Many Christians reject Biblical fundamentalism

[Stunster]

For example, it is explicitly rejected by Catholicism (see below). If you have problems with fundamentalism, then why not try to look at some recent mainstream, non-fundamentalist but still Christian (or Jewish), scholarly approaches to Scripture? A good Catholic exegete is Raymond Brown (e.g. his magisterial INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT). A very good 'Jesus scholar' is the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, N. T. Wright (e.g. WHO JESUS WAS AND IS, which is an abbreviated version of his utterly superb scholarly work THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF THE GOD).

It always amazes me (maybe because my Christianity is so unProtestant) that people will talk breezily about the Bible with little or no familiarity with the best Biblical scholarship.

If I read some Shakespeare and there's a bit I don't 'get', I don't immediately assume that Shakespeare must be a bad playwright, or that Shakespeare's writing doesn't have anything useful, insightful, or even true to say about the human condition. Yet I find that lots of people will latch onto something in the Bible they don't 'get', and for years they'll trot it out as a reason why they reject the Bible or Christianity or religion in general. I just find this an irrational way of dealing with texts in general. There are many texts in the humanities and even the sciences which most of us find somewhat or very obscure, and the rational thing to do in such circumstances is to turn to the scholars and experts.

One of my favorite authors is James Joyce. But his writing does not lend itself to universal immediate intelligibility. (A very good introduction to Joyce is HERE COMES EVERYBODY by Anthony Burgess). Unless you're making fundamentalist assumptions about the role of the Bible in Christianity, there is no reason to expect the Bible to be any less complex or, at times, obscure, than Joyce.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5247

Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism

Archbishop John Whealon of Hartford, Connecticut, chaired the ad hoc Committee on Biblical Fundamentalism of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops which issued this statement on March 27, 1987. It is designed to assist Catholics in understanding the problems caused by fundamentalism. Here are some extracts:


This is a statement of concern to our Catholic brothers and sisters who may be attracted to biblical fundamentalism without realizing its serious weaknesses....

Fundamentalism indicates a person's general approach to life which is typified by unyielding adherence to rigid doctrinal and ideological positions -- an approach that affects the individual's social and political attitudes as well as religious ones. Fundamentalism in this sense is found in non-Christian religions and can be doctrinal as well as biblical. But in this statement we are speaking only of biblical fundamentalism, presently attractive to some Christians, including some Catholics.....

A further characteristic of biblical fundamentalism is that it tends to interpret the Bible as being always without error or as literally true in a way quite different from the Catholic Church's teaching on the inerrancy of the Bible. For some biblical fundamentalists, inerrancy extends even to scientific and historical matters. The Bible is presented without regard for its historical context and development....

We do not look upon the Bible as an authority for science or history. We see truth in the Bible as not to be reduced solely to literal truth, but also to include salvation truths expressed in varied literary forms.

We observed in biblical fundamentalism an effort to try to find in the Bible all the direct answers for living -- though the Bible itself nowhere claims such authority....

People of all ages yearn for answers. They look for sure, definite rules for living. And they are given answers --simplistic answers to complex issues -- in a confident and enthusiastic way in fundamentalist Bible groups.....

We need to educate -- to re-educate -- our people knowingly in the Bible so as to counteract the simplicities of biblical fundamentalism.

[Roland99]

1. Who Wrote The Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman

Is all you need to know.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=fm6Aipv9vE&isbn=0060630353&itm=1


WOW!

I just finished reading this and it truly sheds a whole new light on how the Bible (Hebrew Bible...OT) has been misinterpreted, many assumptions made, etc. for 2 1/2 millenia.

The various authors and their works (J, E, D, P, and R versions of stories) are shown and the evidence behind the way the Bible was put together is VERY strong. The NIV version from around 1980 is completely moot at this point.

[kwassa]

4. New Testament, too

I am currently reading "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels, which is an exploration of how the gospel cannon of the New Testament was decided upon, in comparison with the excluded Apocrypha such as the Gospel of Thomas, and other Gospels and writings. It is very interesting.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, the chief culprit.

[Roland99]

5. Thanks...I'll soon be reading...

From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries and Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780060526559&x=57132501


Right now, I'm on to The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780684869131&x=32132501

[supernova]

7. The First Chirstians: From Jesus to Christ on PBS

is one of my favorite religious documentaries ever. It's a Frontline series and is very well done and easy to watch.

[Roland99]

13. I just bought a book and turns out the author was the source

for that PBS show.


The name of the book slips my memory at the moment.

[GOPBasher]

11. That's a great book. I read that, and

I'm going to read her book on the gospel of Thomas. I think there might be a lot to say in that book.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

15. Isn't she the one who is popularizing (or trying to) the

Gospel of Mary?

I have read that, very interesting.

[Tafiti]

10. I took a class on the OT...

...and learned about the J,E,D,P format. It truly astonished me how clear it is once it's pointed out.

I haven't heard of that book, however. I'll check that out.

[MemphisTiger]

14. The New American Standard Translation is

supposed to be the best translation of the literal greek and aramaic.

[rogerashton]

2. I like Crossan on "the historical Jesus." However --

He made a point that I followed in a direction I doubt Christians would follow. Crossan argued that there were many wandering teachers in Palestine around 10 BC -- that they formed something of an excluded social class.

Suppose that is so.

We know that "Jesus" was a very common name at that time.

We recall the adage that nothing good ever came from Nazareth.

Could Jesus of Nazareth have been a generic term like "smart Alec" or "hill Billy?"

So a person of that time might quote some sage saying, and add "Some Jesus of Nazareth said that. I forget which one."

No, I don't quite believe that myself. Point is, it is the kind of thing that serious Biblical scholarship, without prejudice, can throw up. With respect to Christianity, it seems to me, the fundamentalists have a point: the Christian faith is too full of contradictions and falsehoods to withstand any careful analysis whatever -- so if you want to keep Christianity, you must keep it fundamentalist.

For me, I look forward to the day that it will be classified alongside the cults of Juno, Venus, and Castor and Pullox.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. What an interesting way of looking at it.

I can't think of anything else to say except LOL

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. I don't agree. There are essentially NO fundamentalist Christians

anywhere. There cannot be. History changes us, and massages words, deeds and well, memories.
Let's face it, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and its first proponents were all Jews of one stripe or another.
But they are not now.
So, how can they be fundamentalists?

A more correct term for the Americans who want to go back to the 19th century would be idiots. All they know is the high points of life then, they miss the lows... and the lows are far lower than our modern stockade-fed beef diet, air conditioned, mobile minds can fathom.

Something happened in Jerusalem in or about 33CE. What exactly, I am not sure. What I do know is no contemporary account of denial of The Passion has been uncovered.

One would think that if the whole thing faked, someone would have stumbled across proof and used it to make the fledgling Christians look bad. For instance, if they found Jesus body, or found him alive and unharmed somewhere else, or whatever. Clearly the Pharisees knew where He had been buried, as they set guards there, just as clearly if it were all fake, they would have benefited from presenting proof, no?

Just my random thoughts.

[Tux]

17. Huh?

how can they be fundamentalists?

I live in the Bible Belt where the Trinity Broadcasting Network is seen as a news show to some and moderate to others. There are fundies. They took Christianity, use it for power, and nothing else. Denying their existance gives them more power. Bet to stop them now.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

18. My point is, they are not Christians... they may say they are, but

they are not.

Thus they cannot be fundies. My point was more of a refutation of what was said above.

Does not matter what you call them, they are still dangerous assholes

[The Doctor.]

3. "to counteract the simplicities of biblical fundamentalism."

Such a lofty notion, shame the Religious Right Fundamentalists haven't the imagination necessary to trancend their nice, simple, comfortable answers.

They're generally simpletons in terms of philosophy, and facts have no meaning to them unless those facts support their limited perspective.

[Selwynn]

8. Bishop John Spong is pretty famous for attacking fundamentalism

His books, Recuing the Bible From Fundamentalism; Why Christianity Must Change or Die; Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Homosexuality are all fairly powerful indictments of the fallacies of biblical literalism and christian fundamentalism.

Just as another example.

[Selwynn]

9. Process Xian, Liberation Xian, Feminst Xian, Tillician Xian.....

There is no one type of "Christian."

There is no one "Christian" doctrine.

There is no one "Christian" belief system.

What there actually is are many many many different types of Christians and Christian belief systems. Process Theologians take a que from the Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead and relational theologians like Midred Wynkoop to suggest a God who lures actual occasions to greater becoming.

Liberation Theologians coming out of Latin America look around and suffering and violence and see their Christian faith not as a list of doctrinal assertions or an affirmation of biblical literalism, but as the demand to resist tyranny and fight oppression and injustice as inseparably part of the Christian centre.

Feminist Theologians criticize the patriarchal realities of biblical writings, yet choose to focus on feminine symbolism and metaphor and what those things might teach us about God. They rethink concepts like original sin and individual person hood in ways that make a lot of sense to a lot of people who never felt included in the discussion before. Relationships are emphasized over dogma and creed.

Tillician Theologians take their ques from Paul Tillich and understand religious expression as symbol and metaphor to describe not a "being" along side other beings, but the source and ground of all being -- being-itself which we rightfully call "God." They understand theology in very existential ways, arguing that being religious means asking the deepest questions of life and being genuinely willing to get an answer even when its a painful one -- it is the state of being ultimately concerned with ones own existence and existence itself.

None of these different perspectives may impress you. But we need to remember that there are many, many different perspectives on Christian tradition. Not just "fundamentalism."

Sel

[CatholicEdHead]

12. Many Catholics fall into this trap

"Fundamentalism indicates a person's general approach to life which is typified by unyielding adherence to rigid doctrinal and ideological positions -- an approach that affects the individual's social and political attitudes as well as religious ones. Fundamentalism in this sense is found in non-Christian religions and can be doctrinal as well as biblical. But in this statement we are speaking only of biblical fundamentalism, presently attractive to some Christians, including some Catholics....."

Part of it is institutional failure, but often it is extremist lay groups. Often it comes that the most extreme of them are being pushed by a late in life convert. Some cradle Catholics do follow, but not often lead.