Fundamentalism

I think fundamentalism is based on the idea of a singular, cohesive, objective truth, and I think Christian fundamentalists claim this truth comes from the Bible. But I suspect a large number of Christian fundamentalists don’t actually read the Bible all that much. They merely assume they know the important parts. Others might read it, but with preconceived notions of what they will find and what it all means. In other words, I think they attempt to reconcile what they read with what they already believe even though they claim their beliefs come from the Bible.

I personally don’t find a cohesive message. I think each of the four Gospels are distinctive, but they all give me the impression that Jesus was concerned with interpreting Jewish law in a compassionate way. But I don’t think he gives a systematic interpretation that we could extrapolate to any and all circumstances.

Jesus seems concerned with comforting people in their minds and bodies. I’m skeptical of the miracles, but Jesus seems to perform them in order to help those he encounters. He feeds the hungry, heals the sick, raises recently passed loved ones from the dead, and rids people of the torment of demons. He seems to urge his followers to adopt a more generous and compassionate attitude, especially toward the poor.

Of course, the accounts of Jesus’ life were written decades after Jesus died in a language not his own by anonymous authors, and we don’t have a single original manuscript. I can see how the story of Jesus’ life as we know it can be compelling, but the fact that it comes to us in such a mysterious way doesn’t seem to bother the fundamentalists.

After the Gospels and Acts, we get to Paul’s letters. Paul doesn’t seem to be much interested in Jesus’ life. For Paul, it’s all about believing in Jesus as a blood sacrifice. This, according to Paul, is what is important, and believing this is what saves us. He claims the law doesn’t save, but, on the other hand, he urges Christians to follow it, but only the parts that apply to everybody. He doesn’t think Christians should become Jews. I don’t think he provides a method for us to determine which laws are for Jews only and which ones are for everybody. I don’t think Paul’s theology is cohesive, and I don’t think it is in lockstep with the Gospels.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that we’re reading Paul’s letters which he wrote to specific communities and for specific purposes. Maybe he would have said something different if he knew we’d be reading the letters 2,000 years later. Maybe he wrote other letters that have been lost. What did they say? Maybe he changed his mind about certain things. Some of the letters that made their way into the New Testament might not have been written by Paul.

I’m sure there are fundamentalists who would be glade to help me reconcile all of these things. I’ve heard at least some of their explanations, and I’ve noticed lots of discrepancies. Those who claim there is one, cohesive message don’t seem to agree on what that message is. So far, I remain unconvinced that the Bible gives a clear, objective message. I believe that if there were a loving god who expected us to follow a set of rules to the letter and intended to punish us if we didn't, that god would have provided the rules to us in a way that we can all understand.