Leaving Fundamentalism: Is there only one version of truth?

LEAVING FUNDAMENTALISM.

Many people are dissatisfied with a fundamentalist approach to Christianity. Some people have decided to leave the Christian faith behind, while others are seeking a faith based on a less fundamentalist viewpoint. This progressive approach sees the bible as inspirational, though as not necessarily strictly literal. Many people have found this viewpoint to be a helpful alternative to traditional faith, and I am including some articles that I have written that you may find to be of help.

Is my version of truth correct?

Have you ever noticed the way in which all Christians preach as though their version of the truth is correct? This seems strange considering the wide variety of beliefs. Although many references are made to what “the bible says” the understanding of what it means seems to be based not on the simplicity of scripture, but rather on what the preacher thinks the truth to be. This is what I have dubbed as “subjective, what-the-bible-says interpretation”.

I remember seeing a cartoon from the time of the First World War. Every side was praying for victory and the punch line was, “Good God,” said God, “I’ve got my work cut out!” In moments of amusement I can also imagine God listening to some sermons and thinking, “Gosh did I say that?”

Most fundamentalist believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy that says that the bible is the word of God and therefore is without fault or blemish. Some people believe it to be the case even in translation, whilst others would claim it to have been the case in its original form. However there are problems with both these viewpoints.

Do we bury our head in the sand?

It is easy to bury our heads in the sand due to our zeal to defend the faith, but the Christian church needs to be honest and admit that are a number of errors in the bible. An honest look at the bible reveals this. Not only are there some contradictions, but many of the authors of the Bible used sources from other texts. The proverb of the noble wife (see Proverbs 31) is an example of a text that comes from another source. Paul by his own admission even added his own opinions (1 Cor. 7:12, 25).

This confirms that there is therefore a human element to the scriptures and suggests that maybe its inspiration lies not in being the direct words of God spoken through a human agent, but that its inspiration lies in its very humanity.

Academic study suggests that we cannot be absolutely sure that we have a complete record of the teachings of Jesus as even John admitted (John 21: 25). It is easy to ignore this issue, but our faith needs to be founded on reality and not on fantasy.

Are preachers inerrant?

I am sure that many of you will have noticed the way in which preachers think they are above reproach because of their belief in biblical inerrancy. “I must be right because what I am preaching is the word of God.” However usually it is their interpretation of what the bible says that they are preaching. The vast array of denominations, church styles and theological viewpoints would confirm this! We can’t all be right! In many churches, particularly those of a Catholic, Pentecostal or charismatic persuasion the speaker is often seen as not being open to question and only their interpretation is valid. It can therefore be argued that the doctrine of inerrancy gives the speaker too much authority and is easily misused.

Surely in the light of the difficulties in interpreting the bible texts the church should be an open community in which differences are freely discussed and varied approaches accepted.

The church needs to be a place of humility where we recognise that the sincerity to know the truth is more important than the bigotry of upholding often unquestioned viewpoints that have been handed down to us from others. There is room for differences in doctrinal interpretation and the bible can be studied using tools such as textual and historical criticism.

Does that mean that anything goes?

By no means! More pages on this subject to follow.

Francis K Longworth