Post 9-11, the word 'fundamentalism' gives people a new sense of fear. To modern morality, any version of religious fundamentalism MUST be a bad thing. When evangelicals claim to believe the words of the Bible as the truth, the word 'fundamentalists' is frequently flung our way. So how should we respond?
J.I. Packer's 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' is as fresh and relevant now as it was when it was first published in 1958. He argues that fundamentalism is often brushed off as a branch of Christianity, when in fact, it is the only authentic Christianity. Authentic Christianity is a religion of biblical authority. Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used, in the way that God means Scripture to be used. Subjection to the authority of Christ involves subjection to the authority of Scripture. ‘Fundamentalism’, in so far as consistent Evangelicalism is meant by this term, is in principle nothing but Christianity itself.
Christianity is built on truth, on the content of a divine revelation. It announces salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, but faith is only possible where the truth is known. The New Testament tells us that God has made provision for the communication of this saving truth. He entrusted to the apostles, and through them to the whole church, a message from Himself which conveys it. This is the Word of God, the Bible.
At the heart of the debate is the role of the Bible. Many people who reject fundamentalism do so because they consider the uncompromising demand for submission to what the Bible says as unreasonable. And this is very serious, at it is a criticism directed at evangelical principles rather than evangelical practice. In effect, these people believe that Evangelicalism is a form of Christianity that cannot honestly be held today. We must, therefore, strive to defend the faith that we believe to be the revealed truth of God.
In the climate of the current Anglican crisis, where the evangelical wing of the Anglican church is being criticised for being 'fundamentalist' and 'separatist', it is worth remembering that the Anglican church is founded on the belief that Scripture is the ultimate authority. The liberal wing of the church is not, historically, supported by the foundation of the church and the 39 Articles.
Unity between true Christians is vitally important to the life of the Church, but what Packer refers to as 'sham unity', the unity between supposed Christians and true Christians, is not worth working for. The wall is cracked because it is not all built on the same foundation. Packer's book provides a timely read in the light of these circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment