It seems "fundamentalist" has become a vague term for someone whose religious views one doesn't like. From the Christian left, we see both the claim that "fundamentalism", which, we are told, consists of taking the bible too literally, is evil, while simultaneously claiming that "conservative Christians" are misquoting the bible and taking it out of context, distorting the true meaning to suit their preferences.

Well, which is it?

Surprisingly, many of the negative examples of Christianity, who are used as examples of the dangers of "fundamentalism" are anything but that. Take John Hagee, who a Random Observations reader recently commented negatively upon. Mr. Hagee is frequently referred to as a "fundamentalist" minister, as though most Christians would agree his beliefs were founded in a literal, not metaphorical reading of the bible.

Yet that's far from the case. For example, the bible doesn't put poor people down; there's nothing wrong with being poor: John the Baptist lived in the desert, eating locust. God brought poverty on Job as a test, not because Job did something wrong or sinned. Jesus preached "Blessed [meaning happy] are the poor..." because they were accumulating reward in heaven, for having been afflicted now. He told a story of a poor beggar, named Lazarus, who went to heaven, while his rich benefactor went to hell. And Jesus himself was basicly a homeless person.

Yet in apparent conflict with these parts of the bible, Mr. Hagee teaches that "poverty is caused by sin and disobeying the Word of God." Really? Why was the poor beggar in heaven, while his rich friend was seated in "smoking"? Certainly, in some cases sin can lead to poverty -- but others get rich by sinning! (Look toward Hollywood if you're short on examples.)

This is a doctrine called "Word of Faith" which is popular among many of the allegedly "fundamentalist" preachers the press likes to denigrate. Instead of God making some rich, and some poor, God wants everyone to be rich, and wealth is a sure sign of His favor, poverty, of His displeasure. Instead of praying for God's will to be done, one uses visualization and "positive confession" -- New-Age-like -- to bring new reality into being, driven by one's own desires and wants. The ego is placed at the center of the universe, creating its own destiny.

Yet among most conservative Christians I know, this belief is felt to be a heresy, since it directly conflicts with the bible at many points. In extreme cases some preachers (Kenneth Copeland) make claims like: "You don't have a god in you, you are one," or "Pray to yourself, because I'm in your self and you're in Myself", which sounds more like Shirley McClain's new-age teaching than biblical Christianity. Yet the media portrays such people as "fundamentalist" Christians, despite the deep unorthodoxy of their beliefs.

Recently, I read an essay by someone I admire, who claimed it was dangerous to be an "extremist" by taking the bible too literally. How shortsighted is such a view.

Imagine how horrible the world would be if everyone completely "Loved their neighbor as themselves", or was "generous and ready to share" (1 Tim 6:19) or didn't lust after people they weren't married to, or didn't covet things other people owned. Commericals would be completely useless, consumerism would be killed! (The left would love that -- until they started trying to get votes by speaking against the rich!) And imagine if everyone treated you with the same respect they would like. Horrors!

Look at all the bible's commands on how to treat "one another":

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. (Rom 12:10) Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another... (Rom 13:8) Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. (Rom 14:13) Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. (Eph 4:2) Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. (Eph 5:19) Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph 5:21) Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Eph 5:21) Therefore encourage one another and build each other up. (1 Thes 5:11) Admonish one another with all wisdom... (Col 3:16)

I mean, what's the danger here? That the "fundamentalist" following these instructions is going to listen to a bit too much Christian music? (Eph 5:19) Where's the danger in getting "too literal" in following this advice on how to treat other people? I suspect the world could really use a bit more of this kind of "fundamentalism" -- don't you?

I imagine if I asked someone what the purported dangers of "biblical fundamentalism" were, they'd talk about stoning homosexuals to death, or forcing people to convert. But that isn't what the bible teachers, nor what most "fundamentalist" churches teach: Sure, Christians view homosexuality as a sin (just like looking lustfully at Rene Zellweger -- not that I would know anything about that), but we stopped stoning people for sins when Jesus asked who could hurl the first stone. Not because we don't take the bible seriously, but because we do, and that's what it tells us.

(Of course that doesn't make the sin right -- all it means is that you'll have to tolerate us saying we disagree. Is that a bit too much to ask, in this wonderful pluralistic society?)

So does all this validate the "liberal Christian" view which treats the bible as some sort of extended analogy, open to whatever private interpretation we'd like to bring today? Of course not. If the biblical verses on sexual sin can be re-interpreted by the needs of the day, however the elites or masses want or need it to be, then so can prohibitions against murder, theft, or idolatry.

To illustrate: the "Jesus Seminar" got together to voted on which verses, they felt, were the true words of Jesus, and which weren't. Amazingly, all the "true" phrases of Jesus tended to reflect a leftist worldview. Well, if the bible isn't necessarily all true, couldn't we just select the opposite set of words instead? Perhaps the bit about Jesus saving the woman from stoning was added later, and he really still wants us to stone people to death for things?

Allowing the elites to re-interpret the bible for you is simply a way of removing the precautions it tries to teach you, to protect you from people like them. The temptation they offer, of course, is to get rid of all the "difficult" or unliked bits. Yet it is always the bits we like least which can teach us the most, just like a hard exercise benefits us more than lying on the couch. If we worship a God who only has characteristics we like, we're merely worshipping a god of our own creation -- an idol. Such a god can never make us grow anything beyond ourselves, or help us overcome any of the flaws we cling to.

Further, as mentioned, if they can change the bible one day one way, they can change it another way the next. It's just a way of putting them into power, through selective interepretation, and getting that pesky bible thing out of the way. That happened to a degree in the Catholic church in the middle ages, and "liberal Christianity" seems bound and determined to try to re-eenact that bloody little experiment again, though to an even greater degree.

Be wary of such people: they are wolves in sheep's clothing. They talk endlessly of peace and love, but the ultimate end of such things is considerably more authoritarian than anything you'd fear from a typical "conservative" Christian.