Dancing At The Fundamentalist Ball By Michael Spencer

This is the first piece written by Michael Spencer that I read. It is also my favorite. I have a copy of it and read it constantly. I first heard of Michael through the reading of Paul Burleson’s blog some four years ago, where he featured this piece. I read it. I cried. I rejoiced. I was hooked.  I have re posted this piece a time or two and do so again. I might add that I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but except for that one point, Michael Spencer has captured the essence of my own thoughts.

Dancing at the Fundamentalist Ball A Special Essay by Michael Spencer

I am almost through with fundamentalism. Almost.

There are still some places where I want to hang on to my fundamentalism, but not many. After spending most of my life listening to my fundamentalist relation sing their song in the current cultural climate, I long ago quit singing with them. Eventually, I put down my hymnal and left the choir loft. Now I think it’s time to leave the building altogether.

Of course, I realize some liberals will always think I am a fundamentalist because I believe in classically orthodox Christianity, the truthfulness of the Bible (rightly interpreted,) the resurrection of Jesus, miracles, prayer, the church and creation. The somewhat theologically astute will realize that stadiums full of non-fundamentalists believe all that stuff, but among that segment of American culture that finds any serious place given to faith fundamentalist, then I will always be mistaken for one. It’s fine with me, even fun, especially around really angry liberals (who are rather fundamentalistic themselves.)

Among, fundamentalists, however, my departure has been noticed for some time, both theologically and culturally. I hold no place for young earth creationism. I do not read the King James Version, and I do not want others to do so. My description of scripture does not choose to use the word, “inerrant.” I do not believe in the rapture. I abhor revivalism and its shallow, manipulative techniques. The four Spiritual laws are not the Gospel. Aisle walking is just plain wrong. I strongly suspect that most of what is on the shelves of Christian bookstores is somewhere between shallow and heretical. Women in ministry is good Bible as far as I am concerned. I avoid TBN like a fundamentalist avoids MTV. I like a whole bunch of Roman Catholics. Sometimes, I don’t pray over my food. (Actually, I pray one prayer on January 1st for the whole year, but that’s another column.)

On the cultural front, I consider the temperate use of alcohol to be harmless, if not mildly virtuous. (Alert Baptists: Psalms 4:7, 104:15. Read it first before you do anything rash.) I wish I danced and intend for my children to do so. I read a variety of books that fundamentalists consider occultic, worldly and dangerous. I listen to music ranging from Led Zeppelin to the Beatles to Dave Mathews. I find Contemporary Christian music to be, in the main, embarrassing. (With a few significant exceptions.)  I love movies and the language doesn’t bother me, though I certainly don’t want to talk that way. I have raised my children in the Christian faith, but I have not sheltered them from bad culture, bad language or flawed people. I have not taught my children that it impresses God if you dress nicely for church, wear a WWJD bracelet or listen to the Christian radio station. I’ve actually told them God is great and loving enough to speak through any medium he desires. I bought my son three Harry Potter books. I love Halloween. I think Landover Baptist Church is stone cold funny.

This could go on, but I would belabor, bore and give my critics ammunition. I left the Fundamentalist ranch a long time ago. Every so often, I look back from my new view up in the hills and think of the good times, the good friends and the good truth, but I am not raising my kids there, and I am not going back.

And here is the main reason I have decided to move on. (There are many, for you e-mailers.) I don’t think Jesus was a mean, negative person who viewed life as a conspiracy. I think Jesus was a positive, gracious person who thought God was into everything, which was a matter of great rejoicing. I have decided Jesus was not a fundamentalist, and so I am not going to be either.

First, the mean part. I know being mean doesn’t have a thing to do with anything, but fundamentalists are mean a lot of the time, and they seem to think this is somehow OK. Now when it’s a Muslim fundamentalist being mean we see this rather easily. I know that Christian fundamentalists don’t blow things up or cheer those who do, but we are talking only about a matter of degree.

The best example of this is the reaction of fundamentalists to Hollywood. A few years ago, Tinseltown put out a perfectly horrible little movie called “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The particular problems with this piece of cinema aren’t really germane here, but let’s just say that a nation that fills the theaters for “American Pie II” and “Scary Movie” was not going to be excited about this entertainment. It was a stinker, of the highest order. Yet, fundamentalists mounted a campaign of protest, spleen-venting, tantrum-throwing and name calling that has yet to be matched. Just plain, grit-your-teeth, grind-your-jaw, get-in-your-face-and-spit mean and mad. The over-reaction of fundamentalists dignified this movie a thousand times more than it deserved by making it a victim of censorship.

The meanness that really bothers me is that reserved for those opponents of fundamentalism who simply disagree with them over one of their favorite topics. People who like Harry Potter. Or who endorse women in ministry or reject young earth creationism. Or happen to want alcohol served in restaurants. Hey- these are issues on which real Christians disagree, but fundamentalists chew on these issues with all the civility of  a night at WWF Raw. I’ve not just seen this meanness, I’ve experienced it and, unfortunately, I’ve dished it out.

Don’t get me wrong- in the public arena, it’s sometimes give as good as you get, and some of those who want to take over our culture and reshape it into their own image are angry, mean and even vicious. But tough-mindedness and meanness are two different things. I’m happy to play hardball, and I want to win the culture war, but I would like to leave the meanness to someone else.

Then there’s negativity. By this I mean an overall approach to life as a series of prohibitions and restrictions. Now I recognize that there are plenty of negatives in the Bible, and lots of rules against various things of varying significance. Take the Ten Commandments. Quite a few “Thou shalt not’s” in there. But the first and greatest commandment, the commandment that dominates and sets the tone, is to love God with all we are and to love our neighbor as ourselves. The relationship between these commandments is important here: it is the positive that controls the negative. You shall not commit adultery is controlled by loving God, neighbor and self rightly. The reverse- to love God by what we do NOT do- is only true in a limited sense, but don’t try and tell that to your fundamentalist friends.

Fundamentalists love God by not doing what the larger culture does, by not sinning, by not being worldly, by not indulging temptation. If you haven’t noticed, the negative way is simpler, easier to define and far more likely to be controlled by an authority figure who eliminates all the questions and gray areas. Trusting people to love God and do as they please scares fundamentalists to death.

This negative approach is generously applied to young people, who thrive on being told what NOT to do, and who adults like to believe can be controlled. Eventually, however, the negative approach begins to force a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and a choice must be made on how to maintain the superiority of the negative commands over the positive. There is no one more perplexed than a thoughtful fundamentalist, who realizes that there really is no virtue in not dancing, but whose believing community insists that not dancing is an article of faith.

This, by the way, is why fundamentalists never produce any real art, and why their ventures into film and music are so predictably awful. Their conception of art is so dominated by the negative approach, that characters can’t be real human beings and lyrics can’t be real poetry. The whole realm of the imagination and the appreciation of beauty have to be controlled by what they can not represent and how things are not to be expressed. It’s no wonder that the ranks of real artists trying to exist in fundamentalism resembles a community of abused and neglected refugees.

I believe scripture teaches that negativity is no more able to create true virtue than a fence is able to grow a crop. In fact, it was Jesus who said that a house swept clean of seven demons was once again ripe for the same, or even worse, occupants. I have discovered that loving God, neighbor and self is far more than the accumulated negative commands of my fundamentalist upbringing. It is a LOT more challenging than keeping the rules. It is so difficult, that transformation by God himself is my only hope.

Finally, the conspiratorial mindset. Fundamentalism is awash with conspiracy theories. The devil, the Illuminati, the CFR, the World Council of Churches, the NEA, Satanists, New Agers, The Networks, Procter and Gamble, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, the relatives of Bill Clinton…well, that one has some interesting possibilities. Anyway, as someone said, it’s not just a conspiracy, it’s a LIFESTYLE.

Prominent in this kind of thinking is the belief that participating in any aspect of the larger culture exposes one to forces posed to drag the victim into witchcraft and demon possession. Eric Rigney’s endorsement of the Harry Potter books has yielded message after message warning that the books are a gateway into bondage to occultic powers. Where is a single shred of evidence that Harry Potter is any more harmful than Snow White or the tales of King Arthur? The predictability of fundamentalist conspiracy theories have become downright annoying.

The conspiratorial prophets- Warnke, Hunt, Van Impe, Lindsey, Maddux, et al- exert a remarkable amount of unquestioned control in the fundamentalist community. How can so many intelligent people see conspiracies in everything, yet never question themselves or their sources at all? It is the same impulse that turned hysterical teenagers into witches in Salem, and wound up hanging the innocent.

It is here that fundamentalism shows such a remarkable difference from the Bible. While taking the reality of evil totally seriously, Holy Scripture never falls to the level of seeing conspiracies as the explanations for events that are hard to understand or impossible to control. A sovereign God, fallen angels and sinful men are the full extent of the Bible’s conspiracy theory. The early Christians did not waste their time teaching about Roman or pagan conspiracies, but simply lived and worshipped faithfully. It was not a mistake that the apostle Paul counseled believers to avoid myths, fables, and gossip.

Yet fundamentalists don’t avoid this way of thinking, they absolutely revel in seeing evil conspiracies at work in everything. So prevalent are conspiracies as the explanation for events, that a kind of concrete pessimism permeates fundamentalism, leaving Christians to believe that nothing is as it seems and only a conspiracy that really explain life, culture and history. One has to salute those in the fundamentalist community who have defied this dark way of looking at the world and have gone out into the world to do good.

As I said earlier, I do not see any of these trends in Jesus. Instead, I see grace, love and faith, lived out in bringing the Kingdom of God into the world through compassion, servanthood and sacrifice. I am sure that Jesus might be called a theological fundamentalist by some, but does anyone really see the spirit of modern fundamentalism in Jesus?

My departure from fundamentalism will be impossible to explain to fundamentalists. To them, to depart from the community in any way is to call into question one’s basic Christian commitment. They are convinced that if one is in touch with God, he or she will agree with them and stand with them in things large and small. It is sadly common among fundamentalists to respond to any deviation from their worldview with an invitation to pray and listen to God more closely, as if God spoke each of their beliefs directly into their ears. But I am at peace with this, and I am glad that my children will not grow up, as I did, believing all Catholics were going to hell, anyone who drank was lost, dancing was evil, movies and secular music were of the devil, and, of course, we and only we, were right.

I missed my prom, because my church told me it was evil to go. Other than a weak moment in the 8th grade, I’ve never been to a dance. I’d love to say that once I’ve renounced my fundamentalism, I’ll be the first one out on the dance floor, but its not that easy. It will take a lifetime to get over the narrow mindset of fundamentalism. But if you stop by the nursing home around, say 2033, that will be me turning circles in the wheelchair, looking for a partner.

About Debbie Kaufman

I love to write, tackling issues that are not talked about but should be among Christians. I'm a wife, mother, grandmother and I love being

17 Responses

  1. Thanks for posting this. As someone who grew up in fundamentalism, I can now at this late stage start to barely comprehend all the damage it did. I tend to be negative, anxious, critical, and am drawn to conspiracy theories. I don’t fit in well in groups. Surely some of these tendencies can be laid at the door of fundamentalism that I was totally enmeshed in for about 25 years. It truly does screw up the mind of serious, thoughful children.

    • Oh the SBC has had Fundamentalists for a long time Robert. We are a mixed bag, and I see the leadership being less Fundamentalist and closer to what I believe the Bible teaches. I am not going to agree with leadership on everything. That’s a given. But hopefully we see a turning of the tide in the cruelty for the supposed sake of doctrine which isn’t happening. Time will tell. But we’ll always have Landmarkers and Fundamentalists.

  2. Michael Spencer at times, wrote with a cruel, mean, cutting, unloving and unforgiving pen and lied about others. I know, because he falsely accused me of stalking him and I had no recourse but to take it to the LORD Jesus Christ who is my judge. Michael Spencer sure knows the truth now. His problem was not with fundamentalism, his problem was with his own tortured soul. Easy to blame others, oh so very easy. Where in any of Michael Spencer’s writing can you find genuine love & compassion for “fundamentalists?” Or for any others that disagreed with him for that matter? He sure didn’t like to be criticized or disagreed with. How come so many give Michael Spencer a free pass? He was a very gifted and clever writer and sure knew the power of words and knew how to cut people down with them. How many did he leave behind bitter and hurt by what he said to them and about them? Left them behind in an unforgiven state? I never saw him show any forgiveness towards folks that were not as bright and in the know as he was.

  3. Doug: On that I disagree, and I do remember you from comments on Imonk. I think your comment to be off base, inaccurate, and cruel. I thought you were stalking Michael too.

    As for disagreeing. Michael and I disagreed on Calvinism and a couple of other minor disagreements. He asked me good questions in this disagreement and we had some good conversations over at his blog. I didn’t always agree with Michael but found him thoughtful, challenging to me, and very transparent.

  4. Debbie,
    Do you consider me a fundamentalist?

    Is Joe Blackmon a fundamentalist?

    Is Dr Mohler a fundamentalist?

    a YES/No answer will suffice.

  5. “I thought you were stalking Michael too.”

    You thought wrong Debbie. I did not stalk Michael Spencer or anyone else for that matter. He lied and now you lie and you have to give an account to God as well now.

    I only posted no more than maybe three times on Imonk if I remember correctly but judgment day will prove who is right. It is a hard walk the Christian life that is for sure.

    Douglas Johnson
    Christchurch
    New Zealand

  6. I’m sorry that you believe I am not telling the truth Douglas.I can just go by what I saw and read from Michael and you. You are however welcome to comment here as you can see. Michael was seeking answers, giving answers he found, and showed himself pretty transparent. There wasn’t any question he didn’t have that he didn’t share, experience that he hid, and you are right, the Christian life is a hard walk. But yet it’s a most satisfying walk. Much better than the alternative. I would never want to go back to my life before Christ. I too was raised Fundamentalist. I wouldn’t go back to that either. I identify so closely with this essay that Michael wrote, probably more than I have anything else he wrote. I appreciate that Michael was so open and real about his faith. I think Michael himself gave a good synopsis of himself when he wrote on a post:

    I’ll never pass as an apologist for Douglas Wilson’s (or Mark Driscoll’s) views on gender. I was turned off to his rhetoric long ago. At the same time, I’m the kind of person who can not like his views on gender and very much like his debates with Chris Hitchens and his books on church life. I’m the guy who has the views on grace that you like and the views on inerrancy you don’t like. I am all about the Gospel and I don’t believe in the rapture. I’m the guy who got followed to the car a few months ago by a good friend who said, “You’re such a good preacher; it’s a shame that you’re so wrong on Genesis.”

    I have things I like about Piper and things I don’t. Same with Driscoll. Same with Wright.

  7. As a Catholic, it is hard to recognize the ‘fundamentalism’ of the last two centuries as anything remotely resembling orthodox Christianity.

    Michael Spencer saw through a lot of the phoniness that ‘passed’ for Christianity among some individuals and groups who claimed to be ‘fundamentalists’. But I think he saw it with some compassion for them. Michael was straight with people, but he was not ‘mean’. I think he wanted to make a place where people could share where they were at with others, and get feedback, and also a place where Christian people could spend time with those ‘separated’ brothers and sisters who were more like themselves, than different, once they got to know them.

    The sad thing about ‘fundamentalism’ is that it shut so many doors, and closed and nailed down so many windows. And in the darkness, it festered and mean-ness was born, and grew, and ALMOST became the norm. Almost . . .

    My Church asks us not to use the term ‘fundamentalism’ because it is used so much in a ‘pejorative’ way. I am supposed to try to understand what is important to others who are different, and accept THEM where they are at. Somehow, Michael Spencer’s writing helped me along that journey, and I am thankful for his help. I don’t think I’m alone in that thankfulness.

  8. This is such a great essay by Michael Spencer. I can identify with virtually 100% of everything he wrote, with minor exceptions (obviously minus the kids part, as I haven’t gotten married yet). There seems to be a pretty big gap just between being fundamentalist and being conservative to me, these days. I did not know Michael Spencer and am mostly unfamiliar with his writings, but he still seems to have been at least partly conservative to me, which is where I find myself these days. It really sounds like after a period of struggles and trials climbing a mountain of adversity he finally arrived at a vista of peace, with both God and man. His writing is very encouraging to me.

  9. This is such an accurate depiction of fundamentalism, it makes my heart race. I think this is an excellent read for any survivor of this religious movement. I am sharing this with all my friends who have found their way out. It’s uplifting to see others share in my new reality outside of this church.

    • As you can read Robert, pretty much. They want carbon copies and all are pretty much carbon copies.

      If you ever read the blog I had before this one, I predicted with good accuracy the responses and future actions of those who label themselves or have the doctrine of Anabaptist or Landmark. They are so predictable it’s not hard.