An Alternative to Fundamentalism: Belief Versus Faith

Fundamentalism rests on the assertion that being Christian requires an all-or-nothing acceptance of their doctrine. They strenously deny the suggestion that there might be more than one way to be Christian. You're either with them or against them, they say; there's no middle ground.

But as Obi-Wan Kenobi said to the young Darth Vader, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

The notion that there are other ways to be Christian is a threat to them because of the precarious claims on which their version of Christianity is based. To maintain a belief in these claims means to treat doubt as if it were an enemy, to embrace reassuring (though often torturous) arguments upholding literal creationism or Biblical authority.

The media plays along by portraying Fundamentalism as "Christianity." In so doing they help to make other forms of Christianity invisible. Fundamentalism is not what Christianity looks like when one is more devout; it is not the only way to be seriously, deeply, devoutly Christian. It is not the only way to seek God or be more Christ-like.

On this site we have explored some of the precarious claims on which Fundamentalism is based, though the goal has never been to "disprove Christianity," only one version of it. This is not "Atheism vs. Christianity." Now we will explore an alternative.

It won't be easy. Fundamentalist Christianity is popular because it serves up easy, ready-made answers and the illusion of clear and absolute truth; it is a "ready-to-eat" religion for a culture that demands quick and easy solutions. The other way does not involve the illusion of easy answers or the false sureness of being right.

Spiritual inquiry has historically been about more than simply "finding the answers;" it has been about how to live right and how to build a society that is more free and just. There is so much selfishness, greed, and injustice in our society that we need religion and philosophy and art to bring us above it.

Elsewhere on this site we have seen the argument that we should judge people by their fruits; this idea was articulated by Jesus. The fruits of Fundamentalism are questionable, to say the least. Most of their attention goes to expanding their power and influence, rather than promoting justice and emancipating the poor. As a result, during the 25 years they have dominated American politics we've seen a widening of the gap between rich and poor and a notable growth in antagonism towards many public efforts to combat this.

Consider for example the seven heavenly virtues of Medieval Christianity: faith, hope, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance, and prudence. "Belief" is not among them. "Faith" is something different. The rest of these emphasize our actions and attitudes. They are about working to be a better person and collaborating to build a better world.

Faith is different from belief in that it is "intransitive;" it is not faith "in something," but rather, it is a sense of hope and trust, an optimistic yearning to be a part of something divine. On the other hand belief requires an object: one believes something, one doesn't just generally "believe."

Christianity rooted in faith would be unitive. When one has strong faith, whether one is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, or what-have-you, one is not overly concerned with the details of what other people around them believe, and furthermore, one generally does not feel the need to question the validity of other people's faith or beliefs. People of faith can work together for a better world regardless of their differing beliefs.

Emphasis by Fundamentalists on what you believe is indicative of a widespread crisis of faith in our country. The injustice of our society gives us a bleak outlook, so we grasp at something, anything, to make up for the hole in our hearts made by lack of faith. Fundamentalist Christianity is a two-dimensional cardboard cutout standing in for faith.

Christianity rooted in belief is divisive, because words are imprecise and spiritual concepts shift around as we examine them. An emphasis on belief becomes invariably an emphasis on hairsplitting. In the early church there were contentious debates on the nature of Christ: "homoousia vs. homoiousia." There was a debate over who sent the Holy Spirit -- the Father alone, or the Father and Jesus. There have been debates over whether to baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." These debates concern concepts, interpretations, and beliefs; they have divided Christians for centuries because the Bible does not give a clear answer to these questions.

Historically, debates such as these have turned the church into a game of "who's-in-who's-out," determined by the concepts one believes -- instead of a game of "we're-all-in-this-together" based on recognition of each another's faith.

It's rather frightening to contemplate the idea of God operating this way: picking and choosing on Judgment Day by who happened to get the concepts right. With so many contradictory ideas floating around, how could we ever be sure we happened to choose the right collection of concepts to be "saved" and go to heaven? How could a just God consign to Hell someone who believed wrongly but lived justly, while allowing into Heaven someone who believed rightly at the moment of his death no matter how wickedly he had lived?

The idea that God chooses who goes to heaven or who goes to hell based on rote observance of laws, or just the right set of beliefs, denigrates God by reducing Judgment to mere rubber-stamping. It puts the law above God. Fundamentalists therefore literally worship the Bible, by placing it above God as the arbiter of justice and mercy.

So what might a non-Fundamentalist Christianity look like?

If we don't believe in the Bible, literally, as it was written, what use is it? That is the question Fundamentalists want you to ask. As it turns out, there are other ways to find value in the Bible.

We could read it as what it is: the record of an ancient culture's walk in faith and their struggles against injustice. From the emancipation of the Jews from Egypt to the victory over death represented by the resurrection of Christ, the overarching theme is justice and liberation. It is not an easy walk, because people are very reluctant to recognize the working of injustice within their own hearts.

We can take inspiration from the Bible in understanding it as a record of one part of an ongoing human struggle to examine ourselves and human society for the causes of inequality, discrimination, abuse, violence, exploitation, and war, and learn how to make ourselves better by coming together in faith.

Consider the "faith vs. works" argument. What did Jesus demand of his followers? Doing good is not always easy, and there are those who will seek ways to justify their inaction -- to feel comfortable despite doing nothing to oppose injustice. The "faith vs. works" argument gives an easy out. Think about it -- whose interests are served by the argument that belief in Jesus Christ is "all you need" to get into heaven? If a person could feel comfortably convinced of her own goodness without having to take a difficult stand, doesn't this encourage complacency in the face of exploitation?

If Jesus were in charge of the United States, do you think he would tolerate inaction in the face of poverty, homelessness, hunger, child labor, and slavery? He specifically said that those who do nothing in the face of these injustices will face God's wrath (Matthew 25:31-46). Matters like this should be at the top of the agenda in a Christian nation. But "salvation by works alone" encourages inaction, which in turn allows the unjust to continue profiting from their evil.

[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

This parable applies not just to the ancient Jewish sect of the Pharisees, but to anyone of any religion, who is outwardly religious while doing nothing to change themselves or to challenge injustice. He would say this today of the self-righteous Fundamentalist who looks down smugly on others while congratulating himself for his "righteouness."

The Fundamentalists fall on the wrong side of this struggle, by promoting ideas which defend or support injustice. They should heed the warnings of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:31-46.

Top / Biblical Inerrancy / Jesus and Paul were Not Literalists / An Alternative to Fundamentalism / Biblical Morality vs. Modern Ethics / Jesus' Litmus Test