It’s Hard To Be A Fundamentalist In Alaska – Part II

Zack —  March 12, 2013 — 7 Comments

alaskab&w

As tricky as it is to be a Biblical fundamentalist when it comes to your wardrobe, things get even trickier when you start talking about where we all came from.

No, I’m not talking about the birds and the bees. Even fundamentalists agree on that point. I think. I hope. I’ve honestly never had a sex talk with a fundie and don’t plan on doing so anytime soon.

I’m talking about creation, specifically those two pesky chapters at the beginning of Genesis.

I say pesky because no matter how many awesome people riding dinosaurs dioramas the Creation Museum wants to build in an effort to “prove” the world was made in six literal days (God rested on the seventh), it’s those days that leave him in a bit of pickle.

If you remember your Sunday School lessons, you will recall that on the first day God said “Let there be light.” Beautiful beginning to a beautiful story. There’s just one catch. Light requires a source, say a light bulb, your iPhone, or in the case of the universe – stars; one of which we call the sun.

No matter how you old you want to believe the earth is, there’s no debating that it is the sun that gives the earth its source of light. Moreover, it’s the sun that separates day from night. But this is where things get a bit tricky for the Creation Museum and the rest of the fundies out there in fundie land.

Do you remember when God created the “lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night?”

I’ll help you out. That would be day 4.

Which means if you’re a fundamentalist you’ve got a pretty serious problem on your hands. If it’s the sun that separates day from night, but the sun wasn’t created until day 4, how exactly do you have days 1, 2, and 3 without the thing responsible for making days?

You see, if we have to take Genesis literally, as the fundies insist, then it would seem that the Creation Museum and their friends are short a few days.

This is one of the core problems with Biblical fundamentalism. It refuses to make space for allegory and metaphor. Instead, it tries force those round pegs into the square holes of their own anti-intellectualism and fear of science.

It doesn’t matter how great the consensus in the scientific community might be or how overwhelmingly the Christian (and Jewish) tradition has affirmed a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation of passages like Genesis, the Biblical fundamentalists, like any other jihadist, will reinterpret these critiques as “persecution” of the “faithful remnant” and will carry on fighting their holy war until the end of time believing every critique lobbed their way merely adds another jewel in their heavenly crown.

They will carry on this fight because at its heart, fundamentalism is not being right about what the Bible says. It’s about pride and control. It’s about the pride of not being able to humble one’s self enough to admit you’re wrong. And it’s about the need to control others through dogma, fear, and intimidation and the world through self-delusion, denial, and condemnation.

Fundamentalism isn’t about the “truth.”

It’s about lording that “truth” over everyone else.

This need for lordship is, of course, the root of all sin. It’s what drove Adam and Eve to try to snatch divinity away from God. It’s what keeps the poor oppressed, the marginalized ignored, and the weak in bondage. It’s the same thing that empowers tyrants to exploit their people and pastors to manipulate their flocks into people defined by fear, hatred, and condemnation.

Which means fundamentalism isn’t just an embarrassing sideshow attraction in the life of the church or a quirky aberration at the periphery of the faith that we can simply ignore until it goes away. It’s a virus that latches itself onto the Body of Christ infecting every one of its members, slowly but steadily twisting the Body’s until it destroys itself.

It’s a shadow hanging over the light of the Gospel.

An obstacle that stands in the way of Christ’s love.

The ultimate barrier to grace.

And until we name it as such we stand no chance of defeating the disease and providing the Body with the healing it so desperately needs.

 

To be continued….

 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

 

 

Zack

Posts

  • D Lowrey

    The pastor of my church was talking about these first days a couple of Sundays ago. He mentioned that it was the “Light” of God who powered those first days…then the sun/stars came into being. Never thought or saw it like this before…then you throw this out there. Being a theological evolutionist…yourself and others still are able to blow my mind.

  • http://markcaudill.me/ Mark

    This is hard stuff. I go to a fundamentalist church and so I suppose I am one by association. But so much of how you describe fundies doesn’t even come close to applying to me or some of the people I worship with (although it could apply to many of them). For instance, I don’t agree with a 6 literal day creation and I know several fundies who feel the same way.

    Either fundamentalism is changing, or your painting with a brush that’s a little too large. I agree that the things your pointing out are poisonous to the Church, but maybe consider that not all fundies are created equal and maybe target the behaviors and not a label. Just my two cents. I love your blog and your writing.

  • Emily

    Dear Zach, My name is Emily and I started following your blog on Thursday, March 7th. Would you be so kind as to clarify your definition of Christian fundamentalism? My understanding of Christian fundamentalism is an acknowledgment of the basic tenants of Christianity such as: the Virgin Birth, fully God yet fully man, the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. Thanks so much, Zach, I enjoy reading the thoughts you post here combined with your dry humor and rhetorical talent; it is quite a treat. Emily

  • http://www.facebook.com/twitcher73 Justin Vigeant

    Personally, I would make a distinction between one who holds creedal beliefs vs one who is a “fundamentalist”. Fundamentalism, in my humblest, goes beyond just “what” is believed to “WHY” it is believed. In my “fundamentalist” experience, the “what” was always explained and justified by the “why”: you always were in danger of “backsliding” or “falling to the world, the flesh, and/or the devil.” Fundamentalism, in distinguishing it from Evangelicalism, wants to shelter itself from any outside forces that might call its beliefs into question. And often, when those beliefs are called into question, rather than offering a dialogue, attacks are made; salvation is called into question (if coming from inside the church) or the victim card gets played (if coming external from the church), which is very useful in strengthening bonds within a local fundie church body (“nothing unifies like a common enemy”). From my understanding, non-fundamentalist evangelicals will hold to creedal tenants, but not myopically see a worldly conspiracy when science might seem to disagree with a particular interpretation of scripture (like 6 day creation). A great example might be Billy Graham and his views on creation/evolution/science.

  • forgedimagination

    The more I get away from fundamentalism, the more I realize how literally they take *everything*. I was in a “revival” service in my teens, and a man got up to give a “testimony”– he had been struggling with a porn addiction, so he actually plucked his right eye out. He took Matthew 18:9 literally.

    The literalism starts here, in Genesis, but it applies to everything, and I think it comes out of biblical docetism (briefly: completely ignoring the human component in the scriptures and focusing exclusively on divine inspiration). This allows them to approach every single last verse as if it literally applies to everyone, everywhere, and for always. Because the bible ceases to be human, they can use it for all sorts of heresies, like Dominionism (forcing verses that apply exclusively to Israel to apply to America, too). They have no need to acknowledge that the bible was written in a specific time period, by a person of that culture and the understanding of the time. They have no notion of progressive revelation (that later writers knew more than earlier ones, although this just seems obvious). They don’t need to pay attention to genre, or language.

  • daryl carpenter

    Re the sun. It’s possible that the ancients didn’t realise that the sun created light. After all, there are times when the sun is not visible and it is still light.

    A possible interpretation is that in Genesis 1:3-5, God is creating sequential periods of light and dark . Later on in Genesis 1:16 God creates the moon and the sun.This could mean that the sun and the moon are here used as mechanisms to MEASURE the periods of light and dark, rather than GENERATORS of light and dark (hope that makes sense).

    I’m not whether the days of creation were meant to be taken literally or not, but I’m wary of taking something as a metaphor when the main advantage in doing so is that it might save the bible from being in error (see my post in the previous thread). It smacks of turning theological necessity into a virtue. Standing on it’s own merits, Genesis 1 is simply wrong. WRONG. Never fear, a quick sprinkle of magical metaphor dust and everything is all right again. But is this the right thing to do.? After all, one could also read the Enuma Elish allegorically and similarly save it from scientific disproof.

    By the way, I am not a fundamentalist or creationist; I’m just someone interested in how the bible is interpreted today.

  • lbehrendt

    Zack, I’m not a fundamentalist, I’m not even a Christian. But my understanding of the science is that the universe after the Big Bang was filled with light without a conventional physical (star) source. Or you might say that the source of this light was an event rather than a physical object. It’s also my understanding that some time after the Big Bang, the universe went “dark”, with light returning only after the formation of the first star.

    It is interesting that Jewish sources speak of the quality of the first light as being unlike the light we experience now.

    FWIW.