It is interesting that Ed just posted something about this. I had been meaning to write about this for awhile.
I have realized that I am not a fundamentalist. Well, this isn't exactly a new revelation, but I've been thinking about it more lately. This has been a gradual shift over the last two or three years as I've spent more time really digging into theology and, especially, learning about Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy.
But, recently, I got an urge to write on this when I was reading an entry over at Theopedia. It was critiquing a theology or theologian -- I can't remember which -- and the problem with this theology or theologian was that it did not adhere to the most important doctrine of Christianity, or so the article said. What is that doctrine? The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith? No. The doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? No. The doctrine of perfections of God? No. The doctrine of the person of Christ? No. No, it was none of these, it was the inerrancy of Scripture.
Now, the point isn't that inerrancy isn't all well and good. The point is that the author of this actually thought that inerrancy was the utmost doctrine of Christianity. Unless the Bible is somehow going to die for my sins, however, I cannot agree. The center of the Church, the center of the Bible, the center of the Gospel, the center of everything is Christ. Ultimately, we ought to resolve to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified -- just as Paul did.
My problem with fundamentalism is deeper than this -- I also see an increasingly strong anti-intellectualism trend in that realm -- but primarily it is that its ultimate concern, to borrow a nice phrase from Paul Tillich (sorry, Ed), is not God. Fundamentalism today makes idols out of the Bible, out of Creationism, out of politics and "keeping faith public" and many similar things. Many, if not all, of these things are good in moderate quantities, but they aren't our ultimate concern as Christians.
I've read a bit of Jacque Derrida recently, and the phrase "decentering the center" keeps coming to mind. In deconstructionism there can be no center, but ultimately as Christians we must insist there is a center, and if that center is anything other than Christ, then we are worshipping idols. What good is the Bible without Christ? What good is Creationism without Christ? Christ is first, last and everything in between.
Sadly, while many people get that (and Barth emphasizes it as much as he can), many of those who claim to adhere to the "fundamentals" of faith do not get it in practice, even if they claim it in theory.
Trackback URL: http://asisaid.com/journal/trackback/938.html
A point that should be much more controversial than it is. “And The Word is God” echoes in my mind. I’ve heard explanations about what this means, but I think it often becomes more inclusive.
Certain phrases, such as “and the word is God” or “sola scriptura” take on far more than their intentions and as a consequence distort the original truth. Ed’s comment in his article about ornate robes hit this on the head.
While the Bible is true and innerrant, we should not put the book before the author or we skew the intent of the author.
This is a subtle issue. Tim you did a great job of breaking out of the subtlety and magnifying the difference so that people could grasp onto what you are saying.
;)
Yeah, and even Tillich was right once or twice about things.
Josiah: Thanks. You raise good points about it coming from over expansion of John and sola scriptura.
Kevin: Hmm… is that “yes, Tim has gone nuts and is ranting” wink?
Ed: You’ve got a point there — I can make use of a few of his ideas even though I don’t like a lot of his abstractness.
That’s the “welcome to the light side” wink.
Ah, thanks, Kevin.
Tim, what a great post. I intend to reply with a post in my blog ASAP.
Thanks, Eduardo.
In a recent post, Tim lamented the fact that some self-labeled “Fundamentalists” had their priorities wrong. He specifically cited an instance where one of those fundamentalists stated that the central doctrine of Christianity is the inerra…
At the beginning of May, a post of mine brought about a wonderful response from my ever thought provoking brother in Christ Eduardo . He presented three points of weakness in Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy: Natural Theology, Revelation and Universalism. I p…
In April of 2006, a post of mine brought about a thoughtful critique of Barthianism by Eduardo . He gave a three point critique of Barth’s theology focusing on its antagonism of natural theology, unique perspective on revelation and its implicit uni…
Unsuprisingly, I compltely agree with you, Tim:) On the other hand, a hostility toward natural law is mistaken. I wonder what Barth thinks of Bavinck?
Why, thank you, Jason. I think the key regarding natural law is that Barth was referring to a particular element of it. Dr. Williams, you may recall, thought Barth could likely affirm Bavinck’s variant of it. I’ve never seen Barth refer to Bavinck — I wonder if he does? I think Bavinck might be a bit too into the rational proofs for Barth’s taste, though there are certainly echoes of proto-neo-orthodoxy in Bavinck, I think. What do you think?
Barth rejects natural theology, but then makes special revelation something essentially revealed to everyone, which blurs the distinction, I think.
Please enter your comment entry below. Press 'Preview' to see how it will look.