"United we stand, divided we fall."
Aesop
Greek slave & fable author (620 BC – 560 BC)
Taken by Deb
"Divided" is a documentary written by Scott Brown’s son-in-law, Peter Bradrick, as indicated in the credits. Philip Leclerc goes on a journey to discover why a purported two-thirds of young people are leaving the church. He interviews a variety of Christian leaders and slowly builds his case that the solution to this tragic problem can be found in the family-integrated church model. Folks, it's just that simple…
Early in the video Leclerc attends a Christian rock concert with flashing lights, blaring music, and fanatical teens. He explains that this experience opened his eyes to how worldliness has crept into Christianity. Leclerc responds with these scripted words:
“I think we all know my generation needs to abandon the world and play to Christ, but yet here I see no distinction between worldliness and Christianity. It occurred to me if the church is allowing worldliness in here and calling it Christian, how can I trust the church not allowing the brokenness of the world in elsewhere and calling it Christian?"
In the next clip, we see Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, validating Leclerc's position as follows: “I see an emphasis on music and entertainment, but no real emphasis on Bible teaching, and if the Bible is taught at all it’s usually for a very short time.”
Leclerc then makes a stunning pronouncement — “What came as a sort of shock to me was that in the process of interviewing local teens, I found that almost every kid I spoke to rejected the belief of a young earth as stated in Genesis.”
Rejected? That's a pejorative term! No wonder kids are falling away from the faith — they don't embrace young earth creationism… Leclerc interviews various young people – all of whom are male by the way – and asks them if they believe in a young earth or an old earth. Here is a sampling of responses:
“It’s obviously millions of years old, billions of years old.”
“Millions of years. The Bible is figurative language. It’s not literal.”
“I don’t think the Bible cares to answer that question.”
Ken Ham responds to the above quote with these words: “That’s one of the questions of this day. But you know what we tend to do in our churches, our Sunday School and with our kids, oh don’t worry about that, but trust in Jesus.”
Then a young man affirms his faith by stating: “Whether or not it was created literally in six days or across millions of years, Jesus still died on the cross for me.”
This CAREFULLY SCRIPTED dialogue., concludes with Ham responding to objections often given regarding a young earth..
Ken Ham: “But see we need to worry about that because that’s a question if we can’t answer, it shows the next generation that we just have this blind faith and we really don’t believe this book and it’s not history anyway."
A young Christian man (wearing his baseball cap backwards): “Mature Christ followers disagree on this topic, you know. They’re all Bible believing Christians but you can disagree on this topic. Some believe it was made in six days and others believe it was God-directed evolution over millions of years.”
Ken Ham: “If you can’t trust this part of the Bible here at the beginning and you’re told you can use man’s ideas to re-interpret this, we don’t have to take it as written, well wait a minute what about the rest of the Bible? Why are you telling me to take that as authoritative? “
Dear readers, we must not take Scripture where it does not go. Old earth creationists DO take the Bible as written and absolutely believe in its authority, despite what Ken Ham would have you believe. Ham is being intentionally deceptive in his remark. Christians are divided on the issue of a young earth vs. an old earth, and it is WRONG to make this a salvific issue. Ken Ham and his ilk are extreme LITERALISTS who are causing great harm in the body of Christ. For those who may doubt this, take a look at this article in Christianity Today explaining how Ken Ham was barred from a Christian homeschooling conference last March.
Creation Museum Founder Disinvited from Homeschooling Conferences
“Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, was disinvited from several homeschooling conferences after he criticized a fellow speaker at two Great Homeschool Conventions conferences and on his blog.
"The Board believes that Ken's public criticism of the convention itself and other speakers at our convention require him to surrender the spiritual privilege of addressing our homeschool audience," wrote Great Homeschool Conventions conference organizer Brennan Dean in the email dismissing Ham.
"Our expression of sacrifice and extraordinary kindness towards Ken and AIG has been returned to us and our attendees with Ken publicly attacking our conventions and other speakers," Dean wrote. "Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst."
Great Homeschool Conventions, which aims to teach and encourage homeschooling parents, hired Ham to present at four conferences this spring and summer, along with Peter Enns, a senior fellow of biblical studies at the BioLogos Foundation.”
Ken Ham has come here from Australia and built a cottage industry based on the extra-biblical belief of young earth creationism. Homeschoolers who ascribe to Vision Forum beliefs support the Creation Museum, which features baby dinosaurs frolicking alongside little children. Back in October we featured a post here at TWW called The Flintstone Doctrine. In it I mentioned receiving a post card from a homeschooling conference at which Ham would be speaking. Llittle did I know that these conference leaders would ban Ham less than five months later. In case you missed it, here is how we ended that October post:
The Flintstone Doctrine
– The heavens and earth were created in 6 literal 24-hour days.
– Yom must only be interpreted as a literal, 24-hour day although it has around 58 meanings.
– The earth is six thousand years old. (Radical Young Earthers may stretch the age of the earth to a whopping 10,000 years old!)
– Death of animals is a moral equivalent of death of men. Therefore, animals couldn’t die until Adam let sin enter the world.
– All dating methods are flawed and are off by billions of years.
– If the flood didn't screw up the fossil record, Satan probably planted the fossil evidence.
– God created the universe to look old. Despite the obvious, God is not trying to trick us.
– All science research done by YE is true. All scientific research done by anyone else is part of a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth.
– Christians who are part of the scientific establishment are doing it for money and tenure and are sell-outs and cowards. They know that YE is true and are actively involved in deceiving their Christian community.
– Dinosaurs boarded Noah’s Ark two by two and survived the flood.
– Dinosaurs played with children while mom did the dishes (See example in creation museum)
– Prior to the fall, all carnivorous dinosaurs were herbivores, even though God created them with GYNORMOUS teeth.-
– Wives are strictly “helpmeets” to their husbands. They must role model Mrs. Ham who is not only submissive, but very, very submissive. When dinosaurs roamed the earth (prior to their extinction) they may have been domesticated to help with household chores (aka the Dino theory).
– Men are not merely men but patriarchs.
– One is a heretic and most likely not a Christian unless all criteria above are met.
– All evolutionists are atheists. Therefore, Francis Collins is not a Christian no matter what he says.
And if you believe The Flinstone Doctrine, we have a cave in Bedrock to sell you which comes with your very own Dino!!!
Oh look! In just a few short weeks Al Mohler will be speaking at the Answer for Pastors Conference hosted by Answer in Genesis. Is this an example of the phenomenon "Birds of a feather flock together"?
Back to the review of "Divided"… Leclerc makes it appear that he is legitimately searching for answers as he travels around the country interviewing experts, attending conferences for youth leaders, speaking with youth pastors, etc. One youth pastor, whose appearance and voice are disguised, shares his tremendous concerns about youth falling away from the faith and the flawed youth ministry model. The concept of Sunday school even comes under attack in the video because it is never mentioned in the Bible! Neither is the Trinity for that matter…
After the frightening problem of church youth drop-outs has been thoroughly assessed, Leclerc turns to the experts. You know, the brilliant men who hold the key to saving Christendom from certain doom. They are Scott Brown, Doug Phillips, R.C. Sproul, Jr., Voddie Bauchman, among other lesser known patriarchs. These so-called 'experts', who ascribe to a very specific agenda with regard to homeschooling, gender roles, creationism, etc., put forth their ideas to Leclerc. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going to bother with their strategy other than to say that they all support the family-integrated church model. What they have to share is even more propagandized that the segment with Ken Ham (if you can imagine that). In case you have the stomach for it, watch the video Divided for yourself.
If you do take the time to watch the video, you have an opportunity to see my old stomping grounds when I was in college. Leclerc and his crew did some of the filming on Duke University's East Campus, which features Georgian (not Gothic) architecture. There are quick shots of the campus early in the video and toward the end. In fact, if you pause the video at the 51 min., 15 sec. mark, you will see the East Campus library where I worked part-time and my dorm which is located to the left of the library. I am well-aware of the fact that college can have a corrupting influence on some students, but certainly not all. I am truly grateful that my parents invested in my college education. Had it not been for the wonderful training I received as an English major at Duke, you likely would not be reading anything written by me in the blogosphere.
In conclusion, Leclerc’s business mentor Tryg Jacobson, interviewed in the video, attempts to defend this project; however, he unwittingly divulges the serious problem with Divided by stating:
“The fastest way to break trust is to promise something real and then deliver something fake.”
This is a propagandized video if ever there was one. "Divided" reveals a group of controlling and divisive men who are the polar opposites of Michael Moore. In fact, Moore had nothing on these modern-day patriarchs.
Tomorrow we will feature a thought-provoking comment about FICs written by one of our commenters as well as advice from a pastor on how to handle FIC proponents who put pressure on pastors and congregations to conform to their ideology.
Lydia's Corner: 1 Chronicles 12:19-14:17 Romans 1:1-17 Psalm 9:13-20 Proverbs 19:4-5
Deb,
Great article! Yes, it was interesting that Leclerc interviewed MALE youth, MALE college students, and MEN who are pushing young earth and family-integrated church. Very interesting, indeed. As I watched this film, I couldn’t help but think that many people could fall hook, line, and sinker. At one time, I likely would have fallen for it. No doubt the film is heavy propaganda, and the scenes are carefully scripted. It is eerily deceptive. But these “leaders” could easily be seen as sincere and knowledgable of God’s Word. They’re intelligent and well-spoken. To people who automatically take “men of God” at their word (which many of us have been trained from birth to do), these men are believable. That’s what’s scary.
LeClerq “explains that this experience opened his eyes to how worldliness has crept into Christianity.”
Well, it has, I suppose. You cannot really fault LeClerqmay for his observation, although he is a more than a little simplistic in his prescribed solution. Let’s not ignore the issue just because his answers fail to adequately address some very disturbing matters, such as why unmarried evangelicals are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers.
See: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
.
Ken Ham : “…If you can’t trust this part of the Bible here at the beginning and you’re told you can use man’s ideas to re-interpret this, we don’t have to take it as written, well wait a minute what about the rest of the Bible? Why are you telling me to take that as authoritative?…”
I think what Ken Ham really means here is what version of selective literalism must apply in order to carry Biblical “authority”. Not all versions (selective literalism) will agree.
I take serious issue with the Vision Forum/FIC movement as it has become a control oriented cult. The topic of this documentary started decades ago with other controlling men like Jonathan Lindvall, Bill Gothard and others. It is no surprise that Doug Phillips and Scott Brown tapped into this to create a niche market to further their own business goals.
I cannot dismiss the devastation of young people leaving the church, but I do take objection to the way the VF/FIC crowd uses it to enhance their own public image. Much as the Mormons do, these men aim to portray a squeaky clean image of purity in their churches when they are corrupt with extreme pride, failing to a large degree to encourage their own parishioners in Gospel outreach, and shunning Christians who do not walk in lockstep with their rigid man-made rules.
The real danger with this documentary is that they interview some people who do make some profoundly true statements and the film serves to further FIC business goals.
We’ve been invited to examine this documentary, so I will and I’d like to hear your answers.
One of the youth pastors said that they have to work in concert with parents or they themselves are not as effective. Does anyone here honestly take objection to the truth of that?
Another person said, “This youth culture is one of the most unparented we’ve ever seen in America….”
True or false?
It is a fact that the majority of young people attending churches are leaving. This film brings up a good question. Why are these young people leaving the church in droves? What would you attribute the mass exodus to?
Ken Ham said he “sees an emphasis on music and entertainment, but no real emphasis on Bible teaching.” Can anyone here honestly deny this is happening in most youth groups?
A good point was made when the man said that Christians tend to feel that pastors are the experts. In my experience he’s right.
Scott’s comments regarding John Dewey and age segregation are true. Can’t argue with that. Doug Phillips being characterized as a historian is truly laughable though. I almost lost my stomach contents hearing that.
The documentary brings up the point that throughout history some people have put forth the idea that the lives of children are better under state control rather than parental, and today we see some in political power pushing for similar goals. Home school families in Germany have had their children removed. Parents have been arrested for home schooling due to objections to the “acceptance of homosexuality” being taught in the schools. It is a fact that people exist who do want to control what children are taught and to the exclusion of parental desires. There may be some here who believe this is a good thing. I do not.
Can we deny Scott’s assertion that “if the church adopts Athens, the church will become like Athens”? In other words, he is saying that if the church adopts practices that weaken families, can it be strong? He takes issue with today’s church being “programmatic”. He’s right. It has become program centered. If you’re in your fifties with gray hair and you accidentally stumble into the class for those in their thirties, you’re told to go where you belong. If you’re 8 years old you’re not welcome in the class for older people. At least in many churches, not all.
I realize that in Scott’s world the parent controls a child’s life to an extreme. But there is no denying that the church as a whole is in trouble. Kevin Swanson’s comment was right. He said the reason we’re in trouble is because there are not enough men who love God enough (and he could have added women) and who are willing to teach their children God’s ways in the scriptures. To disagree with that is to say that most Christians we know are teaching their children from God’s Word often. Really? Where’s that planet? I’d like to visit.
Can anyone here deny that fathers and mothers have been negligent in teaching their children? If this is not true, then why are more than 80% of these kids raised in the church leaving the faith?
Scott stuck his foot in his mouth when he said if you continue to do things contrary to scripture, you’re in trouble. He does not realize how much his own teachings add to the Scripture what is not there, even in principle. For example, the rigidity of expecting toddlers to face forward in church and listen to a long sermon is not Biblical. When the disciples saw children gathered around Christ and questioned whether they should be there, Christ told them, “Forbid not the children to come.” Can any reasonable person believe that all these children were sitting there still and quiet looking up into Christ’s eyes for two hours? No, if they had been, then the disciples may not have said anything about their being there. So Scott, the rigid expectations placed upon children in your church is Biblically in error.
The problem in Scott’s church is that children are expected to glorify their earthly fathers, hence the extreme pressure to be perfect little beings. Scott’s split occurred when he had the audacity to state in another documentary that sons are to glorify their earthly fathers just as Christ glorified His Father in Heaven. That is blasphemy and that is the root behind much of the FIC movement’s teaching on this. Christ alone deserves the glory, Scott. Not any man.
Geoffrey Botkin said that the way many churches segregate people is “discipling people in the wrong direction.” That is true, but the way Scott and his coworkers are discipling FIC churches is just as wrong a direction. The direction FIC takes is the path of the pharisee who looked to God and thanked Him that he is not like the poor publican. God despises pride and pride characterizes the FIC movement and the men and their wives running it. Yes, I did say their wives.
As much as I take issue with these people and their ego-driven self-aggrandizement, I cannot dismiss the spearhead topic of their documentary. It’s just too bad that they got hold of it before a more credible researcher like Josh McDowell or a pastor like David Jeremiah did. Unfortunately, I suspect that Josh McDowell understands just how unpopular his taking a stance on this topic would be and he has to make a living like other Big Dogs. Right?
Ted
Awesome analysis. I think there is one more problem with this crowd. They take generally accepted givens: “Kids abandon their faith when they go to college” and then apply their preconceived reasons: kids aren’t taught YE Genesis and don’t go to family integrated churches. This is most disingenuous. They want to push their curriculum as the solution.
I offer an alternative possibility. The pushing of AIG for YE in the face of solid scientific evidence to the contrary and not offering the possibility that one can believe in an Old Earth and be a deeply committed Christian causes more kids to lose it in basic science courses in college. I also believe that many churches offer Bible lite to the kids and should offer more in depth curriculum designed for their conceptual levels.
“Can anyone here deny that fathers and mothers have been negligent in teaching their children? If this is not true, then why are more than 80% of these kids raised in the church leaving the faith?”
Because they have free will? Because the church has paid more attention to rules than hearts, cultural norms than spiritual principles?
Yes, it should tell us something when the majority of kids raised in church are finding more peace and fulfillment in their lives away from it. Instead of blaming negligent parents and worldly kids, maybe it’s time to take the hierarchichal institution of church to task for focusing on the wrong things in the first place.
Amazing how closely our modern-day Christian church is beginning to imitate the religious practices of the Pharisees in Jesus’s time.
Ted,
Thanks for your thorough analysis of the video. Of course this crowd makes some legitimate points about the current state of the church as a whole. What I strongly disagree with is their solution.
You said:
“The problem in Scott’s church is that children are expected to glorify their earthly fathers, hence the extreme pressure to be perfect little beings. Scott’s split occurred when he had the audacity to state in another documentary that sons are to glorify their earthly fathers just as Christ glorified His Father in Heaven. That is blasphemy and that is the root behind much of the FIC movement’s teaching on this. Christ alone deserves the glory, Scott. Not any man.”
Yes, I read about this on the Ephesians 5:11 website. Is it true that Scott Brown was a guest lecturer at SEBTS and if so, is this what caused him to fall out of favor?
Thanks for your incredible insights. You have added so much to the discussion. I pray that your comments will help others to see what is really going on with this crowd of opportunists.
Deb
Ah, my favorite-The Flintstone Doctrine. Did you know it is one of the most viewed of all TWW posts? There are some folks out there who are secretly amused. So glad that Ham continues to miff off more people than me. Maybe a few people will start opening their eyes. And that deserves a Yabba Dabba Dooooooooo! Well done.
Muff
Selective literalism is well put. I bet even Ham’s very, very submissive (his exact words) wife does not wear a veil as mentioned in Scripture.
Another study by Barna on why kids leave church has just been released:
http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
Three reasons that are pertinent to this discussion are: churches seem overprotective, churches come across as antagonistic to science, and the church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.
Well, what does “how worldliness has crept into Christianity” mean, anyway???
Just what would “non-worldliness” look like?
Eagle, this crap comes from religious inbreeding of ignoramuses living on a virtual private island.
@ Eagle: I figured your ex-church was MacLean Bible.
That was one place I steered clear of.
Arlene
Thank you fro beating my drum by sharing this study. I have contended for years that some churches who insist on YE to the exclusion fo all other possibilities, especially eith the overwhelming evidence of science regrading the age of the earth has contributed to kids abandoning the faith in college.
“What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.”
Adolf Hitler
How does this apply to what is happening in some churches like SGM today? Whether it involves actual slaughter, the abuse of children, or simply the shunning of innocents….
View video here:
http://heartchanger.com/
Warning: Graphic in places.
The biggest concern in these churches is the lack of evangelism to the lost….
@Elastigirl
“Just what would “non-worldliness” look like?”
Commenting based only on Deb’s review, since I don’t feel compelled to waste time watching the documentary, it seems that the producers implied that “rawk music” and other modern wrappings around historic Christian concepts are “worldly.” As Deb wrote,
“Early in the video Leclerc attends a Christian rock concert with flashing lights, blaring music, and fanatical teens. He explains that this experience opened his eyes to how worldliness has crept into Christianity.”
In my opinion, this is just fundamentalism 2.0. Or maybe, fundamentalism 1.5 – version 2.0 would be the Mark Driscoll version where they embrace said “rawk music” and so forth but retain all of the pharisaicism…
Josh
Perceptive comment! Driscoll pushes tattoos, rock music, and microbrew lessons but then refers to women as “gullible and easily deceived.” How “liberal” of him.
I watched as much as I could stomach of “Divided”. The propaganda was amazing and I would love to see someone like CindyK list all the thought control techniques being used!
What struck me was the constant use of the phrase “leave the church”. Maybe I missed a better explanation of what they meant by that. Do they mean leave the faith? Turn their backs on God?
Or are they really trying to bring back the cultural norm of years gone by when people “went to church” whether or not they were believers? My guess is that the point of “Divided” is not so much to cease all youth groups, but to use them as the scapegoat to cause people to turn to the FIC methods for “saving” their families. Which means staying in the building, under the authority of the leaders and fathers, acting the part of the faithful flock, giving money, promoting the FIC culture, buying the merchandise and making more babies to keep filling the church.
Where is the faith in God, the believing in Jesus as our Savior, being filled with the Spirit, the grace, the freedom in Christ, the gospel? I don’t doubt that there are believers in these churches, but the message they are spreading, the one I am hearing from their advocates, is, behave like us. “Ask your husband for permission for everything. Grow stuff and make stuff to show you are the proverbial woman. Beat obedience onto your children so they don’t leave the church.”
I went to a couple of Amish stores yesterday and I was conscious of how unfriendly the Amish were. Their sideways glances at my worldly clothing and worldly vehicle and worldly children. There was nothing that drew me to them. Except for the great gardens still producing food, the laundry blowing in the breeze, the sense of community. How sad that their lives are filled with conformity to the proscribed behavior! Come to think of it, how similar to FIC!
Ted
Thank you for the link. I just watched the first 10 minutes. I was shocked at the utter lac of understanding of simple historical realities. The world is vulnerable.
Heather
Great comment. I particularly liked the fact that they were worried that people were leaving the church. What church? The fellowship of believers? Or a belief in Jesus? Could it be they are purposely linking their sort of church, FIC, to the faith? Which means that the nondenom church I attend would not be part of the faith? Bad mojo that!
Also, I enjoyed your comments about the Amish. I have relatives in Lancaster, PA. Yes, they are exclusionists and believe they have a corner on the spiritual market. I never thought about them as an example before. It would make an interesting post to compare them to the FIC crowd.
Josh — yes, I’m sure that’s the thinking thread of those in the documentary.
I just bristled at that “worldliness in christianity” comment, in the “rock concert” context. So loaded with opinion (framed as virtue).
When someone asserts “worldliness in christianity”, what they really mean is a style & manner that are departures from what they perceive to be the “American christian template”. A template that is based on pre-conceived notions of what we expect respectful, orderly, proper, modest, humble, selfless, etc to look like.
Aside from the brass tacks down at the bottom of christianity, American christianity is entirely cultural. An amalgamation of the Puritan mindset, the Victorian mindset, and other *cultural* forces.
While there is good to be found in most sets of “style” and “manner”, it is all relative.
I don’t have time or energy to explore how valid or invalid this assertion is at the moment, but my immediate reaction is that it is largely based on window dressing. On style. To me, it seems “worldly” means reflecting a style & manner that makes people who are steeped in American christian culture uncomfortable. A style and manner that are departures from the “American christian template”. A template that is based on pre-conceived notions of what we expect respectful, modest, humble, selfless, etc to look like. But much of these concepts are highly relative.
(final paragraph should have been edited out, so my official comment is thus:)
Josh — yes, I’m sure that’s the thinking thread of those in the documentary.
I just bristled at that “worldliness in christianity” comment, in the “rock concert” context. So loaded with opinion (framed as virtue).
When someone asserts “worldliness in christianity”, what they really mean is a style & manner that are departures from what they perceive to be the “American christian template”. A template that is based on pre-conceived notions of what we expect respectful, orderly, proper, modest, humble, selfless, etc to look like.
Aside from the brass tacks down at the bottom of christianity, American christianity is entirely cultural. An amalgamation of the Puritan mindset, the Victorian mindset, and other *cultural* forces.
While there is good to be found in most sets of “style” and “manner”, it is all relative.
Heather and Dee,
We have friends in the Lancaster, PA area and have visited there many times. Interestingly, when I watched Divided, Ken Ham reminded me of an Amish guy with his oh-so-straight face, serious tone, and that beard. Lol.
The Barna study confirms that there are several factors that can lead to kids leaving church. The study cites 1 of every 5 or 59% disconnect from church after age 15. Don’t FIC proponents claim that percentage is much higher – at least 80%? Still, 59% is a high rate of kids leaving church. Nonetheless, it’s clear that abolishing youth ministry isn’t the answer.
This has me thinking about my own experiences in children’s and youth ministries as a kid. Overall, my experiences were positive, but I began to feel different from church kids. My dad left us, and prior to that, he rarely attended church. It was strange to be one of the few kids at church without a dad there. And I felt isolated and alone. Church kids seemed to have loving, stable families, in contrast to my family where there was abuse, secrets, and shame. Although I didn’t get into trouble and was a great student with reputable friends, I yearned for friends and adult mentors who could be real and genuine with me. Unfortunately, I never found that at church, so I disconnected almost completely in college. I felt that I couldn’t be who I perceived they wanted me to be. Even as a graduate student at Liberty University, I didn’t relate to folks in the college ministry. It wasn’t for lack of trying, but I simply felt out of place. Bible studies were good, but there was little tie-in to personal life. Independent ideas and thoughts weren’t encouraged. Problems, hurts, issues weren’t addressed. Again, I found myself yearning for people who were willing to be real. Instead, I grappled with thoughts that, since everyone else in church seemed content, something must be wrong with me. Since I lived off-campus as a live-in nanny, I got by with attending chapel and not going to church regularly. It wasn’t until I was married that I felt I truly belonged at church.
Wendy, I’m so glad you feel at home now. What a ride!
Eagle wrote:
“…So I eventually left…but where does this crap come from?…”
With regard to origins, I think a brief history of fundamentalism is instructive:
A century ago, the term fundamentalism did not carry the pejorative it does today. Back then it was merely push back by American evangelicals to counter the higher criticism coming out of the European schools of theology. It was also a reaffirmation of the supernatural in God’s dealings with creation and humans.
The European schools of thought had been wholly taken over by enlightenment rationalism to the point where it was almost universally agreed upon that the supernatural is simply superstition and therefore not possible.
The only thing early fundamentalism did was to reaffirm the old creedal statements of the faith. But over the years it grew like “Topsy” (character from Harriet Beecher Stowe) to where it’s not enough to just believe a, b, & c, you must also believe d, e, & f .
It is my fervent hope that many young people in faith crisis will learn to hang onto a, b, & c as I have, and learn to assign d, e, & f however many grains of salt their conscience will allow.
The Fundamentals was the name of a series of booklets published in 1910. It should have been a perjorative back then, but people were not so well educated as to what “inerrancy” would come to mean- the whole Flintstone doctrine included.
So your statement is not accurate. Inerrancy was not the position of the church for millenia. Neither was the Rapture, another fundamentalist doctrine.
However I remained blissfully ignorant of that fact all the years I was involved in fundamentalist churches, because the pat answer you gave was the one I always heard. You are essentially saying that what fundamentalist believe is what the church has always believed. That is not true.
shadowspring,
I never said anything at all about what the post Nicene church affirmed aside from the essentials (virgin birth, Christ’s bodily resurrection etc.) at all. If anything, I said that what we know as fundamentalism today was a gradual developement over a century.
Please don’t pull rabbits out of a tophat and try and say they’re mine OK?
But it wasn’t gradual; it was a purposeful movement started in the early 1900s with the publication and dissemination of the booklets called “The Funamentals”. They opened their flagship seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, in 1924. The fundamentalists have been very purposeful about their church view, and it is mostly new hat doctrines promoted as a return to the fundamentals of the faith that the early church knew.
It’s not. Dispensationalism and the Rapture are the two new-fangled ideas they promoted as a return to hidden truths. No need for the Holy Spirit anymore to guide people (the imperfect) a committee of humans voted on a collection of writings and decided the canon of scripture (the perfect) so the Holy Spirit stopped talking to humans. That perfect Bible was further perfected in the official Bible of fundamentalism, the Scofield Bible, first published in 1909 and further perfected in 1919.
It was never as innocuous as “The only thing early fundamentalism did was to reaffirm the old creedal statements of the faith.” Not form the beginning.
In fact, in proposing the doctrine of dispensationalism, they quite agreed with rationalists that there were no more miracles, visions, dreams, etc. Far from this idea “It was also a reaffirmation of the supernatural in God’s dealings with creation and humans.”, dispensationalism says that the supernatural is O-V-E-R. God gave you that perfect (Scofield) Bible and anyone who claims to have had a vision, dream, prophecy, or any other supernatural revelation from God is either lying or demon-influenced.
I am not pulling on rabbits nor do I have a top-hat. What I have is a thorough education on the history and beliefs of fundamentalism, acquired after years of experience as the wife of a fundamentalist MK/PK whose father is a DTS graduate. I know whereof I speak.
For years I believed that fundamentalism was merely an affirmation of the ancient creeds in response to German rationalsim. It sounds so academic, I just took my father-in-laws word for it. That is what a fundamentalist apologist will tell you if you ask what it means to be a fundamentalist.
The unspoken assumption, then, is that dispensationalism, Rapture theology, a literal 6-day Creation, traditional gender role divisions, etc. are what the church has always believed, until those darned German liberals started questioning the veracity of miracles. It is simply not true.
The Holy Spirit is as active today as He ever was: people do experience miracles, dreams, visions, etc.(though I’ve never met anyone who claimed to be teleported like Phillip the evangelist but wouldn’t that be cool!). The Bible is very important, but it does not replace any member of the Trinity, it points to the wonder and grandeur of the Very Real Living God, who is very involved in humanity because He loves us.
As to the rapture, that is a recent American invention, in spite of what fundamentalists claim. The Second Coming of Christ is an ancient belief, but the half-way coming of Christ is not.
And many early saints doubted a literal six-day creation. The ladies here at the WW have done a much better job than I care to provide of refuting that thought.
I have nothing against you IN ANY WAY, MuffPotter. I just can’t let your comments stand unrefuted because I used to believe those statements myself for many years, and I was none too happy when I found out I had been lied to. I am not saying you are a liar; I am saying that the statements I quoted are not true. Big difference.
shadowspring,
Sorry to hear you’ve been damaged on you faith journey. I think you are mistaking endorsement of a thing as opposed to a broad and general trajectory of a thing over time. ===> 🙂 I am about as liberal as they come when it comes to many aspects of the faith aside from the essentials. ===> 🙂
Muff,
Love your arrows! 🙂
It’s easy to do a smiley face ========> colon dash closed parenthesis
You know, it’s kind of common thing lately when I refute fundamentalism, to hear people say they understand that I’ve “been hurt”. What do you mean by that? Do you mean to undermine the impact of my words by insinuating that they are the work of a wounded soul, in other words, pay no attention to her, she’s speaking out of her hurt?
I am writing facts that can be independently verified. Fundamentalism in NOT a return to authentic faith, and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the history either fundamentalism or the early church, both,or deliberately spinning the truth to make fundamentalism look like what it is not.
It is not an affirmation that God works supernaturally in this day; it is an assertion that God once worked supernaturally until the canon of scripture was written and that was definitively settled until the 1500s. As I outlined earlier, fundamentalism is an American phenomenon that began in the late 1800s and blossomed with the publishing of the The Fundamentals, the Scofield Bible and the creation of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924.
One hundred years ago is hardly a return to the authentic faith as practiced by the earliest believers.
As far as YOU personally, I haven’t written a single word. Every word I have written has focused on the claims of fundamentalist apologists that their faith is simply or merely an affirmation that God indeed does move in supernatural ways (they mean “did” as in past tense, by the way) or that it is a return to the faith as practiced by the early church.
Since they obviously don’t have women apostles, communal living, or taking care of the poor and widows as cornerstones of their belief, that is clearly a false assertion.
Hi, Shadowspring.
I’m intrigued by this tangent of the conversation.
-Concerning the implication of you having been hurt, I got that feeling too from what you had to say — but it in no way detracted from any legitimacy of your statements. Quite the reverse — you have clearly become very informed on the subject, which I conclude is the result of having been “prodded” by an ideology (& by persons being shaped by such ideology) in perhaps a hurtful way. It all left you “uncomfortable”, shall we say. My feeling is that a person doesn’t pursue a depth of understanding of a subject like this without some kind of negative catalyst. Again, to me, it all serves to give you credibility.
-Concerning “(the imperfect) a committee of humans voted on a collection of writings and decided the canon of scripture (the perfect)…:
What is your view of the inerrancy / authority of the the Bible? Or we could break it down — of the OT? of the NT? Or break it down even further — of the gospels, of Paul’s writings, of Acts, etc.?
I am very interested in exploring all this. I am finally approaching things with utter honesty, and am trying to find out where this idea of “inerrancy” and “perfect” (however one wishes to define it) comes from. I always accepted it unquestioningly. Not now — not since noticing that the institution of american “christianity” would more accurately be called “biblianity”.
Dee and Deb, I know I’m perpetuating a tangent here. I apologize, but this part of the conversation is just too interesting to me.
shadowspring,
No where in any of my comments have I been an advocate for fundamentalism. Sorry if you took it that way. If anything, here at TWW, I’ve always been an advocate for liberalism (within bounds).
Pax,
Muff