Critique of Blaker, pt. 4

Once he turns the corner to the twentieth century, Mr. Kagin introduces the modern-day Fundamentalists. He cites the series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals which stressed the ideas of: the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection and the second coming. I would agree that these issues have been correctly identified as fundamentals of Christianity. If any of these particular doctrines are taken away or diminished then the faith that is based on that new understanding is not rightly Christian. In fact, these fundamentals can be traced back to the very beginning of Christianity. The early Christians believed with all their heart that the Bible was the very word of God. They also believed (obviously according to the Gospel accounts) that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin. The letters of Paul (written no later than 66A.D.) abound with the doctrine that Christ’s death was a substitutionary atonement. There were over 500 eye-witnesses of the physically resurrected Christ, and Jesus promised (as shown in the Scriptures) that He would return again to gather His Church and judge the world.
Next, Mr. Kagin quotes Don Lattin where he states that Fundamentalists “believe that the Bible is literally true and without error, stress evangelism, emphasize the approaching ‘end times’ and the second coming of Christ and practice separation from nonbelievers.” I agree with most of what Mr. Lattin is quoted here as saying. It is fair to characterize true Christianity in these terms with the exception of the last phrase. This may stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to be separated from “the world.” What Biblical Christianity teaches is that we are not to participate in and become acclimated to the way of life found in this world. It would be the same as an American traveling in, say, Zambia. He is going to behave as an American even though those around him are behaving as Zambians. So, the Christian is to behave as a citizen of God’s Kingdom rather than as a citizen of this world. Also, if the Christian is to emphasize evangelism, how can this be done if he is separated from nonbelievers? This is a logical impossibility. You cannot win someone to your point of view by avoiding them. Christians are to engage the unbelieving world around them and share their faith in a gentle and respectful way.
Once the historical foundation is laid, Mr. Kagin begins to analyze and critique what he believes to be representative of Christian fundamentalism. He begins by attacking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Right from the start, he reveals his total disdain for the Bible. He contrasts the evolutionistic view of an earth that is billions of years old with the “creation myth” presented in Scripture, totally disregarding the many scientists in every field of study he mentions (physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc.) that at least question the truth of the evolutionary theory or hold to the biblical account of the origin of all things. He states that “when the facts don’t fit the dogma, the literalists discard the facts.” In actuality, it is the dogmatic evolutionist that, while they may not discard the facts, certainly distort the facts or manufacture “facts” in order to support their increasingly untenable position. Mr. Kagin then makes the mistake of taking a particular verse of Scripture out of context in order to support his point of view. He states that fundamentalists want prayer in schools and other public settings, while Jesus condemns public prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as shown in Matthew 6:6. The problem with the application of this verse to the situation in question is that of context. In Matthew 6:6, Jesus was commanding His followers not to pray “as the hypocrites do.” The idea presented in this passage, as taken in its larger context, is to avoid practicing “religiosity” in order to be noticed by men. Of course the Scriptures are packed with instances where great men of God pray publicly; so Jesus is not contradicting the practice in general, He is condemning the motive.
The first issue that I have in regards to the description given for evangelism is that the author implies that the evangelist is the one that is doing the “saving” where true Christianity teaches that the evangelist only points the individual to the one who actually does the saving, that being Jesus Christ. Next, Mr. Kagin claims that evangelism is based on the idea of an eminent apocalypse. While this may be true in some minority circles within Christendom, true evangelism is predicated on the command given in Scripture by Jesus when he gave what is called the “Great Commission”:
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-19, NKJV)

Another motive for evangelism would be the Christian’s concern for the eternal destiny of those with whom they associate. Again, if one were convinced that another person were in impending danger it would be inhuman not to warn them of the danger and show them the way of escape.
It is at this point that Mr. Kagin gets to what I believe to be the source of his disdain for “fundamentalist Christians.” He claims that fundamentalist Christians hold to a kind of authoritarianism that demands “blind obedience” and that they exercise “aggression”, “mean-spiritedness” and “vindictiveness” against any who would oppose them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Granted, the biblical model of the authority structure for mankind does not mesh well with Mr. Kagin’s secular or humanist ideas of authority structures, it is a solid structure nonetheless. While the structure may seem rigid, any structure of lasting value should be. Who would build a suspension bridge from marshmallows? Secondly, no one on earth is called to “blindly” follow any other person. While man is given authority, that authority is a conditional authority. No one is required to obey a command that is in contradiction to what has been revealed previously. Therefore, when the young Hebrew boys were commanded by the God-ordained ruler of Babylon to bow to a golden statue, they disobeyed upon pain of death, because God had already commanded not to bow down before a graven image. Lastly, Mr. Kagin ignores the fact that, though God gives men the authority on the earth He also holds them responsible for what they do with that authority. There is great responsibility in being a man in a Christian home. He is God’s representative in the home and will be judged for every thought, word and deed that departs from the picture God gives of Himself in the Bible. Every idle word will be called into account. It’s no wonder that Mr. Kagin would like to see women in charge; he likely couldn’t handle the responsibility.
Lastly, the author gets into an “analysis” of eschatological views, completely ignoring the fact that this very issue is a source of contention throughout all Christendom. The only reason that it is even brought up is because of the fact that one of the common characteristic beliefs of the “fundamentalists” is the second-coming of Christ. Again, while Christians do hold to the second coming, there are many different views on the details of the events surrounding the event itself. Once all of the most popular eschatological views have been critiqued, the author goes on to point out that the very idea of the second coming drives Christians to be “socially irresponsible” as they just do for themselves while waiting for Christ to return. It eludes me how Mr. Kagin can, on the one hand, decry the Christian lack of social concern (nevermind all the Christian charities, food kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, hospitals, etc.) and on the other hand, criticize them for being involved in the political process. Does Mr. Kagin not consider voting to be a “social responsibility”? I will not delve into all the various issues that Mr. Kagin brings up at the end of his article, but will just leave the previous statement as it is to simmer for a while.
In conclusion I will return to my statement in the opening paragraph. In this article, from the opening quote by Randall Terry to the closing implication that Christian fundamentalists could bring about a crisis “such as what was seen on September 11, 2001,” a massive straw-man has been erected and Edwin Kagin has hung the name-tag of “Christian Fundamentalist” on it. He then takes his own limited observations of what he believes Christianity to be and burns the effigy. Dishonest tactics are used in order to paint Christians in the most negative light possible. History and science are distorted and the logical implications of a totally secular society are not even mentioned. Far from being a fair-minded critique of Christianity, this article represents nothing but a hit-piece against those who do not conform to Mr. Kagin’s vision of what Christianity should be.