Thoughts on Fundamentalist Bible Preaching

Interesting and disturbing. That is what I would say about the preaching I watched on television yesterday. Interesting because catching the dynamic of a man shouting at his congregation and assaulting them with shame makes me wonder what exactly is in this man's message that keeps people coming back? Disturbing because of the content of his message--more so than the way he communicated it.

As a caveat, the term "fundamentalist" is a happy moniker to some who embrace the label, while others eschew it with disdain. To wit, some might call me a fundamentalist because of my beliefs regarding the historical reliability of the Old and New testament texts. But fundamentalism wears many hats, so what do I mean here? Well, with this man's particular preaching, he shouted. He shouted the whole time. Now, I preach from time to time, and some times, as a preacher you "bring it." That is, the voice begins to rise and a cadence takes over, and next thing you know, you are "bringing it" i.e. you have a raised voice. But this man was "bringing it" the whole time. He shouted the whole time. Of course, the early African American preachers were known for their great preaching ability, due to their cultural training from tribal leaders and chieftains who made a practice of loud, boisterous preaching (including great oration techniques like anaphora, alliteration, and so forth) in order to appeal to the listening masses. This tradition carries on today. It's why black preachers tend to be great orators. So, there's a place for "loud preaching." Further, the great preacher George Whitefield is said to have had such a great, booming voice, that people could hear it a mile away. So, at this point, the hand is raised in a stayed position. No cry of "foul" here for shouting. It must be the content, then. And the tone. First the tone.


The tone carried with it a sense of "holier than thou." This means there is arrogance in the preaching. I think you all know the difference between being yelled at and being appealed to in a loud voice. I believe this to be true because of the next point: his content. His content was strange. The title of his sermon was "dead flies," taken from a text in Ecclesiastes 10. The context of Ecclesiastes 10 was not explained. Rather, "dead flies" (from the first verse in the chapter) was used as a springboard to discuss the absence of spiritual discipline. But Ecclesiastes 10 is not about that. The opening verses are about wisdom and folly. Spiritual discipline falls under the guise of wisdom, but the introduction to Ecclesiastes 10 is not about what this man was talking about. In fact, he spoke a whole lot about nothing really. "Now I wanna tell you about flies." And chewing tobacco. Cuz they're related, you see.

So far, no explanation of the text....

His springboard discussion revolved around how people who don't 1) read their Bible 2) go to church twice on Sundays and once on Wednesdays 3) pray 4) and evangelize, are like "dead flies." Next he said that people who chew tobacco are like dead flies. This is because no fly would ever touch chewing tobacco. But a fly will land on manure, both human and animal, the preacher said. Conclusion: don't use chewing tobacco, because it's worse than putting feces in your mouth. The lesson is learned from nature, I guess. Finally, he laid into the young men because they are lazy. Finishing off his point, he said that all people who fall into numbers 1-4 are "spiritually lazy." So far, the Christian life is boiled down to works of 1-4. Are ya workin'?

Well, Christians certainly should read their Bibles, pray, go to church, and share their faith. And Christians shouldn't be lazy. I agree. And the preacher was sure to remind the congregation that Christians are saved by grace, and that these things are the proper response of coming into loving relationship with God (he didn't talk about the love of God-those are my words). So, what's my problem then? The problem is, this man ignored the context of the passage. Further, his attitude was one of arrogance, anger, and his message had oddly-placed personal humor in between about how awful flies and other insects are. The humor really wasn't that good.

So far, no explanation of the text...

His comments about flies were the strangest. The preacher said that flies were "evil." He kept asking the congregation "Amen?" He went to the account of the plagues in Egypt to support his view that flies were evil. The reasoning goes like this: The Lord sent flies to punish the Egyptians; the flies were undesirable (for numerous reasons to be sure); therefore, flies are evil.

Just as I suspected.

Fundamentalist preaching often involves an appeal to Gnosticism. Gnosticism teaches that the things of the world--the material things--are evil, and that only spiritual things are good. This man's quip about flies being "evil" found support in that horror movies often involve flies when something evil is afoot. Now, I agree that flies are undesirable. They are pesky pests, dirty, and carry diseases. They are ugly, too. But does that mean they are evil? Does the fact that the Lord sent them upon Egypt mean they are evil, as well? Didn't the Lord create flies? Now, here is the $64,000 question: if what makes the flies evil is the fact that the Lord sent them to Egypt, does not that also make frogs evil? Does that not also make darkness evil? Does that not also make blood evil? Does that not make whatever the Lord sent to Egypt evil? Did not the Lord himself destroy the firstborn in all of Egypt (Ex. 12:12)? Did not the Lord create all things? And he said they were "good" from the beginning. And who is to say that some things the Lord made are "evil" because of the Fall, and others are "good" even though we live in a post-Fall world?

So far, no explanation of the text....or the gospel.

More shouting, more accusations against "those people" and "some of you." There wasn't anything about the grace of God through Jesus Christ, or the cross, or living a life of thankfulness.

"You gettin' convicted of your see-uhn?" my wife asks.

"Not really. Well kindof. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't measure up to this man's standards."

At this point, I turned off the tv. 20 minutes was all I could bear.

Fundamentalism

At Notre Dame, my friend Dave Hartman co-wrote an article on Fundamentalism. Its focus, as I recall was on the religious type of fundementalism. The article covers a lot of ground--like the link between fundamentalism and violence, for example--but I also remember coming away with the idea that fundamentalists--of no matter which religion or creed--feel a great sense of hostililty toward and uncomfortableness with a lack of certainty. A lack of certainty leaves no room for doubt, leaves no room for "throwing up the hands," leaves no room for "I just don't know." For this reason, many Christians are regarded as fundamentalists because the Christian religion--in its historic, orthodox tenets--is particularly exclusivist. However, we have heard of Hindu fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, and the like. Without invoking the issue of violence here, the common factor in these groups is most certainly an utter disdain for a lack of certainty in all areas of life. Without a lack of certainty comes a lack of freedom. Freedom of choice regarding how one lives life on the practical level, necessarily precludes a fundamentalist approach to life.

For example, Christian fundamentalists have historically abandoned the wider culture and intructed their parishoners and children to hold the wider culture in disdain. This means movies, theatres, music, tobacco, alcohol, cards, etc. are all "not allowed" by Christians "in this church." To wit, even the women are forbidden to wear pants, because it is understood that such clothing violates Levitical law (a misinterpretation, in the lauded opinion of many). Fundamentalism in the Christian Church has also manifested itself doctrinally as well, whether it is one's view on the days of creation, which version of the Bible to use, or which eschatological paradigm to promote. Of course, simply because one believes that God created the world in six days in a matter of six to ten thousand years ago does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist. While Christians and non-Christians alike would declare such a belief makes one a fundamentalist, fundamentalism is more of a state of mind than a belief system. So, fundamentalism is extremely mental, and it's typically no fun to be one. If I can't read my Tolkien because there's a wizard in it and enjoy my microbrew at the same time, well--that's no fun.

Fundamentalists then, are easy to point out, you say. Good enough. But perhaps there are fundamentalists who are the opposite of what we just described. A good number of Christians these days insist that the Bible is not really the word of God, but merely the words of man as they try to relate God to man. Moreoever, many Christians are pushing the idea that human sexuality should no longer be so oppressive as to relegate proper relationships to monomy between members of opposite gender. These same people would denounce the so-called evils of unequal wealth distribution. What if they also insisted on being heard, believed upon and listened to regarding their own interpretation of Scripture at the expense of a very vocal minority, especially regarding the nature and authority of Scripture regarding human sexual relationships? Perhaps fundamentalism is more than a few strange, out-dated doctrines or practices. Perhaps a person is a fundamentalist when they insist that their interpretation of Scripture must be believed upon no matter what.

But then we have ourselves in quite a pickle. If there is no standard by which we come to conclusions on these things, then what are we left with? Well, I think it does start with a high regard for Scripture, and an abandonment for one's own agenda. The Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) serves as prime example of how to come to grips with changing tides in the ideas of scholars, pastors, and the rest of us within the Church. The Scripture, while not the only authority concerning matters of faith and practice, must be regarded as the highest authority. Equally important is a spirit of genuine humility and reverence for the Scripture. My pastor put it to me this way: I don't care what your idea is about (the documentary hypothesis), what I care about is, Do you look down on the Scripture, or do you look up to it? This is a good starting point for Christians who want to avoid fundamentalism: the authority of Scripture and a healthy dose of deep humility toward others.