Fundamental Differences
Jul 12th, 2007 by Amanda
Recently I’ve noticed a trend when talking to someone more conservative than myself–enough so that I think I can make a generalization. Conservative people (”fundamentalists”) think and speak very very literally. They take everything at absolute face value. More moderate to liberal types like myself don’t do this. We speak in metaphor or with the assumption that there is known background information that applies.
This causes a problem when a fundamentalist is conversing with a liberal on Biblical issues. The two end up thinking they are at odds with one another when, in reality, they’re more alike than they think.
This came up a lot in my discussion of the book Velvet Elvis. When I read the book, I didn’t take the messages of the book independently of anything else. I took the messages of the book within the confines of Scripture. When you do that, it works. When you don’t, when you take it at complete face value and stand it alone, you end up with something else. You end up with a path to legalism. A path far from Scripture.
I think this is why one person told me that I took something that wasn’t quite right and put a “good spin” on it so that it was okay. In reality, when I read the book, I read it through the lens of Scripture. Which is even what Bell tells his readers to do. That’s what I encourage all believers to do, regardless of the subject.
And, hopefully, once people begin to realize the differences in perception, communication between the two “sides” will begin to improve.
Well, it all depends, I suppose. It’s not just a tendency that some Christians think literally: it’s close to an absolute that they have come to expect as necessary for salvation, due to the heterodox emphasis they’ve placed on a literal interpretation of scripture.
If that’s the case, their willingness to ‘communicate’ and listen to the other is heavily-impaired. In many cases, they can’t do it, and it’s difficult to reason with someone who insists on filtering all claims not on the basis of evidence, but on the consonance of that claim with their prior understanding.
Still, those of us who don’t have those commitments must continue to engage. It’s a challenge, because in order to be effective we must be personal, but we must learn not to let personal criticism derived from their narrow assumptions affect us. As always, the challenge is to overcome evil with good.
Peace….Scott
Amanda– was wondering if I’d ever get quoted by you. The question is, does VE take liberties with Scripture or does it correctly use Scripture. That’s the only question.
Scott, that’s pretty vicious of you. You start by saying that those that take a literal interpretation are wrong, hard (if not impossible) to communicate with, and then bemoan the fact that you actually should do it because it is a challenge. And then, you top it off with calling them evil (or at least their actions). That’s truly the way to show Christian love and build up what you consider the weaker brother (Romans 14).
In general, I’d say generalization is the cause of most communication problems.
MinTheGap, don’t take Scott so literally.
More seriously, (What? I thought it was funny!) and “generally”, I think we speak to and listen to different groups differently. When I’m talking with a close friend, there are a LOT of assumptions made about applicable background information, because I know my audience. If I was to write a book, I’d have only a vague idea of who might read it, and what lens they’ll be reading it through. Assumptions are risky then. So especially if I thought I was pointing out essential truths, I would lean toward pretty literal language to avoid misunderstandings.
You mentioned that Bell told his readers to understand the book thru scripture, and that is an excellent thing to say at the beginning of the book. I haven’t read it yet, only the first page or two. But I want to, I’ve heard a lot about it.
Amanda, I think you’ve stumbled upon a very common cause of miscommunication. My husband (an analytical thinker) and myself (a daydreamer) have difficulty communicating because he’s so cut and dry and I’m very into metaphors and analogies.
It’s important when speaking with others that we’re clear and concise, especially when speaking about possibly divisive topics.
Our pastor actually created a spectrum based on many scriptures but, most importantly, the story of the prodigal son.
On the one end of the spectrum the younger son represents “license” — freedom to do whatever you want without love of the Father — the father represents liberty — the freedom from sin to accept and let others live how they need to live, to hurt when they aren’t living in truth and the pain of letting them go but also the joy of receiving them back. Finally, there is legalism which is represented by the older son. The older son is demanding and never sees that he has always had freedom from sin! There is also apathy (not represented in the story) which is just a not feeling and not caring place. This would be if the father didn’t care that his son came home and if the father gave the older son an even bigger party.
Legalism and License are really exactly the same. Only different applications. Both represent a misunderstanding of true liberty. Both are not God’s best for us. Jesus lived in perfect liberty.
That’s how I see you saying that we are really talking about the same things in different languages. Legalists and the Licentuous both depart from truth.
I am a legalist (NOT proud of it). I like to play it safe and see God as a slave driver. Have compassion on your friends that are legalists and love them in their weakness even when they won’t love you. Love is not accepting their doctrine. Love is reminding them of this story of grace. Love is seeing, honestly, where you are on the pendulum and being transparent and humble about it. And, in actuality, I have some licentuous and apathetic parts of my personality, too.
Living in liberty is just so much feeling — intense joy — intense pain — like Jesus — like the father mourning both sons inabilty to see truth, but loving them anyway (with boundaries — he wouldn’t send money to his son who blew it all on prostitues, and yes, you could wire money back then — in different ways and he wouldn’t give in to his older son’s demand for a party for himself).
My problem is I would rather be in control, no feeling, just passion without consequence or control with noticeable reward.
Neither is the path of Christ.
The path of Christ is passion uncontainable, forgiveness unimaginable and boundaries clearly defineable. I think it will take a lifetime for me to figure that one out.
But I just want instant gratification and recognition instead. Yucky stuff.
In the end I am glad I am not the one in control.
One of the major personality type/temperament differences is that between the concrete (literal) communicators and the abstract (metaphorical) communicators. Of course we can all do both styles, but we also have a preference for one over the other. It seems to me that many US fundamentalist Christians have the concrete style of communication - not surprisingly, as this supposedly goes with 75% of the American population.
For what it’s worth, I also think that most people who claim they take Scripture literally don’t actually mean that literally! I wrote a post about this on one of my other blogs about six months ago, http://suesabstractions.blogspot.com/2005/08/literal-vs-metaphorical.html
(raised eyebrow) Vicious? I’m not sure how that follows. I did not say that believers who took a literal view of this or that were wrong in any particular claim.
Rather, I stated the fact that biblical inerrancy, historically speaking, is a heterodox view of scripture. And there is a real difference between a tendency to think and speak literally (a ‘communication style’ as some here have expressed it) and a doctrinal commitment to Biblical literalism. If you have evidence to the contrary to either of those claims, I invite you to submit them.
Further, I was not claiming that those who hold a literal view of scripture were evil, or that the actions of those who held that were generally evil. Rather, I spoke of how, when we encounter personal criticisms, we should overcome evil with good, turning the other cheek in recognition of the fact that some may be so invested in their way of thinking that they feel threatened by those who challenge their beliefs.
Nothing vicious about that, is there?