The Capital “F”

This week I was again confronted with the capital “F,” this time in regard to the mudslinging re: the fact that Chad Allen, the actor who plays Nate Saint in the movie “End of the Spear” is gay. As usual, the criticism was raised in the public arena before ever approaching the brothers in Christ who are involved to find out what was going on. The crystal clear Biblical principal from Matthew 18 was violated once again. My capital “F” rant started boiling inside my head once again and I woke up a few mornings ago with the overwhelming need to purge. So, here goes.

I am a fundamentalist. That is, a fundamentalist with a lower case “f.” The “little f” version of fundamentalist refers to me and to most evangelicals. Another flavor of Fundamentalist has a capital “F.” We are remarkably different in the way our faith plays out in our lives. The fact is that our theology (what one understands of God and what one believes to be true about Him) is virtually the same on every actual fundamental point of doctrine (ie: makes a difference to one’s eternal destiny). In the five years I spent at Bob Jones University earning two degrees, I recited the following creed at every chapel along with all present. I believed every word of it then and I do so to this day:

“I believe in the inspiration of the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments); the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.”

All of us, lower case “f’s” and capital “F’s,” believe the Bible to be true, the final authority over all of life, and base our belief system on this starting point. The capital “F” Fundamentalists, however, add one synthesized doctrine they call the doctrine of separation. It is based on a peculiar interpretation of a few proof texts. They seem to camp on this “doctrine.” It has become my belief that the reason for this is that it is the one thing that defines them. It is the only thing that differentiates them from evangelicals against whom they fairly seethe.

The proof texts are these:

“come out from among them and be ye separate… touch not the unclean thing” II Cor. 6:17

“Ye are a… peculiar people” Titus 2:14, I Peter 2:9

I am not a theologian or Bible scholar, but my study of the context of these scriptures has led me to the opinion that they have been stretched to cover the position of the capital “F.” I won’t go into all of that at this juncture, but I will say this: The problem with clinging to a proof text is that it can help a person maintain a position he or she is positive is based on scripture, but one that flies in the face of the thrust and scope of the overall record we have of the person of Jesus Christ.

I have some impressions from living in the midst of the Fundamentalist movement, in the very “Fortress of Faith” within the literal fence and gates of Bob Jones University. These are based on how things were in the late ‘70s. It may have changed some since then, but from what I hear coming from that direction from time to time, it seems not much. We were told as students, “Come and talk to us if you have any issues.” But the unspoken subtext was, “we’ll get you right with God and then you will agree with us.”

The first thing is the most indicting of the movement. I call it the white glove attitude. Of course, there are exceptions and there are some wonderful, truly godly people in this group, but most seem to live their lives with this white glove mentality. What is it? I would rather you go to hell than risk getting myself soiled by you. But not Jesus! Everything we know of Him tells us just the opposite!

My observation of Fundamentalists is that one’s associations are all-important. One is okay or not okay by one’s associations. The content of one’s life is also stated to be important, but in practice it is infinitely less so than one’s associations. The watershed is relationship, not reality, appearance, not content of heart. Guilt is by association. The predicating idea is that if I associate with you, then I must agree with you. If I am seen with you, “people will think” that I endorse you. Why this assumption? I haven’t been able to figure it out. It seems like a mental pathology. No other group of people I can think of thinks this way.

Jesus associated with people of ill repute, the absolute worst of the worst, not just on one proof-text occasion, but time after time. (I have learned enough about Biblical interpretation to know that when something is repeated, one should pay attention.) Jesus was soundly criticized by the religious establishment for it. He even made his own disciples uncomfortable. I have heard Fundamentalists respond to this by saying, “Yes, but you’re not Jesus!” Jesus says He lives in me. He tells me to go. I am to show them Jesus in me. Yes, it’s a risk. Yes, I am tempted. Yes, I could fall. But the only argument to leave that poor soul to die is one that says I am more valuable than that person. God have mercy on anyone who ends up before the Great White Throne trying to explain that one.

Another observation I made is that the capital “F” is full of internal inconsistency. One may “take a stand” (a phrase that is part of the essential lexicon) about a gay actor playing a part in a movie, but what if your Chevy was built by a gay man? Closer to home, what if a pagan published your KJV Bible? (Which is almost certainly the case.) Does that make these items untouchable? No good? Somewhere the principal of breaking association breaks down. If association is the main issue, then one must completely withdraw from society. Some have tried this but the Amish still connect with society selling us their fine Amana Radar ranges and refrigerators that they won’t use themselves. The point is that it is virtually impossible to be completely consistent with the separation/association principal.

Some have said that it would be okay for a gay actor to play a minor role or operate a camera, just not play a major part. If that is the position, then it’s not a matter of principal, but a matter of comfort – guilt by association once again; as long as it’s far enough away from me, I’m okay with it.

I also noticed that appearance and conformity is very important to these folks. But the veneer often peels back revealing a peek of something entirely different underneath. As long as things look and sound the right way, though, what is underneath is seldom questioned. It’s pretty easy to play the game and fit in. I noticed that it can become quite fertile ground for leading a double life. Ironically it seems to attract gay people. When I was a student there were at least two gay guys on the staff of BJU and a number of students I knew of. Of course, when one was eventually found out, he would be gone overnight. The surface of the ocean closed over him and it was as if he had never existed – no discussion, no information, certainly no reconciliation or redemption. The human refuse had been disposed of nice and tidy-like.

Association is the major issue, not only against but also for – the association is all-important. As a student, I was in attendance at a Bob Jones University chapel when Bob Jones, Jr. called Betty Ford, then the first lady of the United States, a slut. This was recorded and broadcast on the university’s radio station. In those days he said all kinds of ridiculous and grossly un-Christ like things from that platform, constantly attacking other Christian leaders, some of whom I happened to know personally so knew first hand that what he said was at best ignorance or at worst lies, but nobody ever called him on it. The association was more important than the content of the man’s words. We are for this guy, he represents our movement, so we will never speak against him even if he violates what we all agree we believe in.

But, hey, it’s hard to go to someone one-on-one and confront them. I mentioned the Matthew 18 principal above. This clearly spelled out, progressive method of dealing with an offense or a fellow believer in sin starts with dealing privately with the person. If that doesn’t work, go back with another person. When all else fails, then you bring the issue publicly before the church with multiple witnesses. Never does the method involve trying a brother in the secular, public square. Unfortunately, this scripture is not taught or modeled at BJU. Students are commanded to turn in others they see in violation of rules or hear saying something disloyal to the institution directly to the administration. The Fundamentalists learn well as the first knee jerk to whatever is bothering them is vitriol from pulpit, magazine, airwave, or blog. In the case of the Chad Allen controversy, Mart Green, executive producer of “End of the Spear,” a wonderful, godly, and ironically, extremely conservative Christian man, got an email from Jason Janz on Wednesday of last week. I happened to talk to Mart right after he had received it. It was the first contact he had received and came after this man had been trashing him publicly on his “SharperIron” blog for weeks. So much for Matthew 18.

This sounds harsh, but I have come to believe that this system is a lazy man’s method of faith and practice. You get your ticket punched at the right stations and you’re in the club. Enjoy the ride. There is no struggling, no grey, no wasted effort, no love loss for those who aren’t in your camp, no need to wrestle with a friend with whom one does not agree. If they don’t agree, they’re not your friend.

Last year, because of a family situation, I was compelled to attend the funeral of someone who had died of aids. I had to travel to get there and my wife and I ended up staying in the home of a lesbian couple. Now, never in action, but in my heart at one time I was a gay basher. I do not compromise my belief that homosexuality is a sin one bit. But those two women became true friends. They were far more gracious and generous to us than many Christians we have known. We developed a warm relationship with them and true friendship. Did they know where we stood on right and wrong? Yes. Was there a tension? Yes. My heart grieved over the sin at the same time I was moved with compassion and affection for these beautiful human beings. Talk about troubling one’s soul over the welfare of the lost. Jesus wept over Jerusalem “that killed the prophets.” It’s not fun to struggle this way. It’s not easy to get one’s head around hating the sin and loving the sinner and even harder to actually do it with real people. I submit that the “F” doesn’t do this very well. If at all. And, by the way, would I hire the one of our lesbian friends to do some of the uniquely creative work her company does if I had the need? Absolutely, without any hesitation. It would be the right thing to do; an opportunity for her to see Jesus when she may never have another.

For those struggling with the Chad Allen controversy, I urge you to go to Chad’s website and read what he has to say about Steve Saint. Then consider this: Will Chad ever turn from his sinful lifestyle and accept Jesus as his Savior? I don’t know. But if he does, it will be hugely influenced by the way he was treated, respected, and loved by Steve, Mart, and the others he worked for exercising his craft as an actor. If the capital “F” would have had its way, the influence would have been pure condemnation and grease on the tracks leading to hell.

Life is not completely black and white. As much as all of us who believe the Bible is true want to base our lives on its precepts, not everything in life is specifically addressed. We must infer principals and take the overall thrust of God’s message to us to gain guidance in areas that appear grey. I’m not referring to the clear sin of homosexuality. I’m talking about dealing with precious souls that Jesus gave his life for. God has left us with the need to think and wrestle with ideas and grapple with the tension of paradox. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come, let us reason together says the Lord…” I used to joke about it, but it’s not funny: this page must be torn from the Fundamentalist Bible.

A footnote:

A few years ago, in a BJU publication, then President Bob Jones III forsook the name “Fundamentalist” stating it had been co-opted by the popular press to refer to radical Islam. The new term he chose was “Preservationist.” I came close to writing a letter to him commending him for changing to a name with an accurate meaning. The system seems to teach that old things are holier than new things as age has a sanctifying affect on things like hair and clothing styles and music. But it didn’t seem to be a constructive thing to do so I never did.

Tags: Fundamentalist, End of the Spear, Steve Saint, Chad Allen