A friend, following up on a conversation about the currently popular �purpose-driven� phenomenon, wrote:
�Noah Hutchings, of the “Watchmen On The Wall” fame, has stated that he sees five fundamentals of the faith that Dr. Warren objects to, namely,
1. The inerrancy and full authority of the Bible
2. The virgin birth and full authority of the Bible
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
4. Christ’s atoning, vicarious death for the sins of the world
5. The literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ
�I have spoken with many who have “rather switched than fight,” who now revel in the “new light” that they don’t have to be concerned about old taboos like sin anymore. That today, they are more concerned about “finding their place,” or “solving problems.” Didn’t that used to be called the “Social Gospel”?
�The previous basic tenants of redemption and atonement are today considered to be “prehistoric,” and of little use in churches that want to be big and financially successful. I first heard that diversion preached by Robert Schuller of the famous glass cathedral in California, who used to say that we don’t need people feeling guilty; it is more important to make them happy and feel good.
�I guess in that regard, my beliefs now categorize me as one of the “old farts!’ In this regard, part 2 of my question would be, What are your ‘feelings’ in this area.�
My response:
Well, as one “old fart” to another, I’m happy to be invited to rant. Be forewarned, however. Realize that you’re asking an academic to engage in what he enjoys best: a chance to spout off with little restraint on hubris.
First, the question about what my “feelings” are in this regard is not my usual point of reference. Best to ask me what I “think” about it. Addressing these issues from the standpoint of how one “feels” about it is fraught with danger. Best to keep things civil and academic.
I’m an “old fart” in that I lean toward the “Orthodox” and “modernist” rather than “liberal” or any of the trendy misguided loopy “postmodern,” “PC,” “feminist,” “diversity,” “emergent,” or “contemporary”, flavor-of-the-day movements, fads, circles, or ideologies.
That said, I do not much subscribe to the school of “fundamentals” outlined by brother Hutchings, et al. That propositional stance has a particular historical and theological origin that has given rise to classic fundamentalism, later to neo-fundamentalism, and to the current rash of Protestant fundamentalist Taliban. The most rigid expressions of the provincial mentality that ideology perpetuates borders on a form of insanity in my opinion. The amount of intellectual and hermeneutical gymnastics required to maintain that set of propositions is rather astounding, if not tiresome. The experience of trying to carry on a dialogue with certain rigid fundamentalist-dispensationalist-pre-millennialist feels disturbingly similar as talking to a cultist (or a schizophrenic off his meds). (A prerusal of their penchant for finding conspiracies and obsession with “closed systems” like dispensationalism and “end times” prophecy mapping may provide a hint about the obssessive nature of that mentality).
I find that form of propositional fundamentalism pedantic, and ultimately irrelevant. It feeds upon a certain ideological spirituality that has an overfocus on a cognitive construct that is rather Gnostic, assuming that one can, and must, have all the answers. And when they have all the answers (at least having convinced themselves that they do) they are eager to force their beliefs upon others and willfully insist on agreement, consent, and conformity.
I will agree with Warren’s take on the five items on the list he objects to (I’ve not read Warren’s critique so do not know what it is he’s addressing, exactly). None of the items on that list comprise anything of what I’d consider “fundamental” to much of anything in the Christian faith. Most are not biblical, all are open to legitimate responsible theological interpretation other than a literal one, and it is not legitimate to make a claim that they are scriptural or Traditional requirements for the Christian faith (although admittedly, that is exactly the claims the fundamentalists would make).
It’s no news that Christianity has a multitude of faces and confessions along the theological, and doctrinal spectrum, from orthodox to mainline to independent to fundamentalist to moderate to cultural, to liberal; from ancient to modern; from scholastic to pietistic. And it’s no news that religion provides good fodder for those inclined toward neurosis if not outright insanity. It�s part of what makes religion �interesting,� aside from the fact that it is a universal expression of a fundamental human quality: faith. And while the two are not equivalent, I�m of the opinion you really cannot have one without the other.
Some of what you allude to seems to fall into the category of the perpetual debate about belief and form. Often it becomes difficult to separate the two, and it’s easy, if we’re not mindful, to confuse form with substance. The fact is that the Church has, of necessity and appropriately, always needed to be adaptive in its “form” or “style” while maintaining its theological and missional essence. The Gospel is a living thing, and always manifests itself in context and relationships. But, I rant . . .
“A conclusion is merely a place where you got tired of thinking.”
