Critique of Blaker, pt. 3

The One Who Rules the Wind and the Waves:
A Response to The Perils of Fundamentalism and the Imperilment of Democracy

In his contribution to the book, Edwin F. Kagin opens with a quote from Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t’ want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.

In sharing this quote, Mr. Kagin, an attorney in northern Kentucky and a humanist, erects quite the massive straw-man. It is becoming quite evident that such straw-men are the primary source of fuel for the fire burning in this book.
Mr. Kagin begins by mentioning the growth of fundamentalist groups in various world religions around the globe. He cites polls and articles indicating that about half of the Christians in America claim to be fundamentalists. Yet what does that label mean? What is a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is one who holds to the fundamentals of their belief system. Fundamentalists keep a tight hold on those things which make their belief system distinctive and without which their system would be something entirely different. For example, would a dog still be a dog if it had retractable claws, meowed and chased mice? Would Buddhism be the same if the adherents to that system denied that Buddha ever existed and that his writings are a sham? In the same way, Christians must hold to certain ideas in order to remain Christian. It’s a matter of definition. I believe that Mr. Kagin’s problem with fundamentalist Christians lies in how Christianity is defined. Personally, I believe Mr. Kagin should leave that definition up to the Christians. According to the Law of Excluded Middle, Christianity is either defined by A or Not A. Either the Fundamentalists are right or they are wrong, there’s no middle ground. Obviously they believe they are right. Again, with the Law of Identity, if Christianity is defined by A, then it is defined by A. If the Fundamentalists are right, then they are right. One cannot argue that the Fundamentalist definition is right for them and that some other definition of Christianity is alright for others. Logic and reason don’t work like that.
Mr. Kagin goes on to define Christian Fundamentalism as “an inflexible, absolutist worldview.” Actually, I have absolutely no problem with that statement. When truth is at stake, one cannot afford to be flexible or wishy-washy about it. If it is true that a child will die by playing on the freeway during rush hour, a parent must be “inflexible and absolutist” about keeping them away from that traffic. So it is with spiritual truth of the sort dealt with in Christianity. If it is true that a person will be punished in hellfire for eternity unless they turn from their godless ways and follow Christ, then it is the duty of the Christian to inform them of this and not to flex on this issue. Anything else would be callous and unloving.
I’m not quite sure why Mr. Kagin went off on his King James Version tangent but I will address it here briefly. The idea that King James was a homosexual had very little to do with the decreased use of the translation he commissioned. Many Christians use more modern translations for many reasons, among which are ease of reading (King James English can be difficult to wade through) and the fact that the more modern translations come from older, more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were yet to be discovered at the time of King James.
Also, the way in which Gary Bauer is attacked is of questionable character and smacks of courtroom tactics. The technique is called “poisoning the well.” The passage
in question reads as follows:

"Gary Bauer from northern Kentucky is former president of the Family Research Council (FRC) a Christian fundamentalist “pro family” organization, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and a Republican candidate for the 2002 Presidential campaign. It has been widely circulated that Bauer concluded that nothing touched by a homosexual could be good for good Christians:

I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way.

This originated as parody, but so accurately fits Bauer’s views, that it has been frequently cited by fundamentalists."

Mr. Kagin has now done a masterful job of making his readers believe that the quote given has actually come from the mouth of Gary Bauer. Even though he comes back right afterward and states that the comment “originated as parody” the damage has already been done to Mr. Bauer’s character. It is the same tactic used in the courtroom when an attorney wants the jury to hear his point of view, he states it (or words a question in such a way that his implied view is clear). Although the attorney knows he will get an objection from his opponent, the jury has already heard the statement and the seed the attorney wanted to plant has been sown.
In addressing the interplay between the fundamentalist mindset and the law, it is interesting to note that a man who has studied law for his livelihood has failed to recognize the importance of Christian ideals in the creation of the laws of this land. If Mr. Kagin were to actually study the Bible, he would find the ideas of justice, mercy, fair trial and other sacred areas of our legal system described quite clearly. Fundamentalist Christians do believe that the laws of our land should conform to the Law of God because that is the only way to insure that they are moral and just. If there is not a consistent standard of measure used throughout the construction of an edifice, then the structure will eventually collapse. So it is with the legal system. While he is right in identifying the Christian belief that the Bible is the final authority, Mr. Kagin is incorrect in his assertion that Fundamentalists determine what the word of God is and that sinners are only those who disagree with the Fundamentalists. All mankind, not just Christians, have been given the word of God in the Bible so that they will know the truth for themselves; and sinners are those who have rejected God and His Son Jesus and have decided to live their lives as they see fit.
The Bible is not “invented histories framed in legend and allegory.” It is historical fact framed in the redemptive story of a God who loves His people. Archaeology has confirmed biblical claims time and again. Not once has the Bible been proven wrong in its accounting of history. Mr. Kagin claims that there is no essential difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. If we go back to the definition of fundamentalism given above, then Mr. Kagin is correct. Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, that Jesus Christ was God and man in one body that was born of a virgin. That this same Jesus was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind and that he was raised from the dead and will return again. Islam, on the other hand, believes that there is one god, Allah, and his chief prophet was Mohammed and that by abiding by the teachings of the Q’uran and the five pillars of Islam one may someday dwell in Paradise. So, yes, fundamentalist Christianity holds to the foundational doctrines of Christianity in the same way that fundamentalist Muslims hold to the foundational doctrines of Islam. The difference, and it is a major difference, lies in what the foundational doctrines of these two systems teach. In Christianity, followers are exhorted to love one another, care for the needy and to spread the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to all the earth. In Islam, followers are commanded to follow the teachings of Mohammed, including the killing of infidels.
Nowhere in the New Testament do you see a command for Christians to kill non-Christians. Yet in the Q’uran you see commands to kill the infidels (those who do not submit to Islam).
From here, Mr. Kagin launches into an historical progression of fundamentalism in religion from antiquity to the present, focusing on Christianity. Before he begins on the American leg of this historical journey, there is the odd statement that Fundamentalist approaches to social problems sometimes exacerbate them because the Fundamentalists approach the issue in a “backwards, unlawful” or “ineffective” way, such as with teen pregnancy and child abuse. I’m curious what study this came from? Or is it just opinion being thrown out in such a way that the reader is supposed to assume that it’s true? Until he cites a study showing a direct correlation between teen pregnancy rates or child abuse with fundamentalist ideas I’m going to have to doubt Mr. Kagin’s claim here.
The flow of thought picks back up with the history of the Puritans in the colonial days of America. Mr. Kagin tells the story of how the Puritans and Pilgrims came from England to escape religious persecution and to establish a Christian community in the New World. He passes on the saying that “a Puritan is one who is haunted by a lurking suspicion that somehow, someone, somewhere might still be happy.” While this may fit the stereotype of the Puritans, their belief was that the greatest pleasure was found in leading a pure life dedicated to finding pleasure in God and His Law rather than trying to find fulfillment in the fleeting pleasures of this present world. As Mr. Kagin goes on to credit the Puritans for the way in which they helped to shape the character of America in the early days, he states that “ideas are not responsible for the people who support them.” While I do agree with him in principle on this point, I would have to qualify the statement with the complimentary idea that a person’s heart and character can be known by the ideas they support. Judging by the ideas that Mr. Kagin credits the Puritans for supporting (i.e. honesty, integrity, duty, education and family) I would say that even he characterizes them as quite honorable people. As far as the idea of establishing a theocracy in the colonies goes, it has been said that if Christians decided to set up a society based entirely on God’s Law and the principles of Christianity, that would be the most wonderful utopia in the history of the world. Neighbors would love and care for one another, no one would be in need and God would be honored in all that the people undertook to do. Therefore, a government (or at least a system of law) that is based upon the Law of God would be the best option of all the manmade forms of government that have ever existed. As a side note, the Mayflower Compact was only signed by 41 of the 102 passengers because that was the number of men that survived the trans-Atlantic voyage to America. Women and children would not have been given the option of signing the document.
In making the claim that modern fundamentalists are desiring to create a theocracy in America in seeking to make laws that reflect what is commanded by God, Mr. Kagin makes a fundamental error regarding the nature of law (surprising considering he is an attorney.) At its core, any set of laws is a reflection of the morality of those making the laws. For instance, if it is considered immoral to steal another person’s private property then laws are passed making it illegal. Nowadays it is considered immoral by many for tobacco to be smoked in enclosed public places, so ordinances have been passed to make such activity illegal. Once it was generally considered immoral for two men to have sexual relations with each other, so anti-sodomy laws were enacted. Now the morality (or lack thereof) within the American judiciary has been enforced upon those parts of the country having such laws, striking them down as unconstitutional (since when has there been a constitutional right to sodomy?) Therefore we come to the issue of “theocracy.” The only way that Mr. Kagin and his colleagues seem to be defining theocracy is a government that makes laws based on the morality of a given religious system, when in reality a theocracy would be direct rule by God Himself. So the question is no longer “theocracy or not-theocracy”, it now becomes “what moral system best fits the direction we, as a nation, desire to go.” I personally believe that our country would best be served by laws reflecting the moral code within the Judeo-Christian.
At this point Mr. Kagin goes on to show how Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits a religious “litmus test” for candidates for public office. I would certainly agree that this should not be the case, but I am not aware of any attempt being made to require that one be a Christian to run for office. That being said, there is not such constitutional restriction placed upon voters keeping them from denying non-Christians their vote. Would Mr. Kagin have a nation wherein there are new elections held anytime someone feels they were not elected simply because of their religious beliefs? I hardly think so…but I may be mistaken. He then mentions the infamous “wall of separation” that does not exist in the Constitution. The ideas in the First Amendment Non-Establishment Clause are covered in the response to Kimberly Blaker’s opening article and I will not belabor the point any more here. Suffice it to say, it shows total ignorance of the Constitution and its framers to insist on a “wall of separation” in the way Mr. Kagin and his ilk do.
Once he reaches the point where he addresses the progress of fundamentalism in America, I believe Mr. Kagin has his history together, yet he cannot quite seem to get a grasp on the true motivation behind those he names. While he is quite right in naming such greats as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards as those who helped to spread a “fundamentalist” view of Christianity in the Colonies, he misrepresents their intended purpose. He cites Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and labels it as “a bitter, abusive denunciation of those who do not share the preacher’s views and what God’s wrath will do to them….” I can assure Mr. Kagin, and anyone else, that the last thing Jonathan Edwards was trying to accomplish through this sermon was to persuade people to his viewpoint. What Mr. Edwards (and any worthwhile preacher) was trying to do was to let people see God’s viewpoint as shown in Scripture. And while much of the sermon is dark and ominous in nature (yet so very true), at the end Mr. Edwards holds out the hope of escape from the judgment of God through trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. This type of preaching is far from abusive, it is necessary. An excellent parallel can be found in the world of medicine. Imagine a person with a terminal illness. What doctor would be derided as abusive for telling the patient their diagnosis and prognosis? In fact, the doctor would be sued for malpractice if he did not tell the patient what was wrong with him! And so it is with the preacher of the Gospel. He is compelled to tell the world of their sin and the judgment to come to them because of it. But, just as the doctor can hold out the hope of treatment if the patient will submit to it, so the preacher holds out the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ for those who place their trust in Him.