True Christian Fundamentals

The Fundamentalists were well-intentioned folk.  Amid the chaos of Protestantism and the millions, perhaps billions, of different interpretations of Scripture it indulged, church leaders tried to identify a minimum number of things people should believe to call themselves "Christian."  This was, at its outset, a decidedly conservative approach - it fought against changes to Christianity that it perceived from liberalism and evolution, by reinforcing core beliefs such as Biblical Inerrancy, which allowed them to state that the creation of the world as outlined in Genesis was absolutely true, simply by virtue of its being present in Genesis.  More on that in the next post, I think.

These were people who thought their world was becoming more evil, who feared an active and powerful Satan leading people astray with false beliefs.  While some, certainly, may have engaged in fundamentalism as a way of solidifying their political power, back in those days, fundamentalists were on the ropes, and there was little power to be gained.  Power was developed slowly, over a period of many decades.  It wouldn't be until the 70s that that power began to coalesce behind the Republican party.  Such is the source of the famous Barry Goldwater quote:

Source: http://berkshireonstage.com/2014/05/09/mr-conservative-barry-goldwater-play-about-christian-politics-and-dc-gridlock/

But, that's not the point of this article.  Instead, I want to offer a challenge to Fundamentalists to solve one problem: That is, how do you know the heart of another person?

You see, Fundamentalism is entirely external - it is a codification of beliefs, so that those beliefs can be reinforced across denominations; but, just because a preacher stands before a congregation and shouts and rattles the pulpit and appears to be calling down lightning from Heaven with his words, that doesn't mean he himself believes the things he's saying.  It doesn't mean that those in the congregation will buy into his words, either.  Christianity today is, as many of you have noted, a "luke warm" belief, with congregants attending church more for the social scene than for any actual conviction.

A friend of mine from the UK once told me that all of the Anglican preachers she knew over there are, in fact, atheists.  This is but a symptom of the problem.

I also saw this in a much more publicly-broadcast way back when I was dating, which really wasn't that long ago.  I used to read profiles on OkCupid every day.  That site offered the ability to winnow down your potential matches on a wide variety of criteria, and further to read their responses to a wide array of questions that could help provide further insights into their beliefs.  The majority of users I found who lived in Tulsa and who listed "Christian" as their religion held wildly divergent beliefs that were anathema to their supposed religion:

1. By and large, these Christians felt it was inappropriate to teach evolution in schools.  Where they accepted that it would be taught, they almost always said it must be taught side-by-side with Creationism.  Most, however, said only Creationism should be taught.
2. Most said homosexuality was a sin.
3. Many smoked.  (I'd estimate 40%, but it's entirely a rough estimate based on personal perception and not on the exhaustive work of actually coding the responses.)
4. Most said that they would need to have sex with someone before marrying them.

The latter two seem at odds with the former two, because in the codification of Fundamentalism that gives rise to the former two beliefs, the latter two are also verboten: smoking is a violation of the treatment of the human body as a temple to God; sex before marriage is a violation of the arguments Paul made against fornication.

This is, most likely, endemic of two factors: #1, it's easy to believe in those things that don't directly effect you, while it's easy to disregard those things that do; #2, the extent to which arguments against evolution and homosexuality are made in popular Fundamentalist discourse, in lieu of other arguments.

Therein lies the problem I present to Fundamentalists at the moment (although obviously, I have many, many other problems with Fundamentalism than this): how can you claim that divergent theologies are sinful, when you don't know the actual hearts of your members?  When the people who make up your congregations, and even your leading pastors, hold wildly heterodox beliefs, how can they be Fundamentalists?

It's a problem of the internal versus the external.  We say that those who hold true beliefs will bear Spiritual Fruit, but then ignore those who do bear Spiritual Fruit.  For a good example: Princess Diana often went on mission trips into Africa, holding the poorest and most desperately in need dear to her heart; yet, we throw out that Fruit because she wasn't "Christian" in the mindset of the Fundamentalists.  Mother Theresa exhibited an even greater problem, as she was undeniably Christian by her actions, and yet her beliefs had her in a religion that Fundamentalists are not entirely comfortable with (leading to the claim that it's possible to be a Christian even in non-Fundamentalist religions).  When Fundamentalists get caught doing something wrong, they are often excommunicated socially (though not legally) from the church if the church wishes to remain out of the controversy, but more often than that, they are still held to be members of the church and Christians, because of their identification with these Fundamentalist groups.  Their sins are ignored, their lack of Spiritual Fruit is ignored, because of their in-group identification.

That's what Fundamentalism really is - the identification of the in-group, the "Us" that allows believers within the group to also coalesce their hatred of "Them." It's important to fight beliefs such as that, just as Goldwater did:

Source: http://bigfishink.com/?p=3108

Jesus was a communist

You heard that sort of right - Jesus was a communist.

Or, rather... Jesus really didn't take a stand on it in any direction, except to say that people who live by the law die by the law, and that love is bigger than all of that.

So, perhaps it's better to say that Paul was a communist.  As were the disciples.

But here we have to draw a distinction between communist and Communist.  A Communist is someone who follows after the pattern of Stalin and Lenin, etc., someone who believes that the people should control the means of production, because theoretically the only way that people will accept that control is through military totalitarianism.  A communist, however, is someone who believes in communal living - that is, that within the community, all people work together, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  It does not depend on a strong military, but it does depend on people buying into the idea of communal living and having some limited idea of leadership.

We get to see this play out in the Bible.  In Acts 4, we see the believers sharing their possessions:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

So, the apostles - the spiritual leaders of the community - were also the political leaders of the community.  This should not be a recommendation for spiritual leaders to always be political leaders (after all - imagine if Judas had not killed himself and had remained one of the Twelve).  Rather, these particular leaders were anointed by God as witnessed by the faithful, through not only the calling from Christ, but also from the appearance of the Holy Spirit as fire upon their heads.  It was a clear sign of their election by God.  We have no such clear signs today.

Nevertheless, people lived communally, and shared all they had together within the community.  And it worked, because there were those who were generous enough to donate to the needs of the community and fortunate enough that they had the money available to sell.  There's no indication that those who sold their land had any belief or request that those who didn't own land or those who weren't working shouldn't be eligible to receive.

This was a community in which those with money and means lived the example of Christ to those who did not have.  Remember the story of the rich man who asked Jesus:

“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Matthew 19:16-22)

The story here is that the rich man didn't truly love his neighbor, because he had great wealth.  In giving away his wealth, he would show that he loved others more than himself, that he was willing to sacrifice everything for the love of God.

When those who lived communally did exactly what this rich man seemed hesitant to do and was depressed by the thought of doing, selling all they had and giving to the community, they were taken care of.  They did not suddenly have to worry about where they would live and what they would eat, because the Apostles distributing their wealth could take care of them.  Within the community, it was safe to distribute money in this way, and so while they certainly still had to take a great leap of faith and sacrifice of themselves, they still had security for their futures.

It was social welfare.  There are those who argue that no, that's not what we should take away from this, because it wasn't a legally-enforced social welfare - and they are somewhat correct.  However, the social pressure was, nonetheless, there.  Ananias and Sapphira, who a chapter later did the same thing but secretly held some back, surely sold everything they had to make it appear like they were just as holy as their brethren.  They felt pressured to give as others had done, even if such pressure was not overt.  Their sin was that they wanted the best of both worlds - their greed and the respect of their peers - without realizing that the real reason for selling everything they had and giving to the community was one of love for the community.  They were not required to do it, but they were rewarded for doing it, both by social respect and by the guarantee of care from the Apostles.

We have no such reward system in place today.  Our social welfare system does not guarantee a livable minimum of care.  Rather, it guarantees a completely impoverished minimum of care, jeopardizing the physical and mental health of those who would enter into it.  Imagine giving away everything you own today.  No one would take that money and reinvest it in you - rather, they would take that money and distribute it far and wide.  And, while you might have enough income to support yourself, you would have to buy a new car just to get to work, clothes to work in, utensils to cook your food, and so on.  There is a minimum of stuff you would have to re-buy - and, if you couldn't, you'd lose your job and be unable to support yourself.  In our country, it is impossible to literally sell all you have and give to the poor.

But that is still what Christ would recommend, for you to truly understand love for your fellow man and trust in the Lord.

Many years ago, compassionate Christians took a different approach to care for their fellow man.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us welfare.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us medicare.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us food stamps.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us social security.  Christians understood that they had a responsibility to ensure a minimum level of care for their fellow man.  They chose as an electorate to do this thing from a tax-supported position, despite the fact that the Bible didn't outright command such a position, because it was the only way of instituting communal living of the type enjoyed and employed by the early Christian Church.  Donations have never been, and are certainly not now, enough to fund the difference.

Part of that is because the minimum is so low.  To allow all of us who are able to support ourselves to sell all we have and give to the poor, we would need certain guarantees:
1. That we will have transportation to and from work.  This means that an infrastructure of public transportation must be established where it doesn't exist and improved where it does, so that when we sell our car to give the money to the poor, we can still get to work.
2. That we will have shelter.  This means both shelter from the elements and security from those who mean us harm.  Public housing must be free of cockroaches and drug dealers.  It must be safe for a person who has given everything to the poor to walk alone at night as he or she comes home from a job.
3. That we will have food and water.  This means that food must be available so that those who give all they have can still have a hot, healthy meal.
4. That we will have clothing.  Yes, you already know I'm a nudist, and if we could go to work naked that'd be swell.  But, there are times when clothing is a necessity - to block the light of the sun, to warm in the cold winter months, to protect our skin from hail or insects or brambles.  The person who sells all he or she owns and gives to the poor will still need to be dressed to get to work - all the time unless you want to humor my nudist side, and a significant amount of the time even if you do.
5. That we will have health care.  Someone who gives all he or she owns to the poor should not have to sacrifice his or her health to do so.
6. That we will have education.  Someone who gives all he or she owns to the poor should still be able to learn new things that will further his or her employment.

In such a society, a person could potentially sell all they have and give to the poor repeatedly, without fear for the future.