More than just a
few people have asked me to elaborate on the five points made in a previous article related to my transition from a judgmental
Pharisee to a more open-minded follower of Jesus Christ. I believe that many people are interested in this topic because they
can relate on a certain level. I meet so many people that have been “spiritually abused” or have seen the ugly
side of fundamentalist Christianity up close. Some readers may be wondering if there is a side of fundamentalism that is not
ugly. I believe that there is; however, I’ll spare you my historical perspective on fundamentalism for now.
1. At first I began to notice inconsistencies in different churches—even the most conservative churches did not agree
with each other over many issues like music, dress, and the Bible. I was beginning to get confused about where to draw the
lines between right and wrong in my own life.
Shortly after making a renewed commitment to God in 1994, I had accepted a conservative position on a number of issues
like music,[i] not because of biblical principles or objective reasoning, but because I was trying to be safe—as far away from the
world as I could get. (Even though I really did not understand what John meant when he said "love not the world"). It
was the inconsistencies between different groups of Christians on these issues that planted seeds of doubt in my mind about
different issues. For instance, I was in one fundamentalist church where the pastor’s wife sang a version of “Mary,
Did You Know?” Some members of the church were highly offended by her song of praise and gave her Hell for it. (I had
burned my CD collection of the “devil’s music” just a few years prior to this experience and replaced it
with conservative Christian music that resembled a strange mix between circus music and barber shop quartets). I remember
people in this church not even accepting the peculiar hybrid of Christian music in my collection because it was too “worldly.”
A few years later I moved 700 miles away and was asked to speak at a church that was
getting ready to split over a difference of opinions about how much authority deacons in the church should have. I spoke on
a Sunday morning. That evening the church was going to vote on this issue. Whichever group’s vote turned out to be in
the minority was going to leave and start another church across town. I wondered what the non-church going people in this
community thought about Christianity. Before I stood up to preach, the special music was a familiar song—Mary, Did You
Know? No one in this church seemed to object to the music at all. Nor did they listen to me as I preached on Christ’s
desire for unity in the church. The church split that afternoon.
After study, prayer
for discernment, and allowing room for common sense, I came to the conclusion that music is just a medium and that there was
no such thing as inherently sacred or sinful music. Lyrics are another issue altogether; however, today I enjoy a wide array
of musical styles and genres without guilt.
Some fundamentalist churches are against all Bibles that were not authorized by King James.
Others are against all but one or two of their favorite styles of music, which they refer to as sacred. Some churches condemn
pants on women; others condemn beards on men. Some preach against inter-racial marriages. A few even believe that only those
in their denomination will make it to Heaven. Without judging the motives of the people in these groups, I began to see that
this type of religion was narrow, twisted, introverted, obscure, and most significantly, unbiblical. It was nothing like the
mission-minded attitude of becoming all things to all people in order to win them to Christ. 2.
While in seminary, I began to study certain issues like music, divorce, and alcohol using the Bible, reason, and the Holy
Spirit as my guide. I found that many preachers tended to take more conservative positions than were biblical.
I systematically
went through the Scriptures studying several issues. To an extent, I am still in this process today. I am finding that the
Pharisaical approach is far from the truth. The irony is that many of these bizarre positions are coming from so-called Bible
believing churches. I was taught that a person who has been divorced can never re-marry according to the Bible. It did not
matter whose fault it was; nor did it matter how long the marriage lasted, or if it was before the person had become a Christian.
When I first heard this, I thought that God was so unreasonable to have such expectations of someone who might have been in
an abusive relationship, had an unfaithful spouse, or who had been deserted through no fault of their own.
When I began to doubt this strict position, it began with compassion for those who had possibly
been divorced through no fault of their own and then wanted to re-marry. I studied the New Testament and found that both Paul
and Jesus made exceptions regarding the no divorce rule. I did not come from a broken home. I have been happily married only
once, so I could look at this issue without a bias in favor of permitting divorce. Then I began to reflect on the people that
were writing and teaching against divorce for any reason. I wondered, “Why do these people care? Why would they have
a stricter position than the Bible? Why would they dig for evidence in remote places to support such a position? Is it really
all about defending the holiness of God?” Where is the love, compassion, and mercy for those who have been divorced?
Upon further study, I began to find that many Christians were being dogmatic and judgmental
toward others concerning positions that were not inconsistent with the Bible. I began to adopt the philosophy in my preaching
and teaching to not shout where the Bible was silent.
3. I studied the passages on Christian liberty and the weaker
brother. It surprised me to learn that the weaker brother was the one with the more conservative position.
This point is
simple, clear, yet often overlooked by those who think that being like Christ means being more conservative. I think it began
during a church service in which a preacher referenced one of these passages and made a point from it out of context. That
night I studied 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14. I found that when Paul was talking about the weaker brother, he was talking
about a man who had such a sensitive conscience that he could not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul made it clear that a
stronger brother could eat this meat without sin, as long as he did not partake in such a way that caused his weaker brother
to stumble.
Another passage that struck me was 1 Timothy 4:1-5 in which Paul warns about people
departing from the faith in the last times giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons. This sounds pretty scary.
These backsliders must being doing really bad things. Well, reading on, one finds that devilish doctrine produces a seared
conscience in which people command others to abstain from marriage or to abstain from eating certain foods. Paul says that
they were speaking lies in hypocrisy. They were Pharisees! Paul was predicting that there would be Pharisees in the latter
times that would try to force people into more conservative, non-biblical positions. Paul’s answer spoke volumes to
me: “For everything God created
is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.”
The fundamentalist
Christianity that I knew always respected and promoted the more conservative positions on just about every issue. It was assumed
that one was closer to God and more spiritual if he had stricter positions. Yet, the Bible does not teach this. It promotes
a growing changing relationship with God, not longer and more tedious lists of do’s and don’ts. Sometimes this
relationship means making careful and considerate choices. Sometimes it means making radical choices. Sometimes it just means
to live and let live.
4. I studied the teachings of Christ. I found his teachings to be both liberal (don't think politics here) and liberating
on many social issues. I saw little similarity between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the churches I attended.
I noticed a disparity between the command of Christ to love one’s neighbor and certain social problems in the world
today.
Up
to this point of transition in my life, I had only been associated with conservative churches; therefore, I assumed that all
good Christians voted Republican and that all who voted Democrat were either un-Christian or backslidden. Obviously I was
wrong. Don’t misunderstand me. I do not believe that Jesus was a true blue Democrat either. However, his teachings were
more than just an instruction manual for getting into Heaven. He spoke nothing about abortion or homosexuals, but did focus
much on poverty and social injustice. He spent a big part of his three year ministry on earth ministering to the sick and
the poor. He also taught his disciples to do the same. It would do all Christians well to re-read the gospels with an open,
objective mind.
Jesus also preached about repentance. He elevated the standard of the law by reaching to the heart of issues. He summarized
the entire moral law with the two commands about loving God and loving one’s neighbor. Christian ethics is a matter
of loving your neighbors as you would want to be loved. If we love our neighbors, not only will we not steal from them, but
we will feed them when they are hungry. Jesus saw all of human life as sacred—not just the unborn babies, but also the
starving infants and toddlers in third world countries; not just Jews, but all races of people; not just the educated, but
the illiterate as well. If we truly loved all of our neighbors, we would be responsible with natural resources and kind to
planet earth, knowing that future generations of neighbors would appreciate having clean soil, air, and water, as well as
aesthetically beautiful mountains and streams. Would not a consistent pro-life ethic look at all of these things with love
in mind?
Not
only were some of Jesus’ teachings liberal in today’s sense of that word, but also liberating. By giving sight
to the blind and making the deaf hear, Jesus equipped these individuals to be able to pursue more of their dreams in life.
He liberated many in physical and spiritual bondage. He gave the downtrodden and disenfranchised of his day the courage to
live their lives in pursuit of God, regardless of the persecution the Romans would bring. He liberated many of the religious
Jews, as well as future readers of the gospels, from the bondage of legalism, so that they could more freely serve their Lord. It was not about politics with
Jesus; it does not have to be with us either. Like Christ, we should be all about people and loving them as we love ourselves.
That goes for both our neighbors and our enemies.
5. I began praying for discernment. I asked to be guided into the truth wherever it took
me. I had a feeling that this would take me into some very uncomfortable places. I was right. However, what I did not anticipate
was the tremendous spirit of liberty and courage that I gained as I began to change.
I still remember the burden that
was lifted while reading, studying, and understanding for the first time the meaning of Christian liberty. I had always been
taught that Christian liberty was the liberty to not sin; I had also heard that it had something to do with the liberty to
serve God. I believe these are true, but it is so much more. Christian liberty meant that I did not have to understand everything.
It meant that I did not have to please the conservatives, the moderates, or the liberals of Christianity. It meant that I
could pursue God and submit to His authority without submitting to every loud preacher or Christian college president. I could
follow the Holy Spirit rather than a set of rules. I could read and interpret the Bible without imposing an arbitrary set
of hermeneutical boundaries mandated by the dispensationalists or the covenant theologians.[ii] Christian liberty meant that I could be more real to myself, with others, and even with God. I did not have to pretend to
understand or agree with another brother or sister’s convictions. My new understanding of Christian liberty also meant
that I had to respect other people’s liberty and allow God to work in other people’s lives at His pace, not mine.
Christian liberty took me to some new and unexpected places. There are parts of the Bible
that I interpret differently now. There are more parts that make sense. I believe that I have a better understanding of the
“big picture” than I did before. There are some passages that I don’t understand; yet, I am not losing sleep
over them. I have not departed from the historic Christian faith, but I am willing to let some things go that need to be let
go.
Conclusion
As
I near the end of this brief reflection, I realize how easy it is to write about this subject. I think it would be harder
for me to write about a drug or pornography problem. As much as I believe that Pharisaical legalism is a serious and dangerous
sin, it still does not have as bad a reputation as some of the more obvious sins of the flesh. I must remind myself of Jesus’
scathing rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 in which He made clear that the sins of the Pharisees, which included hypocrisy,
legalism, and a failure to practice mercy, were much worse than the sins that they had managed to avoid. I am better off
than I was before, but I still have many steps to take in my spiritual journey. I do not have any room to look down on other
people, whatever their beliefs and practices. In a sense, I truly believe that we are all on a similar
journey. It is our unique experiences on this journey that become our defining differences. I no longer want to allow personal
differences get in the way of true and loving service to God and my neighbors.
[i] For the vast majority of readers who have no idea what I mean by conservative Christian
music, let me elaborate. Within the context of many churches and conservative Bible and Christian colleges, there is a Platonic
view of reality that sees certain things in this world as evil, despite what Paul repeatedly said to the contrary. One of
these things is music with a strong beat, especially beats that have dominant rhythms or syncopations. Therefore,
for some Christians, only music that has a subtle and steady beat can be considered “sacred.” All other music
appeals to the lust of the flesh and will only serve to entice people to sin.
[ii] Is it not possible to believe in both man’s free will and God’s
sovereignty without accepting a watered down version of either? Even if you think you have it figured out, in spite of the
fact that countless people smarter than you do not, can you not agree to disagree on the issue of Calvinism? Is it really
your calling to convert people to your position on non-essential issues?
