Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity [Hardcover]

Mr. Bawer's book thoughtfully examines the roots of christian fundamentalism as it has developed in the United States.

Like its Muslim counterparts elsewhere in the world, religious fundamentalism has no room for thought or questions: authority and orthodoxy are the watchwords. Watch out when such fundamentalist views are combined in an explosive mix with political power.

Separation of church and state, regardless of whether the christian coalition believes in it, has saved our country from the usual warfare associated with religious intolerance and our screeching toward theocracy. Mr. Bawer explores these issues as a christian. He uses the writings of the fundamentalists who have "stolen" Jesus as evidence; for their words, like Hitler's in Mein Kampf, were truthful expressions of intent. Let the difference be that the present-day fundamentalists who label, categorize and legislate their views of morality onto a mostly naive public are not as successful in their plans.

Mr. Bawer's book serves as a warning that fundamentalist views are irrational, unscriptural, and reminiscent of cults: Jesus would have had to have been a rich Republican. The Christ who walked the earth about 2000 years ago would not be welcome in any fundamentalist church today: he was not rich, he challenged the "conservative" Roman government of the day, he criticized the orthodox Jewish religious leaders (the harshest words of Jesus were ALWAYS reserved for the religious leaders: "brood of vipers", "hypocrites", etc.) and he espoused socialist ideas. All of this is anathema to the religious right of our day.

Christ told the woman caught in the very act of adultery that He would not judge her and told her "to go and sin no more"; our politico-religious leaders advocate prison sentences for adultery, among any other personal choices you can think of with which they disagree. Mr. Bawer juxtaposes their views with those stated by Jesus in words or in action.

Natura! lly some who rate the book poorly haven't actually read all of it (and admit it themselves); this is typical of the fundamentalist mindset Mr. Bawer describes: "if a view deviates from what our leaders tell us, we must not question our leaders (preacher, husband, televangelist) we must refuse to hear more of the deviant view; above all, we must not learn more along the lines of such views lest we contaminate our pure beliefs".

"Know the truth and the truth will set you free" sometimes the truth is not as clearcut or as easy as the fundamentalist worldview would have one believe. Mr. Bawer's book certainly presents some truths to be considered carefully.

I read this book to help me find answers to my questions about strict Church guidelines. My questions were answered with this book. This book is wonderful in showing how the inerrancy of the Bible is ridiculous and how "traditional" practices of the Church are not traditional at all. Jesus would actually be considered a heretic to these Churches. The Southern Baptists and other "Christians" have used the name of Jesus to preach hate. Jesus was a teacher of unity and love, whereas the fundamentalist Churches of today teach separation, hate, and fear. These cannot be farther from the truth of what Jesus wanted to teach. The differences between the "Church of Love" and the "Church of Law" are striking. Hopefully, more people will read this book and come away with the same message as I did.

Stealing Jesus was a hugely wasted opportunity in my opinion. I bought the book because of (a) a recommendation, and (b) because it purports to show how fundamentalism is not the historical faith it claims to be. What I was hoping for was lots of discussion of the historical context that led to the distinctive American fundamentalist theology that we see today (and that is largely at odds with historical Christianity). To some extent this ground was covered in the chapters on Darby and the Scofield reference Bible. Even here though, this was not the best treatment I have seen on the subject. Martin Lloyd Jones, in the book "Prove all Things" [published 1985 but based on sermons he delivered in the 1950s], covers this same ground but also uncovers the development of the doctrine of the Secret Rapture from the Irvingite movement. Bawer's account suggests that the doctrine is Darby's invention entirely, which is wrong. Bawer's suggestion that evangelicals are unaware of this development is also belied by the fact that Lloyd Jones and others have been making these same points for decades.

But Bawer's ignorance of the evangelical tradition that opposes dispensational premillennialism also shows another major deficiency of this work. Bawer's work is a classic case of over-reach. The book title suggests he is speaking about fundamentalism, but his polemic is delivered against not just fundamentalism but also conservative evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism and indeed any section of the church that seems to hold to any credal statement. For this reason I was mystefied as to what the book intends to do.

To be clear, the book argues that much modern doctrine in the non liberal wing of the church is not historical Christianity. Inasmuch as the example of dispensationalism is presented, the case is well made - but to what end? Because we are invited at the end of the book to abandon any belief that suffers the "legalism" of orthodoxy for a faith that revolves entirely around a love for God and for one another (as Christ commanded of course). This he argues is found only in the liberal churches. But inasmuch as the book points out a lack of historical orthodoxy in modern fundamentalism, it returns in spades to his brand of Christianity which, in the course of this book, denies the doctrine of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles, much of Paul's thought, the place of the Old Testament, the authenticity of Ephesians and so much more. Without a doubt there is nothing historical about Bawer's conception of Christianity either.

Bawer succumbs to the common problem of harking back to a golden age. He writes approvingly of the historical Baptists who stressed tolerance, and of St Francis of Assissi as genuine examples of what Christianity ought to be. But he is wrong if he thinks either of these examples would recognise his brand of Christianity as the historical faith.

To what extent does that matter? Some will argue that if Bawer's Christianity is the better way then it is just a lamentable reflection on Church history that it took 2000 years to develop, when the Jesus of love is so clearly seen in the gospels. But what gospels? When Bawer discusses Matthew 23 he makes it clear that he feels that this is Matthew's later addition and not the authentic Jesus. He has already jetisoned the physical resurrection. How do we know that Bawer's conception of Jesus is the authentic one?

Marcion - the second century theological dualist - did something like what Bawer is doing. He started with a conception of God and then adjusted his Bible to match. The rejoinder was "Marcion reads scripture with a knife". Bawer does the same. We are fond of saying "what would Jesus do", but the problem is that the answer to that question is largely informed by our own preconceptions of Jesus. Bawer claims he is a Christian because he has fallen in love with Jesus and his teachings - but it really is not clear that what he considers to be Jesus and his teachings is the historical Jesus and his teachings. As such, this book is fundamentally flawed.

The book is fundamentally flawed also for its over-reach (as I said above). Bawer does something at the start of his book that is quite illegitimate. He writes:

*

`But it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated , conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer. If the conservative Christians emphasize the Great Commission - the resurrected Christ's injunction, at the end of the Gospe; according to Matthew, to "go to all nations and make them my disciples" - liberal Christians place more emphasis on the Great Commandment, which in Luke's Gospel reads as follows: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself."

`Am I suggesting that conservative Christians are without love or the liberal Christians are lawless? No. I merely make the distinction: Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of the theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as saviour, and (except in the case of the extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelising, he or she evades God's wrath and wins salvation (for Roman catholics, good works also count); liberal Christianity, meanwhile, tends to identify Christianity with the experience of God's abundant love and with the commandment to love God and one's neighbour. If, for conservative Christians, outreach generally means zealous proselytising of the "unsaved," for liberal Christians it tends to mean social programmes directed at those in need.'

This phrase: "conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love" is wrong in the way that the phrase: "Librarians are old harridans with horn rimmed spectacles and two piece suits" is wrong. We know its wrong because we can find plenty of exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless we have a wry smile because we at least recognise the stereotype.

But having created a stereotype, and having then argued that he is "merely making a distinction" he goes and casts his net wide and suggests that the out-group that will be the focus of his polemic will be henceforth called the legalists, and that this shall include all non liberal forms of Christianity. He misunderstands conservative Christian thought in his generalisation above though when he suggests that for all conservative Christians, salvation is by adherence to a set of propositions about the afterlife, and through evangelism as a work (and for Catholics other good works too). This completely misunderstands the central Protestant tenet of justification by grace through faith. The Protestant position is summed up by Paul's words in Romans:

`That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' (Romans 10:9)

Interestingly Bawer suggests the original formulation of the doctrine (the one that he approves of) was just the profession that Jesus is Lord. He handily forgets: "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead". He does not explain why he omits the latter. In fact generally his work is lamentably short of footnotes that might serve to explain his many leaps of logic that leave one scratching one's head.

But in any case, insamuch as conservative protestants believe that we are justified by grace through faith alone, Bawer's argument that these people should be called legalists entirely misses its mark. He is wrong to say that the belief of protestants is that the doctrines of the afterlife must be subscribed to, because it is quite clear that adherents to the doctrine of justification by faith agree with Hooker that one need not know they are justified by faith to be justified by faith.

Bawer does not like Paul. He has a go at Paul "the lawyer" when he writes:

*

` Other propositions from the books traditionally ascribed to Paul, however, foreshadow the Church of Law. Indeed, some of the following passages are among the most quoted and preached upon by legalistic ministers:

` "Should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel other than the gospel I preached to you, let them be banned! (Gal 1:8-9)'

*

My eyes went wide when I read this. Firstly because Bawer has changed his translation to suit here. I cannot find a translation that says "banned" (something the Christians must do). Rather the word here means something like "accursed", although is rendered as "judged by God", "eternally condemned" etc. in various translations. Bawer reads this through the eyes of a post Theodosius anaethema I think, but Paul is saying that it is God who condemns the other gospel of the Galatian error - not the church.

But what really made me sit up at this point is that the whole point of Paul writing to the Galatians is to argue that salvation is God's gift of grace and nothing to do with legalism. It is not works done in our own righteousness - it is God's gift. As such, this is the most antinomian book in the whole Bible. Galatians is the epistle of grace as opposed to law. This is not Paul the pharisee speaking. This is Paul the apostle telling us that we are under a covenant of grace. Read more ›