A friend recently shared with me that modern
Fundamentalism has unintentionally propagated something of an OCD (obsessive
compulsive disorder) theology. Clinical OCD is a condition that exploits fears
and anxieties to bring about compulsive behavior. OCD preys upon the fear that
one thing leads to another thing which leads to another thing, eventually
leading to irreversible ruin. As a gift of general revelation, God granted
every human a conscience. Since the fall, our consciences still give us a basic
understanding of right and wrong. However, our consciences are highly pliable.
Most Christians understand how a conscience becomes seared, but few Christians
consider how a conscience becomes trained to work on hyper-drive. This explains
why people diagnosed with OCD struggle with simple, everyday tasks: their
conscience has been allowed to condition itself to such an extent that it provokes
irrational, excessive, preventative behavior in an effort to ward off mirages of catastrophe.
Introspective personality types tend toward this struggle, and many who have
OCD do not realize that they have it. OCD is very treatable through behavioral
therapy that trains the brain to not associate every innocent behavior with
impending disaster.
Without
realizing it, Fundamentalism has guided their congregations to see current
issues through a lens of OCD theology, by suggesting that many things "on the fringe" are actually shiny objects that lead us down a
slippery slope to spiritual destruction. Particularly in the arena of cultural
change, Fundamentalism compulsively makes much of minor issues out of a desire
to avoid the Red Death of “worldliness.”
Instead
of empowering the conscience to operate on hyper-drive, the Word of God trains
our consciences to enjoy Christ through many different forms of cultural
expression and earthly blessings. More importantly, the Word of God educates
our consciences to love one another with the Gospel in an endless variety of
cultural situations. Disciple-makers have been given freedom to reach cultures
of all shapes and sizes with the Gospel and then to see a unique (and quite
amazing) expression of the Gospel in that culture. The Gospel is the most
powerful concept in history that triggers an irreversible internal culture
change while keeping external cultures in tact through the power of the Spirit
to the glory of God. By empowering a hyperactive conscience, we exhibit
fear and anxiety toward most things new and foreign, which in turn produces
distrust where there is unfamiliarity.
The
Holy Spirit is not the same as our conscience. Often times, the Holy Spirit
leads us to behave in ways that push us out of our ideological comfort zone.
While the Holy Spirit always operates in accordance with the Word of God (after
all, the Holy Spirit certainly took a key role in Its authorship), He is never
obligated to submit to our consciences. It is far more likely that our
consciences will lead us astray than will the Holy Spirit. It may be that the
most devastating problem within Fundamentalism is that our consciences have
been so empowered that it is questionable whether or not we can even hear the
Holy Spirit over our screaming consciences.
Return to original post
Return to original post
Thanks for sharing, Ken. Its good to hear you working through these difficult but important issues. So much of the problem that exists in modern-day fundamentalism has to do with latching on to those things that have come to define fundamentalism within the culture that they themselves have created. The pieces of the culture that feed their OCD are self-perpetuating, so that they are necessary in order to maintain the level of comfort that makes all things right in their world. Ironically, I distinctly remember being taught in my Intro to Psychology class at BJ that psychology for the Christian can be helpful in a descriptive sense; but it should never be used in prescriptive sense in order to correct our problems. In other words, when we evaluate ourselves and society around us, psychological tools and descriptors can be useful to provide a proper analysis; however, the problem can not be solved or corrected by psychological means but by the Spirit and the Word. Unfortunately, the MO of modern day fundamentalism is to evaluate ourselves and society based on psychologically-driven and moralistically-saturated view of Scripture and then to counter it by teaching and implementing a psychological solution that sounds Biblical but is in fact man-centered and spiritually powerless. In plain terms, when something is identified as "worldly" because it reflects what has within that culture been more closely associated with non-fundamentalism or even non-Christianity, it is dismissed, black-listed and preached against. The solution is to remove the corrupting element from your life and be made clean again. As easy as it crept into your life and polluted it, it can be easily removed by your own will and power. This type of thinking sees corruption as coming from within our own environment, but outside of us. And the solution to being free from its corruption is to remove its influence from our lives thereby making us clean again. What is missing is that Jesus said that is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out of his heart that defiles him. The sin in our heart is the source of the corruption, not the environment around us. Yes, our heart responds and is stimulated by the elements within our environment in which we are exposed; but our corruption is due the sin that lies within our hearts. Therefore, to your point, it has to be the work of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit alone that cleanses us, washes us clean, convicts us and sets us free. The "purifying" work of an OCD fundamentalist Christian merely rearranges the environment in order to create a space and life that he feels comfortable in and that soothes his conscience but it does not fix the problem. "If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." Col 2:20-23
ReplyDeleteHi Ken, I don’t know if you remember me from school, but this is Jonathan – we had a bit of overlap several years ago and now my family and I live and minister in Asia. I sympathize with some of your points and am saddened to see so many friends, family, and classmates feeling so afflicted by disappointment with Christians along their journey of life. It certainly seems to loom large in many minds, as a quick perusal of the internet attests.
ReplyDeleteI did have a couple of quick questions after reading your post (my apologies, I’m not very connected online where I live – no Facebook, blog, et al.) and thought you might could answer them for me. Forgive the length! I appreciate your service for our country, and because you have lived overseas you’ll quickly understand the thrust of my questions.
I noted with interest your italicized words: “The Gospel is the most powerful concept in history that triggers an irreversible internal culture change while keeping external cultures in tact through the power of the Spirit to the glory of God.” It seems prima facie evident from the New Testament that acceptance of the Gospel does indeed result in an ‘irreversible internal culture change,’ John 1:12 being sufficient. My question lies primarily with your noting that the Gospel keeps ‘external cultures in tact through the power of the Spirit to the glory of God.’ Having read a bit of your testimony I expect this is aimed primarily towards American external culture (namely that of popular culture), but I thought it through in my context: When I hike in my village I have to walk through ‘hell money’ scattered on the ground, and step over rotting offerings given to satisfy the hungry souls of otherwise uncared-for dead (that’s the aim, at least). Your italicized phrase tells me those things are not only to remain, but somehow are ‘in tact through the power of the Spirit to the glory of God.’ You also clarify that my dismay with these ‘external cultures’ is at root, ‘fear,’ ‘anxiety,’ and ‘distrust.’ I think Paul shared my delusion when he saw the oxes and wreathes offered to his party (as gods) in Acts 14 – he was so upset he ripped his clothes. That’s a powerful reaction to an external culture. Did Paul miss something?
Opposite of that, Peter (and possibly James) seem to have gotten your point about leaving those externals alone – remember when the Christians in Jerusalem were enforcing Judaism on believers (I’m sure you can see parallels there to some things that grieve you in Fundamentalism)? Peter wasn’t changing those externals, those traditions – he was fitting right in. Internal, sure. External, no way. Paul got upset at that too.
This leads me to my second and last question: Is it possible that sometimes that internal change necessitates an external change? I take it you have seen some disappointing things in Christian circles, as many (which is to say, all) have. Would you like those misled Christians to change their external culture? How about the folks wrapped in the trappings of slavery to false gods where I live? Would you be willing to countenance these dear folks making some changes externally when they embrace the Gospel? There also seems to be a curious dynamic at work in Scripture that you might like to address as a part of this internal/external conundrum – especially as you noted the helpful role of the Spirit – it’s handily condensed in James 4:4-5 (whether that’s the Holy Spirit or our spirit, it’s interesting to lay alongside this discussion).
I know American Christian circles have let you (and all of us) down. I’m guessing your scope of interest was limited in that way, but that is also my concern. I’ll look forward to hearing any clarifications you might offer. Thanks Ken.
Jonathan Johnson
Hi Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteAt some point here, we run into questions of semantics. I think any reasoning individual will ask some of the questions that you ask. The simple answer is to say that my points lie to target the more ethnic (or demographic) cultural externals which are highly dynamic to the internal affections of an individual. One whose internal affections are not upon God will channel every bit of external cultural expression away from God. The reverse will be true that one whose internal affections are upon God will channel every bit of external cultural expression to God. Concerning the pagan culture wherein you minister the Gospel, the issue is not the external culture's form of wealth (what they define as currency or bartering power) but the use of that wealth. Drastic changes occur when an individual comes to Christ, but not necessarily in the realm of dress (it is my understanding that even the pagan "naked" cultures do have an understandable expression of being fully clothed by any cultural standards), music (much to the chagrin of Fundamentalists, though a drastic change in lyric subject matter will occur), language/dialect, etc...
I am sorry if I somehow gave you the impression that I am polytheist, in that I am an advocate for worshipping God and other false gods. Perhaps that is merely an issue of you not knowing me well, which is understandable. I am a monotheist. I worship the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ as the One and only Way to salvation.
Thanks for replying Ken. I appreciate your interest in semantics and cultural concerns. It's near to my heart as well - my training is in the arts (visual) and history, and presently aesthetic philosophy with the help of the intentionalist philosopher Paisley Livingston and additional assists from Alister McGrath while he was at K.C.L. and Matthew Kieran at Leeds. From your writing I think you would really enjoy R. Niebuhr's 'Christ and Culture' if you haven't already read it. I didn't quite follow your tying 'ethnic (or demographic)[not sure that those are synonymous] cultural externals' to individual affections [which seem by definition idiosyncratic rather than 'ethnic']. Again, sorry for the length, but these are interesting topics! I'll break this post in half (sorry :-)) because of length.
DeleteAs an apologist here in Asia it is certainly easy to 'run into questions of semantics' (especially with language challenges thrown in!), but I find most patient people are able to move beyond those preliminary difficulties, and I hope you won't mind our attempting to do that a bit as well.
I think I agree with your stated idea(l) that those with 'internal affections' set upon God will desire to 'channel' 'external cultural expression' in a God-pleasing way. Additionally, this truth brings forth delightful expressions of faith in new and wonderful ways in a variety of cultures - God loves this diversity as creation evinces. My qualm is that you seem to present this outcome as being inevitably successful. Romans 7 and other places appear to state that sometimes the battle between our (believers') right and wrong desires don't always end well, and sometimes our external actions (and by extension, culture) don't always glorify God. (By the way, I don't know if it is welcome for me to keep using references as in the last post - I noticed it didn't seem to be a part of the tenor of the page - no disparaging of sociology intended, I have shelf-section as well). The reverse is also a concern, in that, encountering a group of Christian's external culture, their choices must be sacrosanct and without question by merit of their being the result of good intentions. I think Colossians 2 deals with a group of Christians' external culture that needed to change. I note these two sides of the same coin because I felt in presenting the inward/outward dynamic as you did, there might also be a need for you to consider situations in which the inward didn't transfer well to the outward, or existing outwards belied some inward troubles.
Also sorry to have tripped you up with the term 'hell-money' from the previous post - our host-culture's ancestor worship isn't wealth-centric. Could it be the two issues you use as examples ('dress' and 'music') are at the forefront of your considerations because those were the issues you had to grapple with during your experience near Camp Lejeune, and by extension with your experience with portions of Fundamentalism (speaking of which, you might enjoy H.Harris of Oxford's 'Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism,' which while not perfect is quite helpful in viewing the issues on a less personal scale)?
(Continued - again, sorry for length :-)):
DeletePer the last paragraph, I wasn't entirely sure where the notes on polytheism came from. Again, my apologies if the use of Bible references threw things off kilter. Frankly it worried me a bit that you could've gotten that out of the post - I wouldn't ask any of these questions if I didn't think you were a believer, nor if I didn't remember you favorably from the past. To try and restate the questions of the last post with further clarity, and in the hopes that they might be countenanced:
1) Does the internal change you mentioned always result in positive external changes, and are there ever any set-backs or delays in this process? In other words, do you feel any need to qualify the reliability of outcome or is it always correct?
2) When you mention external cultures are kept 'in tact' [intact?], do you feel that needs explanation or are external cultures immune from change?
3) Relating to 2), it seems you (and many of us) have been disappointed by experiences with other Christians - both by their internal attitudes and their external actions (and culture). Should those offending external cultures change, or are they within your statement of things to be left intact?
Again Ken, thanks for your time, and interest! These issues are close to my heart, and so it's enjoyable for me to discuss them. I hope there's no confusion on polytheism, and sorry I can't place how that cropped up. Hope you and yours are well this weekend.
Hi Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for not answering your questions directly. Here goes:
1) I believe external changes (and even internal affections) are a serious trial and error process with the Holy Spirit guiding through internal leading, godly mentors, and an accurate understanding of the Word. I believe that even Paul's words in Philippians 1 reflect trial and error as the believers there learn how to apply pure doctrine and love the brethren. Sanctification is (pardon the cliche) a process and not an overnight venture. From what I gather from your comments, I think we agree whole-heartedly on this.
2) Here is where we run into semantics. Do forgive my misspelling of "intact." What are external culture changes and what are internal culture changes? We might disagree after hours of discussion on this issue. For the purpose of my article, I sought to use external culture to refer to those attributes of a culture that betray allegiance to no religion in particular but are just stereotypical commonalities of the people within it. For example, I refer to language, architecture, currency, musical style, dress (where fully clothed is exercised), etc... For the purpose of my article, I sought to use internal culture to refer to those attributes of a culture that DO betray allegiance to the true God (or not). I do believe that these internal cultural changes are inevitable, not because Christians are immediately thinking and doing the right thing upon regeneration, but because the Holy Spirit is that powerful to bring about amazing sanctifying change over the lifetime of that believer.
3) I'm not sure that I am following your question. It might help to point out that my article is meant to be taken in context with my other posts (located to the right), which deal quite specifically with the American Fundamentalist Movement as sustained by Bob Jones University and her constituents.