religious writings are our only record of what Jesus said and did, and the most authoritative and reliable account of what God requires. Writings by believers of repute who are not one of the twelve are also helpful in teaching and enabling the understanding, but of all the writings, those by the twelve and Paul are the most authoritative, since they were taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and commissioned by God to be the founders of the New Testament church. It is for this reason that we find the writings of the apostles more relevant to us than those of the Old Testament because we live in the New Testament age. Matters of conscience and our sense of right and wrong, since distorted by sin, should therefore be examined in comparison to their writings, where those writings cover the issues involved. But other writings by believers should not be ignored. Early writings such as Didache, and I Clement, and Christian classics such as Pilgrims Progress are all valuable for teaching, even if they do not have the same authority.

47) Is the Church united in all that it does then?

No. Different groups place different degrees of importance between tradition, creeds and writings, and even within the canon of Scripture, different groups place different degrees of importance on different passages and verses. Some passages are hard to understand, and different groups understand them differently. Some groups are more patient with sin and error than others, and so on. And of course, the church is not without sin. Ultimately, each person has to be persuaded in their own minds, having listened to teachers, read the literature and thought carefully, as to which path they think is correct. But the writings of the apostles themselves encourage us to unity and peace in God. Nevertheless, there may come a point at which a person considers that a certain type of behaviour and thought is not in line with thoughts expressed in sacred writings, and differences of opinion may occur between believers. It is especially important that at such times, each maintains humility love and peace, especially towards God before Whom one is ultimately answerable to.

48) What lies behind the need for spiritual authority?

Spiritual authority is concerned, amongst other things, with the need for consistency of form, with the need for orthodoxy. It is felt that Truth, spiritual truth about God, has been declared in one form or another by those who have reached some spiritual attainment, and that this form must be maintained and protected from the corrupting influence of other (lesser and inferior) ideas and practices that are seen as erroneous or heretical. Spiritual authority is partly about conserving and preserving received spiritual wisdom, about maintaining traditional spiritual beliefs and practices. The answer to question 13 showed that there was a profusion of sects and groups each going of at various tangents, and that this was why some rule of faith was needed. Of all these groups, Christian Fundamentalists are amongst the most conservative…it is no wonder then that they are at the forefront of maintaining what they see as the sole rule of faith…the Bible.

49) What about texts from other religions and faiths?

In the ten years that have passed since writing this study I have travelled wide in the spiritual country. It seems to me that God is Formless, but that God necessarily communicates to us in appropriate forms in order that we may understand and communicate something about God. We have already seen that God is generally revealed to all through creation, for example. The Christian faith can be more properly called the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has emerged from the culture of Judaism and has a particular interpretation concerning Jesus, (which Jews do not share). There is, in turn, within this Judeo-Christian tradition, a wide range of different interpretations, emphases, and balances giving rise to different movements and divisions within Christianity. The perspective advocated by Fundamentalists means that they cling to their particular form as the one and only authoritative form. Other perspectives take a different or wider view. I personally lean towards an approach of Mysticism, of direct communication and experience with God, as providing the best personal evidence of God’s existence and as being the most authoritative. In this view, the forms of God that are presented are merely appropriate and apt symbols by which the Formless Absolute communicates to us. Ultimately, as one draws near to God in experience, our need for form and indeed the forms themselves, fall away and are rendered useless as they are swallowed up in God. In looking at and experiencing mysticism, I have seen that people from other faiths have had the same experiences, but expressed in the forms of their own culture and religious tradition.

In our normal level of functioning in this world, we need some form or other, some concept of God, some form or way of approach, some commonly held perspective in order for us to begin our approach to God, communicate our understanding and share in fellowship; some boundary that gives us a framework and structure. This form may or may not be that of Christianity. Thus there are other forms, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. These too have their sacred writings and authorities and these too originate at a particular time and within a particular culture. Though they may share some ideas in common, they are at the same time too diverse to be harmonised: to diverse to create a single, authoritative world religious text. When we try to harmonise all the world’s religions, this results in too much compromise and watering down of any one tradition. Rather, each tradition tends to enclose us within its own boundary and system of teaching, insight and practice…we are sheep within a particular pen. The writings of one tradition may even appear heretical, false and dangerous from the viewpoint of another tradition. One way to think of this is to regard these different religions as different schools; different disciplines and methods of approach to an Absolute that is Transcendent of any form and which cannot be grasped or encompassed by any mind or system of thought. All these schools, these religions, are partial and inadequate, and are also firmly based in an historical and cultural context. As spiritual seekers after truth, some of them will seem more adequate, more resonant, more applicable, more Godly than others. The situation would seem to be this:

ABSOLUTE / GOD

REVELATION / INSPIRATION
(within a context of time and culture)

PROPHECY
(Faithful Declaration of
what is received)
(Q 24 – 29)
Some of this written down Some lost and forgotten

May be mixed with other writings:
i) Historical accounts
ii) Opinions and teachings
iii) Genealogies

Some destined for Holy Scriptures Some destined for sacred writings
and but
considered authoritative quotes not considered authoritative
for that tradition / school (Q 6) for that tradition / school
(Canonical)
(Q 3 – 5, 8 – 14)
Apocryphal Heretical
Deutero-canonical Dangerous
Secondary Unprofitable
Profitable (Q 6, 7)

50) What can we conclude about spiritual and moral authority?

This study has mainly concerned itself with the Christian church and therefore the Christian perspective and Christian forms. But the issue is a wider one and in our latter questions we have also considered very briefly the position of other faiths and religions. The same issues apply to them: from where do they get their moral and spiritual authority? On what is it based? What evidence is there to support their claims? Other faiths follow other sacred writings or scriptures: The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Qu’ran and so on, as well as other cultural traditions. What we can say of all of these, including the Bible, is that:
a) They consist of interpretations of the world, society, people, God and the Universe that were made a very long time ago, without the advantage of our growth in knowledge. In some cases, these are almost stone-age interpretations.
b) These interpretations and perspectives of God and the Universe are bound in the time that they were written – these writers did not have insight into nuclear physics, modern medicine, biology and chemistry and so on. They are interpretations and forms that fitted well with their level of development and understanding; they were appropriate forms to them as God met them where they were.
c) These writings, (and I am thinking of the Bible primarily) contain a variety of material such as genealogies, interpretations of then current or recent political events, views of origins, messages from God, histories of people as they were seen at that time and metaphorical forms in relation to the Divine. The messages and encounters with God were given in forms that were appropriate to and consistent with the level of development of these people, in some cases in a high degree of ‘closeness’ with God (inspiration/revelation). Within this mass of literature are faithfully recorded some of the experiences and communications that some people, such as the prophets, had from God. Nevertheless, it does not seem credible to hold to a view whereby every letter and syllable is inspired and therefore without error. Such a view does not seem to stand up to close examination. These scriptures are special, insightful, profitable, useful and helpful, but they are not infallible or completely without error.
d) Some of these sacred writings or scriptures became, by one means or another, to be regarded as authoritative within the circle of disciple/believers. Others faded into obscurity or were lost, and yet others achieved a secondary function: not perceived as having such a high degree of authority, yet useful and profitable if read carefully.
e) Though most faiths limit their canon or rule of authoritative scripture documents, there is no Biblical evidence at least to declare that revelation and inspiration have ceased. Limiting the canon helps to establish firm boundaries and limits to the faith concerned, and also helps avoid the problem of identifying which writings are truly inspired and which are in error or a deception. But the limiting and finalising of the canon may also stagnate the faith to forms that are increasingly outdated or irrelevant. Also, religious history suggests that various believers through the ages after Christ or Mohammed etc have had mystical encounters with God and written accounts of what they have seen and heard whilst in these states of closeness with God. The religious authorities have regarded such literature with more or less favour at different times and places.
f) Since the literature of each faith is firmly bound in different times and cultures, it is not possible to reconcile them fully. They may oppose and contradict each other as well as having elements and themes in common. They are like facets of a diamond, each facet reflecting different aspects of God. Furthermore, God cannot be encompassed by form, because all forms limit and bound the Unlimited Formless and so inevitably, forms are limited and temporal, inadequate and partial.
g) Recognising the limits of this authoritative literature as well as its strengths is one way forward: it prevents black and white ‘ours is the only way’ thinking; it recognises the insights of other faiths; it opens the way for further, lively communication with God instead of declaring such communications ceased; it enables us to move on past interpreting some ideas that are now proving outdated as literal facts, yet we can still maintain the essence of truth contained in them. Nevertheless, because these different traditions and scriptures are not reconcilable, we can say that it is good to have a boundary and a limit, something that orders and contains our perspective, so that we can function and communicate. Two of the strongest bindings seem to be those of culture and personality. Not many believers (of any faith) change their faith to another and the most comfortable faith is often that of our own culture: it is our background, our heritage and our context. As to which faith one chooses initially, this is more of a personal, individual matter than anything else. Even within a faith, the different denominations often reflect different personal needs, orientations and personalities. It is often said for example that the Anglican Church is the upper and middle class at prayer.

Authority in moral and spiritual matters then has proved more diverse and complex than at first thought, its borders being more permeable, more vague than fundamentalists would have us believe. But this permeability opens the door to tolerance of those of other faiths and if used wisely, does not detract from any of them. Perhaps a good model is that of different schools: each school has its own uniform, its own rules and ways of doing things, but the aim of each is education. Similarly, each faith has its own approach to the Divine, its own way of doing things, its own emphasis, but the aim of all should be increased closeness to God. Even if the schools mix, their uniform easily identifies each pupil. Separateness or rather, distinctiveness, remains. But each school is valid, and each individual may consider one school better, or more suitable than another.

Further reading:

'Fundamentalism' James Barr S.C.M. Press.
'Escaping fundamentalism' James Barr. S.C.M. Press.
'The unauthorised version' Robin Lane Fox. Penguin.
'The mind of the Bible believer' L. Cohen. Prometheus U.S.A.
Encyclopedia Britannica. References on: Early Church.
Bible Literature.
Fundamentalism.
'Concise dictionary of the Christian Church' E.A. Livingstone (Ed). Oxford.
'Oxford history of Christianity'. John McManners (Ed). Oxford
'Early Christian writings'. M Staniforth (Trans.) Penguin.
'The reason of faith' John Owen. T & T Clarke.

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

MIND AND EMOTIONAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES OF DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUPS

2007-11-05T15:56:00.000Z

MIND CONTROL, GROUPS, SECTS AND CULTS.

Some broad definitions.

Groups. There are many religious groupings for example within Christianity, such as Roman Catholics, Methodists, and Anglicans. All these are seen as legitimate groups, with different emphases, accents and traditions within the broad spectrum of Christianity. They may not always see eye to eye, but generally recognise each other’s legitimate existence.

Sects. These are usually short lived, small groups or factions. They may arise as the result of a charismatic leader, or out of disaffection with the status quo. They may be small or large in number and may be quite active and vocal. They may decay on the death of the leader or be re absorbed into a mainstream group. Examples of this include Primitive Methodism or Puritanism. Sometimes they go on to achieve legitimacy, becoming a group in their own right. Christianity was originally a Jewish sect.

Cults. This is a negative term. It generally refers to a group or sect that has sinister aspects to it, such as attempts at coercion. In various ways they are dysfunctional, unhealthy groups.

CULTS

There are four main types: Religious, Political, Therapy/educational, and Commercial.

They do not carry out brainwashing. Brainwashing is overt, coercive and it is plain who the enemy is. Rather they carry out mind control or thought reform. Here, the perpetrators are

a) regarded as friends or peers making the candidate less defensive.
b) The candidate participates unwittingly with their controllers, for example by giving private information.
c) The new belief system is internalised into a new identity structure.
d) The group may use hypnotic processes and group dynamics.

THE COMPONENTS OF MIND CONTROL

1) BEHAVIOUR CONTROL

By regulating the environment:
a) Where you live
b) What clothing you wear
c) What food you eat
d) How much sleep you have
e) What jobs and goals you have.
f) Rituals and indoctrination
g) Restriction of free time – sometimes an apocalyptic sense of urgency
h) Financial dependency
i) Permission required to do things, i.e. phone relative
j) Suppression of individuality to group conformity
k) Pyramidical authoritarian command structure
l) Use of punishment and reward, often keeping members off balance – praised one day, punished the next.
m) Use of mannerisms of speech and posture
n) Regulation of interpersonal relationships – emotional allegiance to leader – no real friends because if the person leaves they may take others with them.
o) Group activities which creates privacy deprivation and thwarts reflection.

2) THOUGHT CONTROL

By indoctrination, such that beliefs are internalised.

a) Group has the Truth – the only map of reality. This moulds and filters incoming data. The doctrine is reality, the most effective being those which are unverifiable – global yet vague but apparently consistent. Reality is externally referenced via an authority figure and other members who are looked to for direction and meaning.
b) Black and white thinking – Group is good, outsiders bad. Thus good vs evil, Us vs them, Spiritual vs physical. No pluralism or multi perspective taking.
c) Group beliefs are scientifically proven and explain everything
d) Loaded language. E.g. A Cain and Abel problem
e) Blocking out critical thoughts by:
i) Denial: “What you say is not happening at all”
ii) Rationalisation: “It is happening for a good reason”
iii) Justification: “It is happening because it ought to”
iv) Wishful thinking: “I would like it to be true so maybe it is”
v) Demonising: “Lies put about by Satan/Persecution that we would expect”.
vi) Thought stopping: By chanting/ tongue speaking
vii) Punishment: Being given the silent treatment or transfer to another group e.t.c.

3) EMOTIONAL CONTROL

Emotions are controlled by the use of:

a) Guilt: in order to produce conformity and compliance. Guilt takes a number of aspects:
i) Historical guilt. – We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima
ii) Identity guilt – “I’m not living up to my potential”
iii) Past guilt – “I cheated on a test” A persons past is rewritten: everything is dark
iv) Social guilt – People are dying of starvation
v) Quality guilt- not meeting standards

b) Fear: By creating an outside enemy – unbelievers, Satan, therapists.
Of discovery and punishment by leaders
A major motivator.
c) Happiness: As defined by the group. Obtained by good performance and/or confession.
d) Loyalty and devotion.
e) Confession of past sins – this is often used against the person.
f) Phobia indoctrination. Induced panic reaction at the thought of leaving. Dark stories are told of those who have left both in lectures and informal gossip. The idea of the Devil waiting to seduce and tempt, kill or drive insane. The more vivid and tangible, the more intense the cohesiveness it fosters.

4) INFORMATION CONTROL

The control of destabilising information by:

a) Denial of information so that sound judgements cannot be made. E.g. minimal access to T.V., non-group magazines, newspapers or radio. Partially achieved through busyness.
b) Criticism of the leader with peers not allowed
c) Members report improper activities to leader.
d) New converts do not talk to one another without a chaperone
e) Contact with ex members and critics avoided.
f) Compartmentalisation of information so that members do not know the ‘big picture’.
g) Multi levelled truth- the higher you are, the more is revealed.
i) For outsiders
ii) For members
iii) For leaders
iv) For high leaders

THE PROCESSES OF MIND CONTROL

There are three steps:
1) Unfreezing
2) Changing
3) Refreezing

1) UNFREEZING.

This is a shaking up and disorientation. A breaking up of the frames of reference used by the person for understanding themselves and their surroundings. This disarms the person’s defences against concepts that challenge reality.

Approaches include:
a) Physiological disorientation via sleep deprivation, new diets and eating schedules. Often best accomplished in a totally controlled environment such as a retreat at a country estate.
b) Hypnotic processes such as the deliberate use of confusion via contradictory information.
c) Sensory overload – being bombarded with material faster than it can be digested.
d) Use of double binds – “I am putting doubts in your mind”.
e) Group exercises –
1) Guided meditation.
2) Personal confession
3) Prayer sessions
4) Group singing
5) Vigorous callisthenics
Group activities enforce privacy deprivation and reflection.
f) As people weaken – A bombardment with the idea that the person is badly flawed, mentally ill, incompetent or spiritually fallen. Any identified problems are blown out of all proportion. There may be humiliation in front of the group.

2) CHANGING

The imposition of a new identity, a new set of thoughts, emotions and behaviours to fill the void of unfreezing. This takes place:

a) Formally – in lectures, seminars and rituals
b) Informally –in spending time with members, reading, listening to tapes, watching videos.

The approaches to change include:
a) Repetition, monotony and rhythm – the hypnotic cadences in which formal indoctrination is delivered
b) A focus on central themes:
1) The world is bad.
2) The unenlightened do not know how to fix it
3) The old self keeps you from experiencing the new truth fully.
4) Old concepts drag you down.
5) The rational mind holds you back – let go.
c) The material for the new identity is given out gradually – “Tell him only what he can accept.” “Milk for the baby, meat for the adult”
d) Artificially induced spiritual experience. Private information is secretly passed and revealed at the appropriate time as an ‘insight’.
e) Asking for God’s will for them. Via prayer and study. The implication is that joining the group is God’s will, leaving is not.
f) Group processes:
1) Being surrounded by people who are convinced that they know what is best for you.
2) Via cells or small groups- questioners and doubters may be isolated into their own group.
3) Sharing sessions with ordinary members, where past evils are confessed, present successes told and a sense of community fostered.

3) REFREEZING.

This is the building up of the new person, giving them a new purpose and new activities to solidify the new identity. New beliefs are internalised by the person.

Approaches include

a) Denigration of the old self, maximising sins, failings, hurt and guilt.
b) Modelling. The new member is paired with an older member whom they should emulate.
c) The group is the member’s new family.
d) Possible giving of a new name.
e) Turning over the bank account – subsequently it may be too painful to admit this mistake.
f) Sleep deprivation, lack of privacy, diet changes continued.
g) New location – no links with the past – only the new identity here.
h) Evangelising/prosteletizing – selling one’s own beliefs to others to firm up one’s own beliefs.
i) Difficult and humiliating fund raising. Can provoke a sense of glorious martyrdom.

General comments

There is no legitimate way to leave a cult.
The result of these processes is a dual identity - the old self does not disappear, but occasionally surfaces in humour, and greater emotional range and spontaneity. But it is clothed in the new cult self such that the person is more robot-like, rigid and cold-eyed. But the real identity holds the key to escape and to the inner desires. These emerge via psychosomatic illness, requiring outside treatment, dreams of being trapped, concentration camps e.t.c. and spiritual experiences, of voices telling them to leave e.t.c..

Problems in the group are always the fault of the member, due to:
a) His weakness
b) His lack of understanding
c) Bad ancestors
d) Evil spirits
e) His inadequacies.

ANALYSING AND ASSESSING GROUPS

Look at what the group does, not at what it believes. They have the right to believe what they want, but they do not have an automatic licence to act on those beliefs, else white supremacy groups would kill all blacks for example. Destructive groups undermine individual choice and liberty.

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

CHRISTIANITY AND MODERN SPIRITUALITY

2007-11-05T15:55:00.002Z

MODERN SPIRITUALITY AND CHRISTIANITY

This blog is not seeking to persuade you to leave fundamentalism or to move to any particular postion with regard to spirituality....that is your choice. This article is a sample of where I am now, having left Christian Fundamentalism. It is both a critique of Christianity and an example to show that spirituality and spritual debate is alive and well outside those fundamentalist circles.

As Christianity is approached in the 21st century, the old traditions and certainties are being questioned and eroded. Between them, modern and post modern philosophy, modern biblical scholarship, science, a global perspective and social science have dealt traditional Christianity some severe blows: they have done a very good demolition job, deconstructing the very foundations of traditional Christianity. No longer can the Bible be perceived and interpreted literally: the six 24hr day creation, the world-wide flood and so on no longer seem tenable in the way that they did just 150 years ago. Modern scholarship reveals a set of documents written for their own time with their own now outdated world-view. It reveals documents heavily edited and embellished by the subsequent ruling classes of priests and kings. It reveals inconsistencies, contradictions and changes through time. We find that what has been included and what has been excluded from the New Testament was finally decided a few centuries after Christ by the dominant ruling bishops. Sometimes they got it wrong and included documents which they thought were by apostles but which were forgeries. Other interesting literature was left out because it did not fit the prevailing orthodoxy, such as Gnostic literature. There is no way that the Bible can be viewed as a coherent whole, as the literal truth of God’s infallible and inerrant word. Of course there are still those who do just that, commonly known as fundamentalists, who cling to these ideas in the face of modern research and in the absence of more informed scholarship. This literal fundamentalist Christianity becomes their identity and provides their meaning, their interpretive framework and gives certainty to their lives in an uncertain world. No wonder this viewpoint is difficult or impossible to shake off once it has been adopted. To question fundamentalism as an emerging ex-fundamentalist is to question and throw into uncertainty one’s world, one’s life, one’s own self.

Even as we look at Christianity itself as a worldwide phenomenon and as a historical phenomenon, we see so many different and contrasting, even mutually exclusive interpretations that it is impossible to arrive at a coherent point of view. We can pick the view that we like, or the one that resonates with us, or meets our particular wish fulfillment but are these criterions really the ones that we want to use to determine a potentially life changing faith and life-long commitment?

As we look at Jesus, we see that we know nothing about him first hand. He wrote and left nothing. Modern scholarship tells us that the writers of the New Testament documents were writing at least twenty years after the death of Jesus and none of them were witness of his life…these are second-hand reports written and shaped by events occurring twenty to fifty years after the death of the one about whom they are writing. We see changes from the pre-crucifixion view of Jesus and the post-crucifixion view which began to incorporate ideas that were not present in earlier thought. We see writers trying to persuade Jews of Christ’s divinity, and other writers trying to persuade gentiles, particularly the ruling Roman authority. In fact the view of Jesus is so pliable that we can almost make him out to be what we want. Once again, hardly the criteria on which to build a life changing, life long commitment. We know that Jesus existed as an historical person, but where does fact end and speculation and myth making, metaphor and symbol begin?

Despite this vagary concerning the foundations of the faith: the person of Jesus and the word of God, millions have died defending their beliefs based on traditional views of these foundations which are now seen to wrong. Wars have been and still are being fought over these forms of belief. People have been tortured and burned to death to try and make them conform to what was seen by the ruling authorities as the right or orthodox belief. But the vagaries listed above make orthodoxy impossible. Even if we were to say that it was possible, even if there were a right belief, it would be the province of scholarly, educated philosophers, linguists, theologians and social scientists. Only these people would have the information necessary to elicit the ‘truth’. But what about the ordinary man and woman in the street? What about those living in less educated countries who do not have access to the means of this orthodoxy: to the Scriptures, preachers, theologians and professors?

How does this vagary affect religious dogma, the old certainties and assurances, the believer’s or disciple’s assurance of a happy life now and in eternity? Is there an eternity to be lived in? In the past, Christian believers were confident of an eternal rest in Jesus, of eternal bliss in paradise making their present sufferings unworthy by comparison. How can we know? Where do we look? If modern scholarship has deconstructed all the old certainties, and the hope that goes with it, what does it offer in its place?

The answer I have found is not much. It either offers the vast emptiness of secular humanism, an atheism that gives us life without God, that dismisses religion as so many fairytales and myths, as childish and infantile, as regressive and outdated. It offers a godless society or relative morals and dubious freedoms, an existence of accidents and chances, bleak randomness and meaninglessness, of hedonism: eat drink and be merry because we die tomorrow. It offers nothing in death: just cessation of existence. It offers the progress of science, which, filling the emptiness, becomes the new god of scientism. Or, if it finds this option too existentially bleak and hopeless, it tries to maintain some form of the old traditions: but it has done such a good deconstruction job that there is little left to build on with assurance and confidence. If we are unable to go back to the confident certainties and meaningfulness of fundamentalism then we are left with a wish-washy sentimental romantic view of god that welcomes all-comers and compromises almost everything so as not to lose anyone or any more people from the fold. It picks and chooses the Bible passages that it likes (the ones about love and mercy) and ignores or rejects the others (about war, God’s vengeance, hell and wrath), because it does not like them, or because they are out of date. Modernists and post-modernist scholars have done a good deconstruction job, even a demolition job, on traditional religion. Those scholars who wish to retain a more modern spirituality that is consistent with modern knowledge often end up in difficulty. People usually end up asking ‘Just what DO you believe?’. I am going to try and offer a very general, even superficial outline of a positive modern spirituality together with reasons for holding these particular views.

One of the things we need is a map: a model or guide to help us through the bewildering array of religions and spiritualities. There are a number of maps around but the one that I like is that by Ken Wilber. It is far too complex to go into here and interested readers are directed to the suggested reading at the end of this article. One of the things Wilber talks about is the stages of development that we all go through. These stages follow a definite sequence and stages cannot be missed out or skipped. An acorn develops into a sapling which develops into a mature tree. We cannot miss the sapling stage out. Higher stages are different from lower stages: a mature tree is not just a big acorn. Similarly we have different lines of development: intellectual, artistic, linguistic, moral and spiritual. The spiritual line, which like all these lines is quasi independent from the others, we may define as ‘our concern with absolutes’. Our spiritual line is concerned with ‘what is the absolute foundation of all things, what is the absolute end of all things, what is the absolute purpose and meaning of life, and so on. Like everything else, this line of development goes through stages. Broadly we may say it goes through pre-modern, modern and post modern, or through pre-rational, rational and post or trans-rational. In a bit more detail, through magic, mythic, rational/scientific and post rational. Always in these stages and in this order – to go backwards is to suffer from regression.

In the light of post-modern criticism of Christianity, many who have a spiritual disposition turn to the ‘New Age” – a broad term covering a wide range of spiritual and esoteric approaches which are sometimes mutually exclusive. Thus they may turn to paganism (aka ‘The Wicker Man’), Druidry, Witchraft, Sorcery, Wicca, tarot, magic, runes, Spells, Charms, Crystals, Native Wisdom, Amulets, Astrology, Clairvoyance, Palmistry, fairies and so on. 95% of this is regressive: if fundamentalism is a mythic expression (as Nazism is a mythic political expression), then these are even more regressive, because they belong to the earlier magic stage of development. If you think fundamentalism is childish, immature and infantile, then these are even worse.
Why would we think that these earlier stages are more spiritual? Why when these people are regressing do they think that they are growing and developing? They have fallen into what Wilber calls the ‘Pre/Trans fallacy’. What pre-rational and trans-rational have in common is that they are both non-rational, and are therefore easily confused. But just because something is non-rational, it does not mean that it is therefore a development forwards.

In the light of all this, does Christianity have any relevance in the modern world? Do any of the traditional faiths? Most traditional faiths are mythic level developments. They are above the magic stage but still pre-rational, pre-modern. To hold to them is often to hold to beliefs that fly in the face of modern knowledge and discovery. They are often ultra orthodox, using ‘right belief’ as a badge of membership and belonging. But it is clear that approaching God cannot be limited to ‘right belief’ to ‘one belief’; that is to orthodoxy. It is also clear that no religious system or set of sacred literature can lay claim to possessing absolute truth. The diversity, imperfection and partiality of these systems and writings arises from the specific contexts in which they are written: the cultures, the places, the times the limitations that were present. The writers of the New Testament for example considered the world to be flat, that heaven was close, just beyond the dome of the sky. They knew nothing of dinosaurs, fossils, the American continent, germs, D.N.A. and so on.

Yet some people today still believe that there is one right belief, that Scripture is literally true and without mistakes, and they will defend it to the point of death. Throw doubt on a fundamentalist’s beliefs and you will see an outpouring of anger and threats. Why would God allow this? Asking this very question reveals our preconceptions about what God is like, and such preconceptions are usually leftover from this very same fundamentalist view. Why would a God who is all mercy and all love, who is all-powerful and all-knowing allow (suffering, war, Christians to suffer, cruelty, e.t.c. ---------- fill in the blank space)? This typically modern question reveals our assumptions that God is ‘out there’, all powerful, all-loving, all-merciful, all-knowing. In traditional theology terms: Transcendent beyond the universe, Omnipotent, Love, Mercy, and Omniscient. Is this view of God correct? Can we reconcile this view with what we see in the world? How can we reconcile this view with the calamities, accidents and catastrophes that we see around us? If God can stop it (all-powerful) why doesn’t he? (Another assumption - Is God male or female or neither or both? How would we know?) Can these catastrophes be realistically blamed on humans: on their disobedience? (Another assumption – God as Lord, Master, King). On God’s curse and wrath? (Assumptions of God as Jealous, Wrathful, Punisher, Judge, Jury, Vindictive e.t.c.). How can this God allow the holocaust, or the worldwide aids epidemic? Is it really because of our sinful rebellion? What does that tell us about our picture of God? In other words, is the form of God handed down to us by traditional religions such as Christianity correct? Is what is really being rejected here an outmoded form of God rather than God? Despite the declining number of people attending churches in this country, there is nevertheless a widespread interest in spirituality, in New Age thinking, Paganism, in traditional religions other than our own such as Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. This seems to indicate that it is the form of god and religion that is being rejected rather than the Essence of spirituality itself. Whether these other forms are any better is of course open to debate: they may be worse, they may be regressive, they may merely satisfy the quest for novelty, newness and being different and trendy.

Christianity in particular presents itself as a literal, historical religion. The Old Testament is a history of Israel as much as anything, however much it has been edited and distorted later. Jesus is a real historical person. Paul seems to believe that Jesus really rose from the dead in a new body. The creation story is presented literally. Where do we place the boundaries between literal and metaphor in the light of modern scholarship? Where does fact end and allegory begin? Did Jesus ascend? If so at what speed and where to? At the speed of light he would only be at the far reaches of our own galaxy now! If Like thought of heaven as being close, just beyond the dome of the sky and the stars being like windows into that heaven beyond, and that this is where Jesus ascended to, so that he could look down on us, what does that mean for us who know differently? If we turn it to symbol and allegory, what does that mean for the rest of Christian theology? How does it affect the central Christian message? This is an endless problem for modern Christianity the boundary of fact and allegory. No wonder some maintain the easier option of fundamentalism – it is all literal. Like Christianity as a whole, post modern and modern interpretations of Jesus and Christianity are so varied, so different that you can pick and choose, as you like. How you know which is correct is anyone’s guess. Thus the debates about women priests, gay bishops and the like. The traditional interpretations are abandoned as outdated, or forged additions to the Bible or whatever, and thus the faith reflects the personalities that lead it and the trends of the world in many ways. Again, hardly the criteria on which to build a life commitment.

Mystics and mysticism offer some intriguing insights. Mysticism is an immediate, that is non-mediated, experience of the Divine. It is not second hand religion but an immediate experience of gnosis, of direct knowing by experience. It involves a non-usual state of consciousness which presents a different way of perceiving the universe. There are different types of mystical experience which we will not go into here, but such experiences and people who have them are to be found in all religions across all cultures in all times. Some religions encourage these experiences, some do not. Christian Protestantism by enlarge does not. Those who report these experiences usually have difficulty expressing them in language, because the experience is beyond language and difficult to conceptualise and convey fully. Many report not only this sense of transcendence, (though not necessarily God) and also a sense of Immanence, of a sense of unity and oneness underlying all creation or nature, of God being in all things. There are at least two cautions with regard to mysticism: Firstly, because the experience is direct and unmediated, it may come with a strong sense of certainty and assurance. It may appear to be Vividly Real. This can lead to dogmatic certainty of the kind that we see in certain types of religion and fundamentalism. It can lead to a closed, bigoted and prejudiced mind. Secondly, the contents are a product of the person’s mind, time and context. An uneducated Peruvian native who has a mystical experience and enlightenment or realization, does not as a result become say a genetic scientist with all the knowledge that this requires, overnight. These experiences have an indirect effect on that kind of knowledge. Thus, an English Christian Calvinist Fundamentalist will not tend to experience African gods, or ancient Roman Deities in their mystical encounter, but rather angels, or Jesus. In such experiences, forms, symbols, metaphors and allegories whether audible or visible, arise in the mind or imagination. Some mystics see the imagination, the creative imagination, as a peninsula, an isthmus, a bridge between visible material form and formless invisible spirit. The contents that arise in the creative imagination during a mystical experience will be very resonant and relevant to the individual recipient. They may also have a dreamlike quality of meaning. According to some mystics, these images are a co-creation between the Formless, Imageless Divine and the receptive mystic. (This receptivity may be cultivated and trained or may occur spontaneously). Any such symbols or images of the Transcendent Absolute Formless are therefore absolutely relative. In other words all forms are viable approaches to the Divine because God is in all forms and all forms are God. In this way, form does not matter in relation to the Formless, because, as a sage once said, ‘Wherever you turn, there God is.’. Forms are expressions and symbols of the Eternal Now and therefore eternally fluid, temporary and unfixed. (Unlike fundamentalism which permanently fixes and freezes it revelation). They are delimited forms and symbols of the Ineffable, the Unknowable and are therefore always partial and inadequate. They convey aspects and facets to varying degrees of depth and insight. As such these symbols, images, allegories and metaphors both reveal and veil. They reveal aspects of the Divine, yet by their very form, limit, constrict and veil the Formless. Thus, mystics may say ‘God is not this and not that [form]’. Mystics may often answer questions by saying ‘Yes and no’. Is that tree God? Yes and no.

By looking at mystics and mystical experience, by looking at the things that they have reported over time, we can make a difference between forms of belief, belief and God:

FORMS OF BELIEF BELIEF GOD

Creates philosophy, theology. Of the heart not the mind Transcends mind and heart
Tends to Orthodoxy Is in all things
Are produced in the context of
Culture, Knowledge, Place, Time Accepts one’s limitation of Is in all cultures in Eternal now
in the present moment.
Partial, Relative Bridge of trust from finite Is Fullness/Emptiness
to infinite Is Unity/Oneness
Temporary starting point Uses creative Imagination Is Formless
For transcendence of form

We should notice that form per se is not rejected. We live in a world of form. We are material forms in a materially formed universe. Language and concepts are forms. But in spiritual journeying, form is seen as a stepping-stone, a necessary transient stage from which to ascend and eventually transcend form into the Bliss of Unity with the Divine Silence. In this view, Christian forms are not rejected automatically because of modern insights. Christian forms can be used as successful metaphors in the journey to a direct experience with the Divine, as can meditating on a candle flame, listening to a repetitive sound, or focusing on the Koran or Upanishads. The key thing here is resonance. I can personally testify to using the Christian context and receiving a number of mystical experiences…some absolutely life-changing. The content of these experiences was purely in terms of Christian content which appeared Vivid and Real and True. It served to confirm my fundamentalism and make it more difficult to leave in the light of later knowledge. I can personally testify to similar experiences arising from the observance of nature (watching grass blowing in the breeze, seeing a rainbow). Because I was a fundamentalist Christian at the time, these experiences too were of Christian content. I can personally testify to similar experiences outside of Christianity, having left that sphere and context. The content of these experiences contained imagery such as the Hub of the Universe, Death-shrouding skeletons, and Etheria the winged female guide – decidedly not Christian imagery. It would be difficult, but not impossible, for me to have a mystical experience along Christian lines now because I have left that context, it does not resonate with me in the same way, in fact I have some real problems with the image of Jesus as a result of negative experiences within fundamentalism and the impact of Biblical scholarship. The image of Jesus does not resonate with me except in negative ways. It is a dissonant and incongruent image. But of coursed, because these Christian images and forms do not resonate with me, it does not mean that they are not viable metaphors and allegories for use in spiritual work by other people for whom these images and forms are positive and helpful. One might think that Pentecostalism with it’s spontaneity of services and it’s cultivation of receptivity and surrender to God may offer potential, and indeed it would if it also did not place a strong emphasis on fundamentalist Biblical literalism. Angel workshops using guided and free imagery techniques offer a viable route that is consistent with the allegorical approach, as is any contemplative or meditative prayer.

Form, Imagery, metaphor, symbol, concept and allegory are conditionally relative. Though form is absolutely relative to the Formless Absolute, it is conditionally relative in relation to form. Form does matter in relation to other form. Morality is all about form in relation to form: my relationship to the environment, to other people, to myself. The forms that you accept/adopt/believe in affects you behaviour: the way in which you act. Your actions affect me/the environment/other people and so on. Form matters – forms of belief matter – forms of religious belief matter: they have affects on communities, politics, morals and relationships. Forms of belief lead to peaceful altruistic communities and suicide bombers. So this is one reason why we do not accept absolute relativism in material terms. Rather we have a qualified or conditional relativism: you can use what religious/spiritual metaphors you like, you can believe what you like – as long as it does not affect others negatively. If what you believe means ‘God has told me:
a) to make others conform to my belief (inquisition)
b) to kill those with other beliefs (witch hunt, terrorism)
then what you believe matters because it affects me and my world in a negative and destructive way.

This emphasis on fluid imagination and symbols of the Divine is known as Theomorphism. Some readers may remember the animated clay character Morph in the B.B.C. children’s series of that name. Morph could change shape into different characters and objects. That is what ‘morph’ means. ‘Theo’ means ‘God’, and ‘ism’ is a set of ideas. Theomorphism then, is the set of ideas that center around the main concept that God constantly changes form, or presents in different forms. It does not mean that God is only a figment of our imagination. The position is that God really exists, that God is Formless Emptiness, that is Attributeless. God is Absolutely Transcendent, not in the sense of ‘out there or up there and remote’ but in the sense of unknowable. God is Immanent, that is in all things, the Ground of Being, the Essence of all that is. In creation, in contracting or delimiting to form, the Prime Emergent Attribute of God is Oneness or Unity. Also in contraction to form, in delimitation, division, suffering, veiling and Ignorance arise. Thus instead of recognizing our True Nature, we think of ourselves as separate, individual body-selves and identify with this.

Where does this form of thinking come from? It comes from mystical experience. What is its main emphasis? It is not an emphasis on forms of belief or morals. Forms of belief and morals are secondary effects of an Immediate encounter with the Divine and the ongoing relationship with the Divine that flows in and from it. It is essentially a relational perspective. Is it True? Does God exist? The only way you can find out is to train yourself to have a mind and body that is receptive to such experiences and to have such an experience, (or be lucky enough to have a spontaneous experience) and then compare what you experience with others who have been there before you. Otherwise, everything you believe, every religious and spiritual form you give assent to is second hand.

If I am stuck with second hand material for the moment, how do I know which is best? As we have seen, many mystics in their experience find that God is in all things; it is a common, perennial report of those who encounter God through all ages. There is nevertheless a direction to the Absolute. Mystics, sages and Gnostics commonly report that the Transcendent Absolute is One; Unity. All the diversity of the manifestation of creation, the ‘many-ness’ of manifestation emerges from or proceeds from this Oneness, this Unity. Oneness or Unity is the Prime Attribute of God – Oneness and Unity is where all difference, all paradox, all division and all separateness is resolved. Oneness and Unity, as the Prime Attribute, is the last attribute to be swallowed up in Attributeless-God, to be swallowed up in Emptiness. As all manifestations have proceeded from the Prime Attribute, so they will ultimately return through Unity to their True Undifferentiated Essence.

The direction often given or revealed by God then, to those who have attained or approximated Realisation is that of Unity. (Nature mysticism often comments on the underlying Unity of all creation, for example.) In terms of behaviour and practice, that which leads to Unity is the Virtuous Way, and the Virtuous Way embraces the environment, (Unity with creation), other people, (Unity with the human race), and one’s self (Unity with God-Within). These lead to Unity, (as far as is possible or comprehensible) with the Transcendent. If the Cardinal Virtue is Unity, then its opposite is Disunity – Division – Separateness – Isolation. Thus, from this Prime Polarity of Attributes (for attributes are always at least bi-polar and arranged in a hierarchy) we find clusters of secondary attributes which taken together reveal a direction and quality which has a tendency to evidence itself: a self-evident relationship (because all attributes describe relationships) with All-that-is, which guides us in our understanding and evaluation of claims concerning Divine Revelation.

This direction is intrinsic and situational. It advocates the following of inner principles in any given situation. Although Unity and its cluster of associated attributes can be codified into extrinsic laws, this is seen as inferior and shadowy. The intrinsic path then seeks to follow the Positive Virtues that promote Unity and Transcendence. It is an emulation of the Light of the Divine. With Unity and Disunity as the Prime Attributes, the cluster of attributes that we may include are:

UNITY/ONENESS DIVISION – SEPARATENESS – ISOLATION

Love Hatred/Lust
Beauty Ugliness
Truth/Integrity Lies/Betrayal/Deceit
Compassion Merciless/Pain/Cruelty
Wisdom Foolishness)
Balance Imbalance
Peace Anger/Violence/War
Respect Contempt
Tenderness Violence
Trustfulness/Faithfulness Deceit/Betrayal
Harmony Imbalance
Healing Pain
Openness Secrecy
Mercifulness Dispassion
Fairness Injustice
Goodness Evil
Creativity Destruction
Moderation Excess

It is these Unifying qualities, characteristics and relationships with all-that-is that provide some of the evidence (or evidence to the contrary) that supports (or rejects) any claims to Divine Revelation. The tendency and inclination of the writing as a whole and in particular are considered, together with effects on the recipient and its adherents. It also provides a principle of interpretation; for all sacred writings are interpreted, sometimes misinterpreted by its devotees. That which does not conform to this cluster of Unifying Attributes in all the dimensions listed above is to be considered suspect or rejected as a revelation/interpretation that purports to lead to God.

By contrast, the downward path of following the Negative Virtues results in a different spiritual aspect as well as psychological and material aspects. To persist in the negative path is to have qualities of Ignorance, Delusion, Foolishness, Greed, Lust, Hatred, Ill-Will, Anger, Cowardice, Cruelty, War-mongering, Violence, Contempt, Lies, Deceitfulness, Betrayal, Imbalance, a delight in Ugliness, Pain, Secrecy, Injustice and Evil. Though God is in all these things, no claimed Divine Revelation that is promoting Unity with God would be admired for these qualities. They lead to Division, Separation, Isolation, Sorrow, Destruction and Preoccupation. They also lead to further Ignorance and Blindness, which in turn may feed the downward path. For there are two directions: as we have seen, each attribute has its opposite and the opposite of Unity is Division – Separateness – Isolation. This is the direction opposite to Oneness, it is the direction of contraction, it is the direction from Spirit to material, from Oneness to Many-ness, it is the direction of the rolling out of the universe, not the rolling back to God.

Of course, few people exhibit all these qualities (in either direction) to great degrees. But these aspects (Positive and Negative) are present in all of us to varying degrees in different circumstances and situations. Just as there can be step-by-step ascent into higher realms, there can be step-by-step descent into degradation. It also reveals why different mystics see different things. Not only might they see different aspects of facets of the Divine, they also ascend to different degrees. The view half way up the mountain is different from that at the bottom and at the peak. To be lost in the Mercy of God is not so high as to be lost in the Divine Emptiness and Abyss.

This approach means, as we have seen, that Revelation is not a fixed, once-and-for-all event or process in the past that has now ceased and remains fossilized in ancient traditions that have out-of-date pre-modern mindsets and world-views. On the contrary, it reveals a continued dynamic relationship with the Divine: a Theomorphic Divinity, that is, a Formless Essence Who changes and modifies the forms by which it/he/she is revealed, forms which we use and co-create to conceptualise the Formless; forms changed and modified to suit and apply to and remain relevant to our changing cultures, situations, economic and political structures, contexts, history, development, knowledge, understanding, relationships and so on. No form is fixed but there is this underlying direction to Unity, Oneness as the direction to Transcendence.

It should also be noted again that this is not primarily a moral or ethical system. It is primarily a spiritual method, approach and principle for adherents seeking to evaluate claims of revelation and inspiration and to attain Enlightenment, Realisation and Transcendence. Morality and Ethics are a secondary effect, a by-product of spiritual discipline and practice, as are environmental concerns and one’s relationship to creation and one’s own self, one’s own body. It is spirituality and it’s forms that give Absolute meaning and value to these aspects of form.

FURTHER READING:

Spiritual map, framework and model to help get you orientated:

Wilber, K (1997) ‘The eye of spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad’ Shambhala Boston and London.

Christianity:

Writings that did not make it into the Bible:

Pagels, Elaine (2006) ‘The Gnostic gospels’ Phoenix

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003) ‘Lost scriptures’ Oxford University press

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003) ‘Lost Christianities’ Oxford University press

Christian mysticism:

Smith, Cyprian (1987) ‘The way of paradox: spiritual life as taught by Meister Eckhart’ Darton, Longman and Todd

Islam:

Sufi Mysticism advocating theomophism:

Chittick, William (1998) ‘The self-disclosure of God – principles in Ibn al-‘Arabi’s cosmology SUNY

Christian, Hindu and Islamic mysticisms compared:

‘Paths of Transcendence’

Copyright 2000-2007

HOW HELPFUL OR CONTROLLING IS YOUR CHURCH GROUP?

2007-11-05T15:55:00.001Z

DYSFUNCTIONAL AND UNHELPFUL GROUPS

Some observations about groups:

1) Different groups meet different needs
2) Sometimes it is the individual who goes astray, not the group
3) No group is perfect – it is made up of fallible humans
4) The doctrine may be good but the dynamics wrong
5) The main group may be O.K. but the local group wrong
6) There is a constant tension between spiritual and social dimensions, which may become unbalanced.
7) There is always a gap between what people preach and what they practice, but unacceptable gaps are listed by the qualities below.

Groups can be dysfunctional, working in such a way as to be a handicap to the individual, causing difficulties in thought and behaviour.

The functions of a religious group:

1) Foster deepening spirituality
2) Provide understanding
3) Promote spiritual growth
4) Foster a deeper relationship with the Higher Power.
5) Formulate ethics
6) Provide a support system
7) Help people through transitions
8) Provide a context of shared belief.

Dysfunctional groups may state the same aims but:
1) Use private and profound experiences for their own selfish ends
2) Are emotionally devastating
3) Are manipulative
4) Are high pressured
5) Not limited to fringe groups

Characteristics of dysfunctional groups are:
1) A powerful, charismatic leader who claims divinity, infallibility or access to them.
2) Authoritarian power structure, demanding total commitment
3) Intrusion of and blurring of personal boundaries such as members thoughts, emotions, time and money.
4) Degradation such as humiliation to immobilise members and prevent departure. Positive self-regard may be taught as being sinful or hindering growth.
5) A closed logic system that reduces questions and or invalidates questioners as being true believers.
6) Monopoly of truth, claiming to have the only way of salvation. Individuality is subsumed to groupthink. Individualistic interpretation is heresy.
7) Totalism. Extreme groups insist that members:
a) Move into group home
b) Give all their money to the group
c) Surrender their ability to make choices say in clothes or when to have sex.
d) Have excessive time commitments to meetings
e) Give up outside friendships
f) Are told what jobs to have, what to eat, what to read, whom to date.
8) Rigid institutional boundaries. Members are exclusive, even elect or chosen by God. Outsiders are enemies. Therefore the member depends on the group for satisfaction of social needs.
9) Secrecy and deception inside and outside of the group.
10) A mission or cause. The more obsessive the focus, the greater the chance of dysfunction. Causes may be the establishment of a church, fund raising, recruitment, or deliverance from the apocalypse. With an intense task, there is no room to develop an independent frame of reference. Advancement within the group may be based upon the amount of money raised or recruits gained.
11) The end justifies the means. Nothing done in the service of God can be sinful. Violation of values may be presented as a lesson to shock out of conceived patterns or to test the loyalty to the group.

By contrast, functional groups are likely to have:
1) Fallible leaders
2) A democratic structure
3) A non-judgemental atmosphere
4) Respect for privacy
5) Freedom of choice of members
6) Proportioned use of confession
7) Proportioned self regard
8) No use of degradation
9) An open system
10) Multiple, pluralistic perspectives
11) Acceptance of individuals
12) Allowance for members to organise their own lives
13) Friendships with those of other persuasions
14) Open aims and objectives
15) Not obsessive in tasks
16) Recognise legal and human limitations in their activities.

THE DYNAMICS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL GROUPS

1) Emphasis of ‘mother’ ‘father’ ‘brother’ ‘sister’.

A trap for those ravenous for re-parenting. A co-dependency complex equals vulnerability:
a) Low self esteem
b) Lack of balance- attracted to energy of the group
c) Rigidity and perfectionism – must fit in at all costs
d) Denial of own perceptions and feelings, in case they are punished, disapproved of, isolated or rejected.
e) Communication of intimacy problems – few skills for setting boundaries. Some groups attractive because they sever links with the family, something they could not do themselves.
f) Spiritual compulsion or addiction – due to need for approval
g) Avoidance of other approaches.

2) Maintenance of contact.

Initial involvement by personal choice, then a potent persuasion campaign to fit the groups desires. Hidden agendas. But, most people are sincere and want to create a good impression. Dysfunctional groups covertly or blatantly manipulate people into staying. They do this legitimately through smiles, handshakes and small talk, and manipulatively to build up the group’s power, finances and membership. Severely dysfunctional groups may use intensive, unethical efforts at weaning the victim from the life they knew and bonding them to the group.

3) Social control strategies.

None of these techniques is inherently destructive. Rather, it is the purpose for which they are used that makes them destructive.

a) Love bombing-Unconditional love- compliments, hugs, and intense interest in us. But is it sincere?
b) Reciprocation The giving of gifts to make us feel obligated and which may lead to a commitment to the group.
c) Emotional release- because of the instant intimacy and camaraderie.
d) Fear and paranoia- those outside are doomed. Suspicion of them is encouraged.
e) Regression to childhood- members are treated like children- frightened into obedience, hours of singing simple songs. This puts members into a docile frame of mind, creates the illusion of a loving religious family and promotes the idea of group leader as parent.
f) Authority-a member accepts the authority of the leader and then is likely to accept their views without question. Most of the time this works in our favour, but sometimes can be extremely dangerous.
g) Disorientation and confusion- via complex experiences and teachings possibly on top of fasting and little sleep.
h) Altered states of consciousness- via meditation, chanting, prolonged singing. If we expect to be deeply moved, we often are. Dysfunctional groups interpret such experiences for their own ends. In such states, information is processed at a deeper level of consciousness.
i) Isolation- Weekend retreats and removal of external references. Discouragement of contact with group outsiders.
j) Information control- Limited access to other groups and media.
k) Peer pressure- Conformity reduces undue attention to ourselves and ensures continuation of unconditional love.
l) Exclusivity- The chosen, spiritually superior.
m) Commitment- Dysfunctional groups push a member to commitment before they are ready. “We have a strong commitment to our pledge” Changing one’s mind appears weak or makes us out as liars.
n) Self renunciation- Dysfunctional groups demand our time, possessions and talents. Once we incest time it becomes hard to change and the member reassures themselves that they have made the right decision via self-blame and trying harder.
o) Co-dependency rewarded- Low self esteem equals humility. There is compliance and living through others.
p) Feel good factor- Initial positive experiences.
q) Unique styles- of worship, ritual, prayers, meditation, language, dress, living arrangements. These bind members to a cohesive unit, replacing autonomous thinking.
r) Ritualised relationships- Reinforcement of rules that separate members from those outside. Deputies for the leader watch for deviations. If people try hard enough, they too can be deputies.

GROUPS-NECESSARY EVILS

Evidence shows that humans are biologically impelled to join groups for a sense of community and to receive direction to help free us from ambiguity, doubts, frustrations and existential angst. Group boundaries and hierarchies are a double-edged sword – they enable the group but may imprison individuals. Strong hierarchy and boundaries are necessary for the initial group set up, but not later, when the identity of the group is established.

DYSFUNCTIONAL LEADERS

These are not yet typified but often they:
a) Promise salvation or enlightenment
b) Are driven by an intense sense of mission
c) Feel called by God
d) Have extremely high self-regard
e) Control or manipulate others without remorse
f) Distort the meaning of our spiritual experiences
g) Move quickly to intimacy causing a fear/attraction conflict
h) Make themselves appear mysterious
i) Exploit our natural inclination to please authority figures.

Indications of unhealthy relationship with spiritual leader:

a) Instead of loving from our hearts we expect the teachers love to fill our empty spaces.
b) Because we cannot love ourselves, we try to get the leader to love us more.
c) If we have no leader, we panic.
d) We try to protect ourselves from our leader because we feel fearful and vulnerable, yet we stay and pretend nothing is wrong.
e) The leader seems to be our missing half.
f) We feel anxious or angry in the presence of our teacher.
g) Without this teacher we fear emotional or spiritual destruction
h) This teacher narrows our horizons
i) We think obsessively about the teacher, having imaginary conversations, being unable to focus on other parts of our lives.
j) Our friends, values and interests drop away or change, as we become more involved with this leader and group.

Healing involves;
A) Acknowledging, not denying pain
B) Coming to grips with grief
C) Learning to trust again, especially organised groups
D) Breaking free from perfectionism
E) Integrating the experience
F) Finding a new frame of reference
G) Finding the courage to continue

DANGER SIGNS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL RELIGIOUS GROUPS

a) The group does not practice what it preaches
b) Dogmatism and rigidity
c) Teachings for beginners are couched in generalisations, platitudes and buzzwords. It is so amorphous that it cannot be questioned.
d) Preoccupation with fund raising and recruitment
e) Believes that the end justifies the means
f) Group members talk about their leader as if they were God
g) The group views all aspects of their former life as sinful or irrelevant, including talents.
h) Exclusive right or path to truth.
i) Outsiders are spiritually ignorant or evil.
j) Group members are expected to give up family members and friends.
k) Members are manipulated by being shamed or rewarded.
l) Control of information and social contacts.
m) Rigid hierarchy.
n) Women are not treated as equals.
o) Sexual coercion is practised.
p) Critical thinking and questioning is forbidden.
q) Great demands placed on group members, with punishment for non-compliance.
r) Instant intimacy.
s) Questions are ignored or given simplistic answers based on circular logic.
t) Promises of quick fixes and miraculous cures.
u) Members required to make long term commitments.
v) Members asked to prove allegiance by quitting job, renouncing family, and giving money e.t.c.
w) Pressure, charm and manipulation are used to make others join.

FUNCTIONAL LEADERS AND GROUPS

Functional leaders:

a) Encourage you to form and verbalise your own opinions
b) Make you take responsibility for spiritual growth
c) Foster acceptance of yourself as a flawed human being
d) Acknowledge that your relationship with God and care for yourself takes priority over your relationship with your spiritual teacher.
e) Do not confuse enslavement with devotion or surrender.
f) Empower you to make wise choices
g) Seem worthy of your trust and allow you to take your time trusting.
h) Help you to outgrow them rather than encourage dependency.
i) Help you to feel good about your spiritual development.

Functional groups:

a) Encourage self-confidence
b) Encourage people to think, ask questions, doubt, and disagree.
c) Encourage members to take charge of their own spiritual growth whilst supplying support and guidance.
d) Encourage tolerance and openness to other religious groups
e) Respect the member’s right to own his or her own emotions and histories.
f) Allow members to interpret any mystical experiences they have without imposing the groups meaning on it.
g) Allow members to choose their level and type of involvement.

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

GOD, TRUTH AND ORTHODOXY

2007-11-05T15:54:00.001Z

GOD, TRUTH AND PERPETUAL TRANSFORMATION

This is a technical article not directly addressed to Christian fundamentalists or those leaving fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalism is Ultra Orthodox - it seeks to maintain and sustain a set of ideas and practices which it claims go right back to the authority of the Apostles. For the Fundamentalist, to stray from these ideas and practices is to backslide, be an apostate, to rebel against God Himself, to be deluded by Satan, or by a wicked heart e.t.c. This article is about orthodoxy and its counterpoint, adopted by the early 'heretics' - the Gnostics. As such it raises relevant issues for those questioning the basis of Fundamentalism and it's orthodoxy.

The traditional religions of the world have and orthodoxy, orthopraxy or both. By orthodoxy, we mean following traditional or established rules of a philosophy, theology or faith. Thus the Christian faith has its Creeds and confessions to which one is expected to give assent. By orthopraxy we mean right or correct practice or behaviour. Thus some eastern religions advocate good behaviour to avoid punishment in the Final Judgement, or to avoid being reincarnated into a poor situation. These words come from the Greek words ‘Orthos’: straight, right, ‘Doxa’: Opinion, and ‘Praxa’: Practice. Often, the ideas of orthodoxy and orthopraxy are associated with the idea of ‘truth’. We have the truth, other religions do not, we have the right way, others do not, we are true believers, the elect of God, followers and disciples, others are infidels, heretics, apostates, outcasts, heathen e.t.c. Those within a group who nevertheless do not follow the established beliefs and practices are called heterodox or unorthodox: they are at variance with established or accepted beliefs in the religious field, or do not follow or fail to follow the conventional beliefs and practices.

Now the Pilgrim is a seeker after Truth, and God is often declared to be Truth. Yet, these different orthodoxies are indeed different. It can be argued that there are similarities in some core ideas and views, but there are also real differences on how God is perceived and followed.

At the ground level, Pilgrims will state that God exists. Some will state that though they are fully assured that God exists, God cannot be proved or demonstrated objectively. By proof we mean the provision of evidence or argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something. A test or trial to establish whether something is true.

But, God is:
a) Metaphysical. God is not an object, and not material, but Spirit and therefore cannot be proved using scientific objective means.
b) Capable of being experienced by the Pilgrim. But the content of this experience cannot be proved. As with a dream, we may be able to measure certain types of brain activity and so on, but this does not prove or disprove God. Just as I cannot prove to you the contents of the dream I had last night, I cannot prove God to you by the contents of my mystical experience. There are only secondary effects such as changes in belief and practice, which, because they are secondary, can be attributed to more than one cause and therefore not provide proof in themselves. Mystical experience is a personal, subjective experience.

Some mystics also declare that God is:
i) Spirit
ii) Simultaneously transcendent and immanent
iii) Formless

Certain conclusions can be drawn from these three declarations.

i) God is Spirit. As we have already suggested, God is not an object and not material, but Spirit and therefore cannot be proved using scientific, objective, material means.
ii) God is simultaneously transcendent and immanent. Rationality, reason and logic cannot be fully brought to bear upon God. God transcends logic and rationality and is beyond logic, reason, concepts and ideas. No mind can encompass God, and no argument is sufficient to prove or demonstrate the existence of God. The usual rules of logic and rationality do not apple as we near the Divine. At the same time God is ‘in’ or ‘is’ all things. Thus all things have the potential to lead us to a sense or experience of the Divine. Wherever we look, whichever way we face, wherever we are, God is there, and thus personal integrity or truthfulness may be more important than any striving to achieve spirituality. Thus there are as many paths to God as there are individuals.
iii) God is Formless. God is transcendent of form. Form, be it language, idea, concept or symbol all delimit God. But without form, we could not communicate about God to others, or understand God in any way, or orientate ourselves to God. Therefore, many mystics declare that God delimits to forms of language and symbol in order that we may understand. Thus God may present to us as Father, or Creator – terms that we can identify with and use in our understanding.

These forms, these symbols and allegories which God uses to manifest to the Pilgrim in mystical encounters can become established as ‘the Truth’, in other words, as orthodoxy, with other forms, such as God as Mother, finding opposition and being condemned as heresy, lies and untruths. This is a process called intellectual binding. The intellect works by binding, by giving things fixed names and concepts. But in approaching the Divine, this fixing or binding of forms is a cardinal error. Not only may the insistence on and imposition of a particular form be divisive, but in time, these forms become outdated and irrelevant, as cultures and the individuals within them change and develop. Furthermore, the disproving of such forms, such as the literal six day creation may threaten the whole orthodox belief system, causing crisis of faith, fragmentation or division with the faith and even potential collapse. For Mystics, this is merely the collapse of orthodoxy and/or orthopraxy. It is a collapse of religion rather than spirituality.

In respect of the Divine, there is a continual change of form, a process called perpetual transformation. In this view, the forms, aspects, faces or attributes of God are ephemeral and transitory. They are for the moment, relative and ever-changing. God meets the Pilgrim where they are, with forms that are contingent upon that Pilgrim’s cultural context, the time and place where they are situated, their personality, their intellect and education, their personal history and the issues that are of concern to them at that particular time. Thus God meets us where we are, and each manifestation is valid for that moment. Thus all forms are relative to the individual and their place in space and time. We are located in time and space, but God transcends time and space, therefore the forms are relative to us, in order to be meaningful to us. In this view of perpetual transformation, there is no production of a static, orthodox philosophy or theology. There is no production of a standard, static set of behaviours or religious practice or set of spiritual disciplines. There is no closure of a systematic study of divinity, no canon of sacred writings, no closure of scriptures, no end of an age of mystics. Certain themes may return again and again, in a form of perennial philosophy embedded within different cultures at different times and locations, but that is as much as we can say.

In what sense then is God Truth? Well Truth itself is a concept and idea, and as such is transcended by the Absolute. When we say God is Truth, we are merely using the symbol and allegory of conceptual forms to describe the Formless and indescribable. But God is Truth in these senses:
i) God is the Absolute Ground, Foundation and Essence of all that is.
ii) God is the Absolute End, Peak and Height of all that is.
iii) God is the Absolute Reason, Purpose and End for all that is.

When all manifest form is stripped away, when the universe ceases to exist, the Truth is that God IS.

Copyright 2000-2007

FAITH DEVELOPMENT THEORY

2007-11-05T15:53:00.000Z

FAITH DEVELOPMENT THEORY

Many psychologists and social scientists consider that faith develops through a series of stages or levels which become more expansive and inclusive. This is a very brief outline of one such scheme of stages.

Faith is a foundation to social relations, personal identity and the making of personal and cultural meanings. It is a generic feature of human beings. Faith is distinct from belief and religion:

BELIEF: Intellectual assent to prepositional statements that codify the doctrines or ideological claims of a particular tradition or group. Belief is an aspect, or part of a group's faith.

RELIGION: A cumulative tradition composed from the myriad beliefs and practices that have expressed or formed the faith of individuals past and present. Components include art, architecture, symbols, rituals, narrative, myth, Scripture, Doctrines, Ethical teachings, music, practices of justice and mercy.

FAITH: includes unconscious dynamics as well as conscious awareness. Faith includes deep-seated emotional dimensions as well as cognitive operations and content. Therefore faith is more personal and existentially defining than belief. An integral centring process, it is intuitive, underlying the formation of beliefs, values and meanings that:

a) Give direction and coherence to people's lives.
b) Link people in shared trusts and loyalties with others
c) Grounds personal stances and communal loyalties in relation to a larger frame of reference.
d) Enables people to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.

This description embraces both religious faith as well as secular orientations. The non content-specific orientation of faith correlates with descriptions of the stages of faith.

STAGES OF FAITH

Faith development is part of a complex interplay of factors, including biological maturation, emotional and cognitive development, psychosocial experience and religio-cultural experience. It is a quasi-independent line of development. It has corresponding lines in cultural meanings and values, society and biology. Movement from one stage of faith to another is not automatic or assumed. Each stage is nestled within the other like a Russian Doll, and the integrated self-system can move up and down these stages, advancing or regressing, though we tend to have a ‘specific gravity’ – a level or stage at which we tend to be in the main.

These stages broadly relate to Ken Wilber’s Integral Psychology model:

1) PRIMAL FAITH

Infants have pre-lingual disposition of trust that forms in the mutuality of the infants relationships with parents and caregivers and which serves to offset the anxiety and mistrust that arise from a succession of cognitive and emotional experiences of separation and self differentiation. Body contact, care, vocal and visual interplay, ritualised interactions associated with early play, feeding and tending and the development of interpersonal emotional atunement. Such experiences activate pre-potentiated capacities.
a) For finding coherence and reliability in the self and primal others.
b) For forming bonds of attachment with them
c) For shaping a predisposition to trust the larger value and meaning commitments conveyed in parental care.

2) INTUITIVE-PROJECTIVE FAITH.

In the child's pre lingual imagery stage, meaning is based on emotional and perceptual ordering of experience. Imagery holds and orders the mixture of emotions and impressions gained. Experiences of power and powerlessness orient children to a frequently deep existential concern about questions of security, safety and the power of those on whom they rely for protection. Here is the first self-consciousness, of being seen and evaluated by others, and the child is sensitive to the twin polarities of pride and shame. Here is the child's first construction of representations of God, which research suggests is made up of dominant emotional characteristics which the child has experienced in their relations with caregivers. Abuse or neglect may activate the child's defences resulting in dissociation and splitting, where the child may construct images of a 'bad' self deserving the inevitable punishment of a demanding but justifiably angry God.

3) LITERAL FAITH.

Here, more stable forms of interpretation and the shaping of experience emerge. The world is constructed in terms of linearity and predictability. God is not constructed in personal terms or as having highly differentiated emotions. The ultimate environment is constructed in terms of fairness and moral reciprocity: God is consistent, caring but just - goodness is rewarded, badness punished. Symbols and concepts remain concrete and literal. Some typical magic and Fundamentalist faith qualities here.

4) CONVENTIONAL FAITH.

Beginning to think about thinking - the reflexive self. The ultimate environment is constructed in terms of a personal God, who has accepting love, understanding, loyalty and support in crisis. There develops an attachment to beliefs, values and personal style that link them in conforming relations to significant others. Significant others are depended upon for confirmation and clarity about the child's identity and meaning, and thus they can be trapped in the 'tyranny of the they'. Again, some typical Fundamentalist faith qualities here.

5) INDIVIDUATIVE-REFLEXIVE FAITH.

Beliefs are critically examined together with their underlying assumptions. Self-identity is explored apart from roles and relationships. The person takes for themselves their own goals and identity. Third person perspective taking emerges generally out of the conflict between external and internal authorities. Meaning frames are created where the individual is conscious of their worldview as a worldview. They tend to demythologise symbols rituals and myths. They take responsibility for choosing their own values and lifestyle. Faith placed in science and reason for example, or in a form of liberal Christianity.

6) CONJUNCTIVE FAITH.

Here, polarities are embraced with alertness to paradox. There is a need for multiple interpretations of reality. Symbols, myths and metaphors are appreciated as vehicles for expressing truth. Groups and traditions other than one's own are included. The beginning of a world-centric orientation and rational, existential universal pluralism. A recognition of seriously incomplete self-knowledge. A principled openness to the truths of other religions.

7) UNIVERSALISING FAITH

Universalising informed by experiences and truths of previous stages. Trans class awareness, beginning of transpersonal intuition. A devotion to overcoming violence, oppression and division. Those who count in faith extend well beyond the bounds of social class, nation race and gender. No polarisation of the saved and the damned. Explorations of Mysticism and personal mystical experience.

Initially Wilber outlined the idea that the more spiritual a person was, the higher the level that they had attained, and that mystical experience was a 'jumping up a few levels' experience. This idea has now been abandoned in favour of a matrix-like model, where within any given level, three or four different types or modes of mystical experience can be encountered. What changes from level to level is the nature and interpretation of the forms experienced and the relationship to those forms. thus the literal stage still takes these transcendent experiences as experiences of a literal 'God-out-there', such as for example, the experiences described by Jonathan Edwards in his 'Thoughts on the Revival' and 'Narrative of surprising conversions' All these mystical experiences are interpreted in a specific, Christian fundamentalist, literalist sense, as opposed for example, to the idea that these forms may be metaphorical, allegorical stepping stones between the Formless Absolute and creatures of form.

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

NOTES ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS

2007-11-05T15:52:00.000Z

BELIEFS

A brief overview of the psychology of personal belief systems

DEFINITION OF BELIEFS: - inferences, propositions, or hypotheses where there is insufficient evidence to prove them as correct. They exist along a CONTINUUM OF CERTAINTY that includes such positions as conviction, assurance, opinion, persuasion, inclination and sentiment.

OBJECTIVE REALITY has some inherent structure or pattern to it, so this partly structures our perception of reality. But reality is SELECTIVELY PERCEIVED via our selective ATTENTION. Our perception of reality is not a passive reception but an ACTIVE SEEKING OUT of information FROM A PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT. Our particular perspective is a PHYSICAL, COGNITIVE, EMOTIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL viewpoint in the light of MEMORY. Thus, REALITY is INTERPRETED with a particular BIAS. Our perception of reality is a mixture of TOP DOWN/BOTTOM UP processing and is imbued with MEANING. It is top down because it is interpreted and categorised within our framework and selectively attended to. It is bottom up because raw information enters our senses. In addition, this information is often processed automatically. These beliefs about reality are shared with others in a particular SOCIETY and CULTURE at a particular TIME. It is shared by PARALLEL EXPERIENCE, COMMUNICATION using SHARED SYMBOLS (language, pictures) which are CULTURAL TOOLS. This gives a CULTURAL OR GROUP BIAS.

WHY DONT WE WAIT FOR CONVINCING PROOF OF EVERYTHING?

We would not be able to FUNCTION. Based on what evidence we have, together with other related factors, we make INFERENCES:
in order to make PREDICTIONS
in order to FUNCTION, to behave appropriately in the world.
in order to SURVIVE
and in order to MAKE SENSE of the world.

MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD INVOLVES using:

CONCEPTS, CATEGORIES AND SCHEMAS - REPRESENTATIONS of the world involving beliefs and interpretations about reality.

Events, people and objects are:

LABELLED, via a language
CATEGORISED according to features and prototypes
SORTED with related concepts in memory.

We use SCRIPTS - stored ROUTINES in memory which give us EXPECTATIONS.

Such representations are not isolated chunks of information but are HIGHLY INTERCONNECTED with:

OTHER BELIEFS
OTHER KNOWLEDGE
EMOTIONS
BEHAVIOURS
MOTIVES
MEMORY
EXPECTATIONS
VALUES

to form a COMPLEX NETWORK.

Since all these factors are related to our beliefs, we INVEST varying amounts of ourselves in our beliefs. For example, if we believe it is important to help those less fortunate than ourselves we may invest our time, energy and money or other skills into various pursuits to this end.

Therefore:

BELIEFS ARE LOADED WITH INVESTMENTS AND COMMITMENTS which VARY IN TYPE according to the particular belief and it's strength.

As we embrace beliefs, CONSEQUENCES follow for other beliefs via the interconnected network we form. These beliefs in turn involve commitments and consequences.

In the main, we do not entertain CONTRADICTORY BELIEFS:

A person does not hold belief in God and at the same time not believe in God, this would be the opposite of the order and structure that we seek. However, FALSE BELIEFS MAY BE HELD ON TO because they may enable us to function reasonably well, even better than understanding the truth.

SUMMARY 1

In order to make sense of a partially structured or patterned world, and to function and survive in it, we interpret and categorise our biased perceptions via the cultural tool of language. Since we cannot investigate all the evidence, we make inferences, which form highly complex beliefs about our world. These interact with other beliefs, our emotions, motives, behaviour, memory and expectations to produce a complex interrelated system. These beliefs carry with them varying degrees and types of investment of our time, energy and behaviour e.t.c., and have logical and other consequences for other beliefs in the system. Because we are trying to make sense of our world, we do not tend to hold on to explicitly contradictory beliefs.

The effect of holding particular beliefs, or the function of beliefs, which affect us in these complex ways may be to give us:

IDENTITY: A sense of the qualities that make us who we are.

PURPOSE: an arousing of short and long term goals and directions.

COHESIVENESS: a sense of personal integrity and unity.

BELONGING: a sense of unity with others - of sharedness, connectedness that inevitably also means division and separateness from some other groups. For example if you are a Christian, you are divided from and separate from Muslims.

REDUCTION IN ANXIETY: a calming of fear and uncertainty, though some beliefs will increase fear and anxiety, e.g. the belief that the world is going to end tomorrow.

These effects will follow REGARDLESS of whether the belief is TRUE or NOT, so long as the person concerned considers them to be true. The above qualities may override considerations of truth/falsity. It may be more important to belong to a group than become separate from them by considering the group's beliefs to be false. Thus there may be an UNWILLINGNESS to examine the truth or otherwise of beliefs because of the investment/commitment/reward of these other factors.

Beliefs are NOT STATIC and RIGID but often FLUID and the processes of ACCOMODATION and ASSIMILATION usually apply:

ASSIMILATION: As new information is received, it is assimilated into various categories, concepts, schemas and scripts.

ACCOMMODATION: Sometimes, new information does not fit into the categories, concepts, schemas and scripts that have been formed, e.g. the world did not end as predicted, so the schema and scripts may have to be modified to accommodate the new information.

BUT, DIFFEENT BELIEFS OFFER DIFFERENT RESISTANCES TO CHANGE:-

Some beliefs are PERIPHERAL, and their alteration has hardly any effect on the network. Peripheral beliefs have not involved much in the way of investment or commitment. The average person may not believe that there is water on the Moon. Assimilation of the discovery that there is water on Mars is probably quite easy. It has little real effect on day-to-day living.

Other beliefs are CORE, well established and deeply interconnected with our orientation, identity, purpose, integrity, sense of belonging and ability to keep anxiety at bay. To change these beliefs may have GREAT COST. We may have to accept that our investment in such beliefs are misplaced. Our sense of understanding the world and ourselves may be threatened. Other beliefs may be affected as a consequence of changing this one. Our emotions, behaviours, motives, expectations, and even our memory may be affected. Our sense of orientation, identity, purpose, integration and social belonging may all be threatened. Anxiety, fragmentation and aloneness may increase. In short, challenging beliefs that have become core beliefs will cause a person to feel threatened, and thus defensive measures such as physical threats, shouting people down denial, refusal to listen and avoidance may follow. The continuation of such dissonance may lead to psychological problems.

Sometimes, new information is REFRAMED to fit in with the existing belief system. Thus when the 'Aliens will destroy the world tomorrow' prophecy fails, rather than admit failure, the believer may say that the aliens changed their minds as a result of the prophet's efforts at warning the world, even when no such efforts have been made, because it is too costly to personal integrity and cohesiveness to declare that the whole thing was a mistake. Time, effort and money had been invested in the belief that the world would end...perhaps homes and jobs were given up, and preparations made...

Beliefs are VALIDATED by reference to others, (SOCIAL REFERENTS) the world itself and our internal system. We constantly MONITOR and REVIEW our position by earning new information and via SOCIAL COMPARISON with: AUTHORITY FIGURES WE RESPECT: Scientists, religious leaders, experts. PEERS: Friends in and out of the groups to which we belong. RELATIVES.

The PRESSURES that such people can exert on our beliefs is very high, and hence they can affect our behaviour, emotions and sense of identity. (See; Zimbardo, Milgram).

Our beliefs are imbued with VALUES __ e.g. good, bad, right, wrong or worthy. We have our own INTERNAL VALUE SYSTEM - what WE think is good, right e.t.c., which though to a great degree learned from others, is nevertheless our own. Such values are linked to our sensations of pleasant/unpleasant, and are thus linked to our motives.

However, society in general has values, as do the groups to which a person belongs. This there may be DISSONANCE between our own beliefs/values and those of the society/group. To some degree this is overcome by presenting oneself to the group in such a way as is acceptable to them, and thus one is accepted by them. However, too much dissonance will result in pressure. Refusal to present oneself in an acceptable manner may maintain integrity but create the anxiety of rejection. The more important the acceptance of others is to us, the" more pressure we feel to conform.

SUMMARY 2

Our interrelated beliefs, which affect so many aspects of ourselves, help to give us orientation, identity, purpose, cohesiveness, a sense of security and understanding. New information is slotted into our schemes and/or our schemes may be changed to accommodate new information. Core beliefs, closely related to our integrated sense of self, may be difficult to change, such change making us feel threatened and vulnerable. We often validate our beliefs by comparing ourselves with others, some of whom may exert considerable pressure on us to modify or maintain existing beliefs, and the values linked with them, in order to maintain their acceptance of us and the coherence and identity of the group.

Because our beliefs are so intimately connected to our emotions, behaviours, motives, expectations, integrity, identity and belonging, we are NOT LOGICAL BEINGS, because all the above factors intrude on our logic.

Typical examples of non-logical thinking include magical or mythical thinking. Thus for example we may interpret events occurring closely in time as causal, e.g. 'I was just thinking about Joe and the 'phone rings and it's Joe on the line...' We may infer that our thought somehow induced him to ring. So we may consider that there are special powers or an interconnectedness that we cannot explain. Thus, autistic people have no sense of the fact that other people have intentions, or are capable of deceit by saying one thing and meaning another. One autistic person on seeing the ability of someone to infer another person's thoughts by their body-language, ascribed this to special powers. Our use of magical thinking is affected by context. Though amazed by an illusionist's tricks at a magic show, we ascribe it to sleight of hand. The same trick carried out a fortune-teller, or prophet, or person claiming special powers, may induce magical thinking.

Mythical thinking occurs at a different level. It is more concerned with grand schemes, issues of destiny, salvation of mankind and so on. It is an attempt to answer these grand questions and may involve fundamentalist religion, New Age beliefs, cults and so on. These ideas usually involve gods, spirits, saviours, heroes, fate, destiny, grand purposes of the universe, the battle between good and evil and such like.

Magical and mythical thinking are regressive forms of belief that offer us a return to child-like security and comfort in the face of a harsh existential reality. In this case, the feelings of comfort and safety offered by such beliefs, together with a "sense of belonging when such ideas are shared in a like-minded group, override considerations of truth and logic.

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