The Split Personality of Christianity: Fundamentalism versus Philosophical
Christianity
has had this split personality
for some time now. On one hand
you have the obsessive
fundamentalist side that is
aggressive in nature. On the
other hand you have the calm and
steady philosophical or cultural
(PC) side that has made positive
contributions to society.
Why should this duality
be ignored by skeptics and
perpetuated by Christians? If
Christians were to "clean
their house", I think a
reasonable case for a
sustainable Christianity could
be made.
An Episode of Christian Rivalry: A Brief look at Yale
Back
in the day, one of my favorite
Homiletics (the study of
preaching) writers was a
Christian man that was often
referred to as a Christian
humanist. I am referring
to Phillips Brooks, his
excellent book is called
“Lectures on Preaching”.
This book is only one jewel from
a source that will surprise many
of you. This 1876 lecture was
the sixth annual discourse in
The Lyman Beecher Lectureship on
Preaching presented by the Yale
Divinity School in New Haven,
Connecticut.
One of these lecturing
men, Matthew Simpson,
participated in the funeral of
former US President, Abraham
Lincoln. This lectureship series
still continues up until the
present day.
One
of the early presidents of Yale,
Timothy Dwight, was the grandson
of the heralded revivalist
preacher Jonathan Edwards whose
famous sermon “Sinners in the
Hands of an Angry God”
garnered historical
significance.
Timothy Dwight accepted
the presidency of Yale college
in 1795. Dwight’s grandson,
also named Timothy, later
accepted the Yale presidency in
1886 and under his direction the
college became a university.
The
question might be asked, why
speak so much about Yale and
what role does the university
play in this article? The
purpose is to briefly touch upon
the history of an Ivy League
School in order for the reader
to get a glimpse into an
enduring struggle within
Christianity.
In 1795, when the elder
Timothy Dwight took his
leadership role, most Yale men
scoffed at the idea of divine
revelation.
He battled the many forms
of skepticism in his day (Mr.
Dwight was the Professor of the
Divinity School as well as
President of Yale College at the
same time).
Fundamentalism
was abandoned by men of
learning, while
Philosophical or Cultural
Christianity survived
The
point being made is that well
over 200 years ago, educated men
struggled about what role
Christianity will play in
society. Should Christianity be
viewed as today’s’
Fundamentalists desire, or as a
philosophical or cultural
Christian consideration?
Needless
to say, men of learning
abandoned the Fundamentalist
version of Christianity a very
long time ago. Some people
within the Fundamentalist
persuasion aware of this fact
caution young men today about
the dangers of a Christian
Seminary education, they prefer
to refer to it as a cemetery of
once well intentioned men and
women. Many of today’s
Christians would have to be
classified as a Philosophical or
Cultural (PC) Christians. They
would laugh at you if they
thought that you thought they
actually took the Bible
literally.
Philosophical
or Cultural Christians (PC)
usually don’t get offended
when skeptics make fun of
Christianity, many times it just
isn’t personal! These same
Christians can also distance
themselves from the Biblical
position of creation and
identify themselves holding to
an evolutionary viewpoint and
not see this as any compromise
with Christianity.
Checkmate:
Fundamentalism Looses
The
greater skeptical movement when
properly focused can virtually
destroy the bible because it is
morally perverted, internally
inconsistent, historically
incorrect, and scientifically
wrong.
If this were a chess
game, someone would have already
proclaimed checkmate!
When the “truth” of
the Bible is destroyed all you
have left of Christianity is a
philosophical view that the PC
holds. I will later point out,
that this view isn’t all bad.
It
seems that all a fundamentalists
can really do is harass a
skeptic.
They can argue about
evolution, decry abortion, wave
the flag, and write off people
in frustration because the Holy
Spirit has not enlightened us
heathen to their many crazy
views. It appears to me that the
best a fundamentalist viewpoint
can offer is to incite hatred,
divisions and to foment war.
Christian Fundamentalism
needs to be put away!
Cultural
or Philosophical Christians
Several
have speculated that the recent
atheist surge is due to atheist
anger in response to Christian
fundamentalists meddling in
society.
Maybe they are correct,
most Christian fundamentalists
are certainly annoying.
If we could conceivably
get rid of fundamentalism, then
we would still have the PC
Christians to deal with. Funny
thing is that most PC’s
dislike fundamentalism almost as
much as I do. Although I have
never heard one say it, they
seem to view the fundamentalist
as a bastard sibling and are
embarrassed to admit that they
are actually part of the family.
I
strain myself to recall having
any conflict with the PC crowd
due to religion.
My wife holds to a PC
position, so I might go with her
to church enough to fulfill the
PC attendance quota of 1-2 times
a year just to be a good sport!
Otherwise once an atheist and PC
answer the baptism question of
their infant child (we didn’t
baptize), the remainder is
normally smooth sailing. Several
Christians dance between the PC
and fundamentalist positions
when it serves their best
interest to do so. Politics,
business, and religion do make
strange bedfellows, don’t
they?
I have vacillated between the two positions of: 1) Trying to destroy Christianity 2) Being passive about PC Christianity. When I survey my thought history, it seems that it is always the fundamentalist position that disturbs me. The PC position only disturbed me when I was a fundamentalist. By no means do I speak for all atheists, atheism is only a reply in answer to an inquiry about theism. The view I am about to present is a “voice in the crowd” about my thoughts concerning PC Christianity. To present this viewpoint, I will need to tread upon some controversial and delicate subject matters!
Don't
blame the depravity of communism
on a
I detest communism. Having lived in Latvia now for sometime, it is hard to dismiss the many negative aspects that communism deposits upon a society. Latvia having had its freedom taken away has had a full generation plus that endured communism up until 1991 when it regained its sovereignty. People need to realize that communism is an economic system as well as a totalitarian position. Many throw atheism into the mix when communism is discussed, but in Latvia’s case Christian churches were allowed during the Soviet occupation. The media never mentioned churches; most of the pre-existing churches were used for other functions during the occupation. Churches were almost non- existent, and those who went to church took risks and problems usually followed those that did attend. Especially if they were communist party members. Schools taught that a belief in any “god” was crazy. They taught that people should do what is best for the Communist party and then for themselves. So atheism wasn’t proclaimed as a position, rather it was presented as a lack of belief in the foolish position of some god existing. With this understanding, you can properly see how atheism existed and functioned.
From
Experience: I Would Rather Live
in a “Christian” Society
Let
me be the first to label those
who would want to “sound
bite” my thoughts about rather
living in a Christian society as
divisive and shallow if they
only mention the above heading
in discussion. In reality,
society is a collective look at
a group of individuals and their
apparent personal character.
Economically when poor people
are so close to the “bottom
line” of surviving, it is
easier to understand why they
would lie, cheat and steal for a
better life for themselves and
the ones that they love.
I have noticed that these
survival skills of the parents
are often either caught or
taught by their children.
Things you take for granted in a
prosperous country can be but a
dream in a poor one. Life
within a poor country often
isn't as enjoyable as one with a
history of a good economy is.
Latvia
is still a poor country; life
isn’t easy for the common man
here.
My heartbreaks when
viewing the elderly, they really
struggle! I am trying to raise
awareness and the desirability
of community building projects
for both the elderly and the
youth. My plea so far has fallen
upon deaf ears. This point is
relevant to this discussion
because when a generation plus
has lived in this type of
environment, who is reaching out
to help them now? Under
communism, the past focus was to
give to the party and that the
party would take care of you
when you got older. The elderly
whose prime wealth building
years and labor have now come
and gone, they were not able to
build any meaningful personal
reserves for retirement. So who
is left to care for them now
since their cries to a
non-responsive government are
unheeded? It has to come from
humanists and from the PC
Christians.
I respect this giving
aspect from PC Christians that
give as Jesus taught them to
give. I think that both atheists
and Christians should
acknowledge each others positive
contributions within our
communities.
Fundamentalists do send
missionaries here, but the focus
is upon building the Christian
kingdom, not humanitarian
reasons. Thus they contribute
nothing of community value.
Which
society is better, Atheist or
Christian?
Now
if one were to look at Norway,
the world could get a fair
assessment of the above
question. Norway has done quite
well for itself as a secular
nation!
I understand this due to
my wife graduating with a
Masters in Economics from a
Norwegian University. When
people ask which society is
better, Atheism or Christian,
I think the question is
bogus without consideration and
including
a study of the economic
facts. It is difficult to give
when you are so close to your
own bottom line of survival
(poor people living within a
poor country). People usually
give more readily when they have
excess in which to give. In
Norway’s case, I’d rather
live in a secular
"atheist" nation. In
Latvia’s case, I would rather
live in a "Christian"
nation (I can only compare to my
native USA).
American’s are quick to
volunteer and give to those in
need when they are able.
Latvia’s pace is much slower
due to economics and the absence
of good moral instructions as
you would find in PC
Christianity.
PC Christianity normally
chooses the positive values that
Jesus’ taught, amongst these
are the value of the individual
and for human life. Latvia has
had its own holocaust, a
terrible story that I will
probably address at a later
date. I cannot help but
think, what if that totalitarian
government had valued individual
life? Yes, I would
concede the point that
Christianity could have made a
difference here, but this we
would never truly know.
A
Case for a Sustainable
Christianity
So
when I am tempted in anger to
seek the destruction of
Christianity, I keep some of the
ideas I have mentioned in mind.
With this said, I can better see
a more rational approach. I
would love to see Fundamentalism
go away and leave the edifice of
PC Christianity in place.
I would love to see it
reduced from a religion to a
philosophy with the positive
teachings of Jesus being
retained.
Then let us place the
Bible in either the literature
or philosophy section of our
libraries and bookstores. Since
a PC doesn't accept the Bible
literally yet still clings to
the facade of Christianity, I
wish to coin a phrase about your
Bible belief:" If
your Bible isn't literal, then
it must be literature".
Christianity needs to shed its split personality and say good-bye to fundamentalism. For too long now, it has gotten away with having it both ways. I am just one man seeking those who are rational to examine my proposition. I wouldn’t mind if a sustainable form of PC Christianity survives. My message to Christians is clean up the mess that you have made because you can’t have it both ways!
Brian
Worley Ex-Minister.org
March 15, 2008 All
rights reserved