New Twist on the topic of Worship

We have taken a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of having seeker friendly churches. I would like to turn the whole question around a bit.

Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that church is for believers only. Unbelievers are welcome, of course, but in our planning etc. we don't try to cater to them, only to the needs of believers. What would/should a Sunday morning service look like? Is coffee, rock music and lack of dress code still ok?

In your mind, what does the "perfect" Sunday morning worship service look like?

Terri Responds

Terri Responds:

And next....pole dancing for those people who feel that worship could draw in that demography of people. Anyway, that was a funny, but, I wanted to say in response to an earlier comment about worship being relevant...it still becomes a "fundamental" for that particular church. Fast forward twenty years into the future when "coffee house churches" refuse to change their mode of worship. Just a thought. I'm not saying that those churches are wrong. God is definitely allowing growth and His word is being heard, but I can't help but feel like "what's happening to my Father's House?" You know, like when Jesus over turned the money tables at the temple....

Could you exactly pinpoint what fundamentals you are talking about that affected your faith? I mean, was it something like not being allowed to dance, play cards...or was it more of the guilt for not showing up to a scheduled work day at church...or my personal favorite...the tally board posted at the front of the church that shows how many members were present and how many members were heathens that Sunday... 
I don't think fundamentalism is all bad. Some believers really thrive in that setting. It doesn't mean that they love the laws first though. Only God can know their hearts and certainly His grace is sufficient. None of us are righteous anyways...even our righteousness is like filthy rags. (my paraphrase of that scripture.)

+++++++

LOL on the pole dancing. Don't you think its wierd that when we are talking about church and what we like or don't like about a service, when we find something that bothers us, it will lead to something really bad, like pole dancing? For me growing up it was always "pornography". My dad would say, "Well, if you are going to listen to Karen Carpenter's rock music, what's next? Pornography?" My mom used the same argument when we were trying to get permission to sing praise choruses in the Bible Church. She said, "Why do you want us to sing praise choruses?" Naively I told the truth, "Because I like them." My mom's reply was predictable, "Oh, so if everyone wanted pornography we would use that too?"

Did you know that these very same arguments were used to condemn the protestants who eventually broke away from the Catholic Church? The same arguments used to resist translating the Bible into our everyday language instead of keeping it in Latin? The same arguments used to insist that Mass had to be in Latin as it had been for hundreds and hundreds of years even though the people attending the Mass could not understand a single word? These are old and worn out arguments designed to help us miss the point of the discussion. I long to have the discussion and that is why I encourage it.

The point I am making is this: legalists teach that to abandon the traditions (rules and structure) of the past is a slippery slope that leads to (pick the most apalling sin you can think of and insert here). Of course, modern christian music is not a slippery slope that leads to sin. It is a perference. But, you can find many fundamentalist churches and web sites that explain that modern Christian Contemporary Music (referred to often just as CCM) is a tool of the devil and designed to create unity and cooperation between churches which is bad, and will ultimately usher in the Great Catholic Whore spoken of in Revelation. Is is not the disagreement that I am speaking out against, it is the villification and condemnation of others who are different or choose to do things differently. I mean, fundamentalists don't like Billy Graham!

With all of that said, I agree there are some things for us to consider as our churches strive to be relevant to our culture. I think the danger of coffee house churches is that the focus will remain on helping people "find" Christ and forget to help them "follow" Christ. Then we will come full circle and have churches that are just modern versions of "time to walk the aisle and get saved" churches that only preach "the gospel" and never anything Christians need to figure out how to live here on earth. I think it is healthy to ask the question, "Ok, so we are approachable. Where are the services and meetings that teach us to grow and live and love others?" I firmly believe there has to be a balance and we can't do it all in a single meeting like Sunday Morning. I am reminding us that the Bible does not give us a comfortable, set in stone format we have to follow. It allows us to meet the requirements (approachable and to edify) in ways that are both relevant to culture and preference. I think its ok to say, "I like hymns and prefer to attend a church that sings hymns." Then find a church that matches your preferences, the things you like. But, we don't have to make hymns "right" and everything else "wrong".

I realize that the book I am writing is not available and many of your questions are answered (or at least I try to answer them) there. But let me try to address my problems with fundamentalism. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the "fundamentals". And for the most part, the fundamentlists I know love God and want to do his will. They are inredible Christians whom I deeply love and greatly respect. In that sense I am still a fundamentalist. I have not rejected them; they have rejected me. And that's a whole different discussion.

But "fundamentalism" is a problem, and it is not the specific rules, but the mind set and legalism that is built around the fundamentals that is a problem for me, and should be a problem for any Christian. BTW, I hate that little tally board as well! I mention it in my book. Sadly, there are so many things in our churches that are in the same spirit of that tally board, measurements of our spirituality. I do think fundamentalism is "bad" in the same way hypocrisy is bad - it misleads. I think for the most part, it misses the point of Christianity. Jesus says it best:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. Matthew 23:23

This is a perfect example of legalism. You can't say, "Do not drink alcohol because the Bible says not to drink" when that is not what the Bible says. You can't say, "Don't wear jeans because the Bible says you can't" when it doesn't. I could go on and on. You can't say, "We only teach what the Bible teaches" when you actually don't. And I don't think it is acceptable that when someone tries to point out the hypocricy, they are "shunned" and separated from because "obviously they don't love God." It is true that I am speaking of my own experience, but it is a shared experience for many, many people. And most do not recover. They lose their faith. That is why I am writing the book. I understand, and I want to help.

The truth is that the Bible says don't be drunk; it does not condemn drinking. In fact, God commands it as a part of worship related to giving your tithe!

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice. Duet. 14:22-26

I was shocked to find this verse, wondering why it was never preached on, or talked about when we discussed the prohibition on alcohol. Of course, it is not the only verse like it. Many others indicate that there is not a problem with consumption of alcohol, only the excess of being drunk. I changed my mind about this a very long time before I actually drank any alcohol, so don't think it was just a justification for me to do what I wanted.

If you personally decided to never drink alcohol, then that is between you and God. But you can't suddenly preach that all Christians who drink are "false" Christians. All those who wear modern clothing are also "false". I love this one, I was told this directly at my Christian H.S. "Rock music is the Devil's music. Since you like rock music, then you like the Devil. Therefore, you are friends with the Devil, and you cannot be friends with God. You can't really love God, and since you are not a real Christian, I must separate from you!" Is this "healthy" Christianity? I think not, nor does the Bible:

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will notbe condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Colossians 2:16-17

The reality of our Christianity is found in Christ. This is the point I wish to make, my respectful disagreement. I am simply using the tools I was taught as a fundamentalist - love Jesus first, and only believe what is taught in the Scriptures. I have found that much of what I was taught was not in the scriptures. I hope I do not become anyone's enemy for pointing these things out. As Paul says:

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? Galatians 4:16

I pray that is not the case for anyone reading this blog, my Facebook page, or my book. I am just glad the dialogue has started.

Sonya Asks Another Question

Ok...love a good healthy God centered discussion and hope if this is not the place for it that you or Terri would point me in the right direction because some of my questions or concerns do not get answered in church, or small study groups. I am stirred to my spiritual core, like Terri commented, about churches. It seems to me people stand with coffee in hand, listening to a "concert" and we are calling this worship. No, this mode of worship in its purest form is not wrong; and I like you Chris was in a very legalistic school (lived there). I know the bondage you talk about. But I too must ask the question what is up with all the theatrics in our churches? It is as though we are trying to produce the Holy Spirit and making our churches attractive for the non-believer to want to return. I think we our on the edge of offending the Holy Spirits work and responsibility.

This is exactly where this needs to happen. I was hoping for this kind of dialogue.

You are right, when all is said and done the modern form of "worship" is not "wrong" but different. Paul told the Corinithians to make their worship services "seeker friendly" by limiting the use of speaking in tongues which is a sign to unbelievers, and focus on prophesy (preaching) which is for believers.

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!" 1 Corinthians 14:23-25

We can put to rest the question "should we make our services approachable to unbelievers?" The answer is Yes. We also need to make them edifying to believers. Like so many things in Christianity, there needs to be a balance. Churches that lean more one way or the other are not "wrong", it is simply a different focus.

It often boils down to what "form" of worship we are comfortable with and our definition of true worship. Jesus says that true worship is not limited by venue or form, but rather Spirit.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. John 4:24

Standing in the Jewish temple burning a dead animal, or standing in a church with coffee in hand singing loud rock music can both be worship if the worshippers are worshiping in spirit and truth.

Worship is obviously much more than a meeting we attend. Romans 12:1 tells us that offering our bodies as a living sacrifice is "true worship". With this in mind one could argue our meetings are not worship at all but a gathering where praise, teaching and acts of worship can happen.

This brings us right back to the rules and our attempt to "make" worship happen. Jesus addressed this in Matthew 15:1-9:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."

Jesus was called into question for his inappropriate "worship" and he points out that the rule keepers break God's command for the sake of "tradition". He uses an example where children could get around providing money and support for their parents if they declared their money a "gift to God", basically, if they gave it to the church for God's work. Jesus is concerned that our rules will help us miss the point on everything God considers important. In fact, the entire Bible seems devoted to the idea that these things are matters of the heart, not of actions.

The New Testament does not give us a worship service order, or even a guideline as to how we should gather or what should happen when we do. The closest thing to an order of service is found in 1 Corinthians 14:26:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

I think the bottom line is that our churches need to be places where believers and built up and encouraged while unbelievers are made welcome. Places where grace is given and love is practiced, which is a good thing for believers and non-believers alike. Open places willing to embrace all the same people Jesus did, not sterile religious country clubs were only members are welcome.

I appreciate Preston Trail where we worship, and their approach (they are a coffee brewing, dim lights, loud music church) because they are seeking to do both of these things we are discussing. We get good Bible teaching, but it is very accessible to all. Grace is a commodity that our pastors want us to give out as freely as it has been given to us. In fact, I am happy to call Preston Trail "my" church. To your point, we cannot "make" worship happen. It comes from our hearts and I believe can happen in the middle of a loud rock concert or in a Catholic mass. It can happen in a bleak prison cell, or a mansion in Preston Hollow. Why? Because it happens in our heart.

I guess what I am trying to say is that instead of looking at the "form" our services take, we should be asking ourselves a different question. Are the people here truly worshipping God in their hearts? may be the better question. Am I worshipping God in my heart, or am I letting the form and venue get in the way? For some, rigidity blocks their worship. They cannot find him in the Mass, or the liturgy of a high church. Some find it easier to worship when they are preached at and they sing familiar church music such as hymns. Others find a freedom to worship in modern ways such as worship dance, praise music, and rock. I think I can still hear Jesus giving us the key: True worship happens in the heart. At the end of the day we are the church, not the buildings we assemble in. Worship is what happens inside of us, not our meeting places.

Is this fun yet?

Question from Terri

This question was posted to my Facebook by Terri, my cousin-in-law:

You stated:

"I believe that the Bible has the correct pattern - Love God first."
Don't you think most Christians believe this?

Are you saying that fundamentalists love their "rules" before God?

It seems to me to be a rather bold statement, but...correct me if I'm wrong.
(btw...I'm not trying to be contentious...I am genuine in my attempt to understand what you, the author, is trying to say).

+++++++

Yes, there are Christians who believe that, in fact, we cannot love God first. We are dead in our trespasses and sin and are totally unable to respond to God in any way. It is called the doctrine of Total Depravity, and is one of the 5 points of Calvinism (i.e., Reformed Theology). Only God can call us, we do not seek him, we cannot love him first. We are like a dead corpse in a grave, completely unaware, unhearing, unresponsive, and unloving. If God chooses us (Predestination and Election) then he awakens us, calls us, and according to Calivinism, we cannot refuse his call. He empowers us to respond and respond we must. It is all God and none of us. I am not a Calvinist, so this is not what I believe.

This kind of thinking can easily lead people to think that once we become "saved" our job is not to focus on loving God, but to focus on doing his work, showing him how much we appreciate him bringing us to life. That means that, yes, we love the rules more than God. We focus on obeying him and being holy, but we fail to focus on him. It is subtle I know, but can be devastating for someone who wakes up after years of trying to do things for God only to realize they never knew or loved God (see the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son).

You see, for those who grew up with this kind of thinking, it is easy to become indoctrinated with the idea that our love for God comes from God as part of the package. Therefore, we don't have to work on it. We could never love him if he didn't choose us and awaken us. Our job is to prove to God how real our love is and that we are worthy of his love.

I agree, it is a bold statement, but it is painfully true. Many Christians, not just fundamentalists, love the rules (i.e. religion) more than they love God. Unfortunately, many are led to believe that all this action and effort IS love. But it is not. That is why I use the analogy of romantic love. If your husband was busy doing things to prove his love for you but never spent any time with you actually loving you, what would you think? How do we think God feels when we spend so much time doing stuff in hopes of pleasing him, but never spend time with him because we want to? And what if your husband told you that he was going to dedicate 10 mins or an hour to sitting with you as part of his program to be a better husband, not doing it because he wants to be with you, but because he feels he needs to so that he can be a better husband? Does that actually make him a better husband? I think you would want him to focus on loving you and doing those things because he loved you, wanted to be with you, to listen to you and speak his heart to you. You don't want to just be another check on his list of things to do. I don't think God does either.

I heard a great story I will try to retell here that I think illustrates this point.

One day a father comes home to find his son picking weeds and dandelions in the yard. He gets out of his car and his son comes over to him offering this pitiful bouquet to his father and asks, "Daddy, do you still love me?" The father bends down, wraps his arms around his son and picks him up. "Son, I will always love you. There is nothing you can do to make me love you more; and there is nothing you can do to make me love you less."

He carries him into the house and places him in the "daddy" chair - you know, the one with the remote nearby, and maybe a cup holder in the arm. He then says to his son, "Whenever you think I don't love you, climb into this chair, imagine my big arms around you, and know that I will always love you."

The next day the father comes home to find his son in his chair, tears running down his chubby cheeks. "What are you thinking son?" he tenderly asks. "I am so glad you love me daddy and always take care of me. I love you daddy." The father gives him a big hug. "I love you too son."

The next day the father finds his son in the chair again, tears in his eyes. "What are you thinking son?" he asks again, trying not to choke up. "Thank you daddy for always taking care of mommy and our family. For going to work everyday and providing for us. I love you daddy." Wrapping his arms around his son the father says, "I love you too son."

The next day the father drives up and sees his son picking weeds again. He opens the door and his son runs over, another pitiful bouquet in his hand. "Daddy, do you still love me?" Heart broken the father asks, "Of course I do son. There is nothing you can do to make me love you more; and there is nothing you can do to make me love you less. I will always love you." He wraps his arms around his son and kisses him on the cheek. "Why do you ask son?"

With tears running down his face he says, "Because Billy's father says he does not love his mommy anymore and is going away. Daddy, are you going to leave me and mommy?"

He looks into his son's face and says, with tears in his own eyes, "Son, I will never leave you and mommy and there is nothing you can do to make me love you anymore; and there is nothing you can do to make me love you any less. I will always love you. I have always loved you."

This is how we can be with God. We doubt his love, we question his commitment, we fear he will stop loving us, or that we will be unworthy of his love. We somehow think that the bad things we do will make him love us less, and the good things we do will make him love us more. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Do you believe that sin separates us from God? If you do, then what does Romans 8:35-39 mean when it says,

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think many of us grow up believing that God cannot look upon sin, that it separates us from him, and that we must not sin in anyway or he will not love us or we will be somehow separated from him. It is true that sin hurts our relationship with God, dulls our sensitivity to God, but it cannot separate us from God. Both the Prodigal Son who left, and the Older Son who stayed behind were separated from God even though one was far off and the other was close by. We must be careful of the "show" of righteousness that lacks the true relationship with God. We must not draw near to him with our lips while our hearts are far from him. He desires truth in our inner most being. If we are not careful, we can wind up like the religious people Jesus describes in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Yes, these are bold statements, but they must be bold because the error is subtle. It is these kinds of subtle things that I deal with in my book while telling my story.

It might help to know I was raised in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist tradition. For more on that see the following web page for reference:

http://fundamentalistbaptist.com/

A response to my friend Sonya

My friend Sonya writes:

Just wondering if maybe the fundermentalists started with right motives in the attempt to say our freedom does not give us a license to gratify our sinful nature. I can see, even today, that we need to be careful in our freedom to not go over-the-top. We are held to obedience and holiness unto God (not man). I agree with what you say; just also know man is extremely selfish and without spiritual growth can fall into a false doctrine just as bad as fundermentalism of ALL things our permissable in our freedom.

Thanks Sonya for taking the time to read my blog. Yes of course, fundamentalism started with right and pure motives, as do so many things. And as you have observed, we humans are very good at mucking things up.

You are also right that we are not to use our liberty in Jesus and God's grace to justify our sin. And I would agree that obedience to God is a central point. But it is all in the execution. REQUIRED obedience is not obedience, but compliance. I do not love my wife because I HAVE to, but because I WANT to. We do not love and obey God because we HAVE to, but because we WANT to. It is a love response, not a responsibility response, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Such a response, Jesus implies, will naturally fulfill the entire law. So to your point of not falling into error where all things are permissible (although Paul argues that all things actually ARE permissible, just not good for us) acting out of love will give us a natural vaccination against excess.

Therefore, our energy should be focused on loving God with our entire being and resources, and loving others even as we love ourselves, NOT in trying to keep rules, be holy, or even obey God. This probably sounds like heresy, but if you think about it for a while you will find it is inescapable. The end (holiness) does not justify the means (rules). If it did, then the Law would have been able to make us holy, and the NT is clear that they Law cannot make us righteous. God had to "declare" us holy by faith. It naturally and logically follows that we do not live to earn what was given to us freely by grace. Just as I do not love and cherish my wife after she declared her love for me so that I could earn or prove I am worthy of her love. I love and cherish her because I love and cherish her.

But now we come to your point I think and I will continue to use the marriage analogy. I love my wife and she loves me. We cannot earn each other's love, it is given freely, undeserved. But, and I think this is your point, I may need to learn how to express that love so that she clearly hears me in language and actions that communicate that truth. I need to get "me" out of the way so that love can rule in everything that I say, think and do. These are not "rules" but examples and tools I learn from others, the Bible itself, and even by listening closely to my wife. I "grow" in my relationship which also deepens the love between my wife and I. We can now share our love with our family (especially children if God gives you children) and others. Our love overflows out to others around us. Do you see the subtle difference?

I believe this is the same way we need to approach our relationship with God. We did not earn his love, and we can never earn his love. We did not deserve his love, and we can never deserve his love. He gave it, freely, as an act of Grace. Therefore, I can move past the fact that I don't deserve it and I can't earn it to living in it and enjoying it, learning the language of love from God, and sharing that love with others. We deepen our relationship with him, not because there are rules, but because we see examples and tools in the Bible and others that we can use to enhance our relationship. We learn to get "me" out of the way, to "crucify" ourselves "with Christ". Most importantly, we spend time with God, listening to him, learning his love language. Then we become filled with his love, and that overflows to others around us.

Legalism and the focus on rules, performance (personal holiness) and the letter of the "Law" (which is another word for "rules") takes us away from love and moves us to responsibility and duty. This is backwards but a common approach among fundamentalists and legalists - do what is right and the feelings will follow. If I was told that once, I was told that a million times.

Instead, I believe that the Bible has the correct pattern - Love God first. Responsibility and duty flows from that. Again, it is my love for my wife that makes me responsible and empowers me to perform my duties as a leader, partner, husband and father. If I act responsibly, if I perform my duties, I may still miss out on love. Yes, I will be a leader, partner, husband and father, but where is the love? I could have a perfect shell of a marriage and a family that is empty and dead inside. Remember Jesus analogy of the whitewashed tombs filled with dead men's bones?

The prophet Isaiah described it best when he said that the Jews would enter the temple to worship God (duty and responsibility) and lift their hands to praise him, but they were covered in blood from their idolatry. Isaiah went on to describe it in words quoted in the NT - they draw near to me with their lips (duty, works, responsibility) but their hearts are far from me. For me, legalism is simply getting the order backwards - rules and works before love.

You say that we are held to obedience and holiness to God not man. Yes, but it is love that binds us to obedience and God bestows holiness on us because we cannot earn it.

I hope this helps.

What do I mean when I say "fundamentalist"?

Several of my friends are very interested in my book and have asked me what I mean when I say I am a recovering fundamentalist. That is such a good question, and I am happy to answer it without giving away too much of what will be in my book.

First Definition

Christian Fundamentalism is a term that came into being in the late 1910's. Sixty four British and American conservative Protestant theologians wrote 94 essays on what they considered the basic "fundamentals" of Christianity between 1910 and 1915. These essays were collected into (originally) 12 volumes entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth" and published using a $250,000 grant from the Stewart brothers, head of Union Oil. Three million sets of these books were distributed.

The five basics, or "fundamentals" were:

• Inerrancy of Scripture
• Virgin Birth and Diety of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
• The bodily ressurection of Jesus from the dead
• The authenticity of Jesus' miracles

In a real way, these fundamentals were a modern form of the Christian creed, a new attempt to articulate what Christians believe, like the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds did. 

This term was adopted by many conservatives who felt that mainstream religious denominations and seminaries were accomodating modern criticism of the Bible and abandoning many traditional Christian beliefs, such as the Virgin Birth, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and the reality of Jesus' miracles. 27 of the 94 essays objected to this "higher criticism" and its rejection of the supernatural.

I think a simple redaction of the situation is that many Christians felt uncomfortable with the progress of modern science, in particular the theory of evolution, and its influence on religion. They felt religion is superior to science not the other way around. So, to combat this trend, they took a strong stand against any modern thoughts or objections to Christianity. In addition to evolution, there was new evidence that Moses did not author the first five books of the Bible, but rather it was written by several author's and Moses, if he did do anything at all, was a compiler or editor. Also, the miracles of Jesus were under question since they could not be explained by science. 

I do not have a problem with these "fundamentals" so in that since you could say I remain a fundamentalist. But I do have a problem with the means developed by those who would say they believe in and protect these fundamentals.

Second Definition

"Fundamentalism" as I deal with it, is the means developed by those who try to keep the fundamentals intact and part of Christian tradition. Strangely enough, the three basic pillars or legs of fundamentalism are consistent with all forms of fundamentalism. All religious and secular forms of fundamentalism share these three characteristics:

1. Strict rules and regulations often called "distinctives"
2. Strong authority structures that dominate and control
3. Severe separation from others who disagree

This is the fundamentalism I have found faulty and abandoned, not the fundamentals of Christian faith. I should say here that there needs to be debate and clarification of the five fundamentals because they have been so abused by fundamentalism we no longer really know what they refer to. As terms they need to be abandoned and the truths of Scripture articulated anew. Let me address briefly each of the three pillars of fundamentalism.

1. Strict Rules - "Distinctives"

Fundamentalism has rules piled on top of the fundamentals that for many are just as important. Rules that dictate fashion, hair length on men and women, consumption of alcohol, smoking, musical tastes, activites, entertainment, and associations are meant to help fundamentalists be "distinctive", to stand out, to leave the world and become "holy and separate". Weak attempts to use scripture to defend these rules is a clear indication of their bondage. Galatians 5:1 reminds us to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." We have been set free to love God and others, and that should be the driving force behind our lives, not rules and regulations. 

Remember what Jesus said when asked what the greatest commandment was? Matthew 22:37-40 gives us his answer "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Fundamentalists argue that we need to keep his commands. Yes, we do. And what are his commands? "These things I command you, that ye love one another." John 15:17

Some sort of rule keeping is a form of false humility and worship of the self (will) according to Collosians 2:20-23 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (rules and regulations - my clarification), 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh."

2. Authority and Domination

Hierarchical authority structures are at the heart of any form of fundamentalism. This is so prevelant in Christian fundamentalism that there is often a belief that there is an hierarchy in the Godhead when the Bible (and most fundamental doctrinal statements) declare that the members of the Godhead are equals. This type of thinking puts down women and others we don't want to consider as "equal" and reinforces the curse of the fall. Adam and Eve were equals in the Garden of Eden, both called "Adam" by God himself:

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Genesis 5:2

But at the fall, God cursed them and said to the woman:

"...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

The word "desire" here is used only one other time in the Bible in almost the exact same phrasing to describe what sin wants to do with Cain in relation to Abel:

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Genesis 4:7

Sin wants to dominate, overtake, control Cain. The curse on the woman is that she will want to dominate, overtake and control her husband, and he will dominate (rule) over her. It is not unusual then, that as soon as God finishes speaking, the man turns to his wife and names her, just as he did the animals as an act of dominion and control.

Any form of Christianity or headship or leadership or family that fits this pattern of domination is not the promise of equality taught in the New Testament, but a continuation of the curse. Yes, Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. But what does Jesus say about leadership? If you want to be great (a leader) in his kingdom, you must first become the servant of ALL. As a husband Christ came to serve me and save me; he also calls me to be a head just like him to my wife. Not to dominate her, but rather to serve her. If your leadership is not serving, then it is domination.

The New Testament clearly teaches we are co-equals, joint-heirs with Christ and that there is no male or female in Christ. Our traditional forms of church government which are very hierarchical, leads us to conclude that women cannot be "ordained" or be a pastor, not the scriptures themselves. Yes, 1 Corinithians 14:34 says clearly, "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are command to be under obedience..." but it also says clearly throughout the chapter that women can and do speak in the church:

Verse 5: "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied..."

Verse 24: "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all..."

Verse 26: "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."

Verse 31: "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

And then earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5 Paul says,

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

What is a woman doing praying, singing and prophesying in church if she is supposed to be silent? Obviously there is another interpretation. Scripture does not contradict itself.

3. Severe Separation

The final leg on the stool of fundamentalism is separation, a kind of manic, severe separation that is downright disturbing. If anyone disagrees, they are to be separated from. No dialogue, no discussions, no sympathy. Like an Amish shunning, those we disagree with are just as bad as those who are horrible, perverted sinners! They are lost. In fact, for many fundamentalists, people and people like me, who have not abandoned the fundamentals, but have instead rejected the rules and regulations, are not real Christians. It is assumed that we were never Christians in the first place.

Everyone else is just wrong. And since "wrong" is contagious, you have to quarantine yourself, separate, in order to maintain and preserve holiness and "purity" of the faith. The problem with this is that it contradicts the fundamentals and the teaching of the Bible.

Trying to model the Old Testament and the Jews attempts to be "holy" modern fundamentalists try to put everyone back into bondage to the "law" only the law is now what they say (as the authority). If you disagree, then out you go! But they teach that none of us could ever be holy enough for God, "there is none righteous, no not one" and that is why Jesus had to die for us. The commands, "Be ye Holy as your Father in heaven is holy" cannot be kept on our own. That is why we need Jesus. If we can't be good enough before we are saved, we can't be good enough after we are saved either. God must "declare" us righteous and cover us in the blood of Jesus.

Jesus taught with both his actions and his word that holiness, not evil, is contagious. Since he lives in each believer we now have the power to change the world simply by coming into contact with it, being salt and light. When Jesus touched a dead person, he did not become unclean. The dead person came to life! When Jesus touched a leper, he did not become unclean. The leper was made whole! Over and over Jesus demonstrated that his holiness was greater than the sin and evil in the world.

He lives in us, his people, and he wants us to go into the world and change it. If we separate, then we limit his ability to work in us. When we are afraid of the prostitutes, and the homosexuals, and the drunkards and the drug addicts thinking that they will corrupt us, then we limit our ability to reach them Didn't Jesus touch them, eat with them, and was condemned by the religious "fundamentalists" (read Pharisee) of his day for doing so? 

This is just a bit of my approach in my book, the story of how I became a fundamentalist and how I found real grace.

Thoughts on the Wounded Warrior Story - Part 1

We are all wounded warriors. We start out happy to be alive. Somewhere along the line something happens. We are wounded, most often by someone close to us, and our hearts never really heal. It can happen when we are children or when we are older. Some of us are abused. Some are molested. Others are ridiculed or otherwise emotionally abused. Sometimes we simply take a stray unkind word and let it lodge in our hearts doing long term damage.

For me, it was a combination of things. Being raised mostly in a very strict Christian home I did not come into contact with many "bad" things. But I did have to deal with guilt and legalism spurred on by a narrow view of right and wrong. I did watch the rules we lived by exclude others from the grace and love of the God we said we worshipped and followed. I was abused physically and emotionally by my brother, but thought that it was normal to be hurt or hit every time your brother touched you. I only learned as an adult that this was not how normal brothers treat each other.

Ryn was wounded by his brother, someone close to him, in an act of betrayal. He thought his strengths, his talents, were enough to protect him. But they weren't. I often feel like that. Even though Ryn seemed to recover physically, his wound was also to his soul. He left to try and find an answer to the question, "Since I am no longer a warrior, what is my worth in the world?"

How do you relate to the wounded warrior?