|
|
It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right. Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis. The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view. So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not. I welcome and encourage your feedback. |
|
There is a pattern that the
United States is experiencing today. Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant. But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the
United States: Christian fundamentalism. This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism. For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words? The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.
In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline. Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals. And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations. Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals. The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.
 |
Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right." |
Take for example the creation story in Genesis. Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe. Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began. Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened. But there have been changes in this view.
A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.
And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.
There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today. It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms. There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology. The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples. But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.
There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues. One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position. The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups. This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches. During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve. An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.
Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it. Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion. But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy. And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society. But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.
 |
Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement. |
The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.
In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married. Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.
Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.
This is very much an argument of fundamentalists. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning. The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.
If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin. Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.
To sin is to err. To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin. And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.
Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.
Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.
Take for example adultery. If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin. And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer. This is the same for homosexuality. The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act. And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals. Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness. Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not. To know forgiveness is to bear fruit. Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.
When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”
Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.
The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life. Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.
Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future. And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle. But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church? Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.
As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin. Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.
The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy. It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.
In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin. But it seems they are ignoring something. Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.
Matthew 19: 1-9
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a]
5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10: 1-12
1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a]
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b]
8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
(emphasis added)
The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.
In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin. Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery. As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin. And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts. Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first. From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse. And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.
Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce. The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine. This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church. The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4. The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption. Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse. And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.
This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism. Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow. The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other. Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be. And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.
