The Long Road Home

Last week, I posted a somewhat provocative status profile on Facebook:

“Brandon Gilvin is all for a variety of theological viewpoints.   I draw the line at fundamentalism and literalism, however, and it saddens me when our structures enable both.”

I wrote this because I came across the website of newly founded Disciple Church that included a statement that read “The Holy Bible, and only the Bible, is the authoritative Word of God. It alone is the final authority in determining all truths. In its original writing, it is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.” and also included a plug for Focus on the Family’s “The Truth Project,” which purports to demonstrate a Christian Worldview–the “truth” about anthropology, science, American History, ethics, etc.

My cousin and colleague in ministry, Nancy, asked me to explain my status a little more fully.  After spending a couple of days thinking about it, I’ve decided to write it as a blog entry, rather than just a quick comment response.  I was responding to a couple of issues and I had multiple thoughts going on in my response.  Therefore, it will be a little easier to lay them out in a longer format.

First up, my direct concerns with fundamentalism and literalism.  I define literalism as a way of reading the Bible that assumes every historical and supernatural incident recorded in the bible happened literally, word-for-word, as it is presented in the text.  I define (Christian) fundamentalism as a theological/philosophical stance which is not only literalist, but which contends that a literalist reading of the Bible is the only legitimate reading of the Bible and the only legitimate interpretive lens for viewing the world.

As an ordained minister, I take the Bible seriously.  Very seriously.  I view it as the sacred text of Christianity, the sacred text of my religious community, and I’ve spent a good bit of my adult life studying it.  It is my study of the Bible and its historical context that makes me very concerned about any statement such as “It alone is the final authority in determining all truths.”

A Literalist, creationist reading of Genesis–that God made the world in six 24 hour days–is from my vantage point, problematic.  For one, the priestly account of creation is dependent on the belief in a flat earth with a sky dome protecting us from cosmic waters.  For the most part, literalist readings don’t take that into consideration.  To give this story “final authority in determining all truths” and eschew science–especially issues pertaining to evolutionary biology, geology, etc.–not only disregards anything scientific disciplines have to say, but it ignores the context in which the story was written.

Other fundamentalist readings have led to a number of problems–the conquest in Judges has been used to justify the destruction of indigenous cultures in North America and South Africa, for example.  The Passion account in the Gospels has been sadly used to justify pogroms.

It is my contention that taking the Bible seriously means putting it in conversation with wider discussions about ethics, science, history, archeology, economics, and other disciplines, holding what Christians proclaim about the Bible–that God creates the world out of love, is in covenant with all of humanity, and invites us all to work for a Kingdom of peace, reconciliation, and renewal–in tension with empirical evidence and insight from other traditions, disciplines, etc.

Second, my particular denominational concerns.  The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a non-creedal tradition.  The Apostle’s Creed was abandoned as a litmus test for one’s faith, and there’s been a long tradition of individual liberty in Biblical interpretation.  Though not original to DoC, “In essentials unity, in opinions liberty,and in all things charity,” was an oft-repeated slogan among the 19th century frontier movement that still resonates with Disciples today.  Of course, in the 21st Century, we have to deal with what the “essential” elements of our faith are.  That’s tricky.

Most of those who are held up as founders of the CC (DOC) were influenced by the intellectual trends of the day, and were hardly what we would call fundamentalists.  Barton Stone was repeatedly accused of being a Unitarian for his questions about the trinity, Alexander Campbell developed a method of interpretation that relied heavily on contextualization, and Walter Scott was  influenced by Bacon and Locke.  Even though a good but of energy around the early days of the movement was spent on “restoring” the model of the first century Church, it was so buttressed by influence from the Enlightenment, that I wouldn’t call it fundamentalist.  Granted, I don’t see a need to subscribe to every belief that Campbell, Scott, and Stone had. There are obvious limits, problems that emerge when you put the 19th Century in conversation with the 21st, just as there are when you put the first century (or previous centuries) in conversation with the here and now.  To be responsible stewards of the faith, Christians have to wrestle with that.

While it is not my place to determine who gets to fly the flag of our denomination (I TRY to take the whole charity part seriously, too), it does concern me that Disciple churches that espouse this belief are being planted.  I don’t think literalism and fundamentalism are helpful.   I would like to say that an exercise of charity involves “agreeing to disagree” on these issues, but the very foundation of fundamentalism denies the validity of my approach to the text, naming a literalist reading as definitive truth–no discussion needed.

Of course, there are plenty of folks with whom I disagree with on issues of theology.  Though I am not an evangelical, I think there are plenty of evangelicals who approach Biblical interpretation with respect, humility, and the honesty to say that they are engaging in interpretation.  They find truth in the Bible.  I have no beef with that.  I do, too.  The problems start to emerge when one limits the places where wisdom can be found, and presumes that a particular interpretation of the bible (and despite what fundamentalists may say, they ARE interpreting) is the end of the argument.

What concerns me the most has to do with the use of “The Truth Project.”  Again, if it were possible to have a live and let live attitude about this, I have little problem with letting people believe how they like.  Unfortunately, the Truth Project argues not only for a fundamentalist understanding of scripture, but intertwines a particular understanding of American history that not only relies on Fundamentalism, but intertwines an understanding of  American exceptionalism with that fundamentalism, and presents it as absolute truth.   It makes an argument for America as a fundamentally Christian Nation–not in terms of population, not in terms of its historical and cultural roots, but in a theological sense. America was meant to be a Christian nation in a very specific (and absolute!) way, the logic goes, and any thing that contradicts that theological position is a corruption of history.

Interestingly enough, a fantastic article appeared this weekend in the New York Times Magazine, laying out the controversy playing out in Texas over the way we teach the role of Christianity in American History.  It’s a long read, but a good, fair assessment of the issue.  It also picks apart the arguments set forth by folks like Focus on the Family much better than I could.   The most important point it makes is that the Founding Fathers were not of one mind when it came to religious issues–there were pietistic Christians and committed Deists among them–they were highly influenced by the Enlightenment–they used language in many of our founding documents that was highly theological (Creator, for example) but NOT Specifically Christian.

While they likely could not have imagined a United States with Mosques, Buddhist meditation centers, and Hindu Temples, whether or not they would dig that is beside the point.  The Bill of Rights guarantees all of us free exercise of religion and prevents any attempt to establish an official state religion.  The argument that this is a Christian nation founded under divine providence not only distorts history, but it ultimately undermines that First Amendment right.

I blogged about Church and State issues when I was working at Saint Andrew.  I’m pretty passionate about what it means for people of faith to be engaged in advocacy and the political process, but I’m just as passionate about theological and civic education that has scholarly integrity.   It’s important that we be clear that history is a complicated discipline, that answers are rarely as simple as they seem, and that any lesson that argues uncritically for the supremacy of one’s own Nation, divinely-inspired or not, is not history, but propaganda.

The Church, founded by someone who was killed at the hand of an Empire, should know better.