Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity

If you are a Christian, what do you believe? There are as many different answers to this as there are Christians. Personally, I've long felt that, to call yourself a Christian, all you really need to subscribe to are the Apostles' Creed and the Ten Commandments, and even certain points within those are open to debate. (Even such a straightforward commandment as, "Thou shalt not kill"; does that include soldiers during wartime? Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish think so, but most other denominations disagree.) But as Bruce Bawer warns us, there are always those who would try to dictate what all Christians should believe, and in America today such people--as represented by what Bawer calls "legalistic" Christians, of the ilk of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson--are in the ascendant. In "Stealing Jesus," a bracing and compulsively readable book, Bawer demonstrates that fundamentalist doctrines--which its adherents claim are traditional Christianity in its purest form--in fact were not formulated until the early 19th century, or codified until publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. The Scofield Reference Bible, for those unfamiliar with it, emphasizes and annotates those portions of Scripture that fundamentalists interpret as setting forth the coming of the End Times, the Rapture and specific prescriptions for personal salvation. Those passages stressing Christ's message of love, community and selfless service to others are pointedly ignored. As Bawer sees it, the spiritual war in America is one between the Church of Law, which stresses salvation for the few true believers and damnation for everyone else, and the Church of Love, which stresses the need to follow Christ's teachings and emulate His example. Bawer shows in convincing detail that through vicious political inflghting, the Church of Law has gained such ascendancy in the U.S. today that when the mass media refer to Christianity, they always mean fundamentalism. Even worse, the agenda of the fundamentalists often has little or nothing to do with faith, and often is shockingly racist, misogynistic and homophobic. "Stealing Jesus" sounds an important warning to those Christians who don't want the world to think Pat Robertson speaks for them. Even more, it challenges lukewarm and devout Christians alike to think about their faiths, clarify their own beliefs and stand up for them; it may also serve to show some secular humanists that it's possible to give your heart to Jesus without sacrificing your mind.As much as I admire this book, I disagree with Bawer on certain points. For example, he is comfortable with the suggestion that Jesus may not literally have been divine; here I have to agree with the fundamentalists that without the divinity of Christ, Christianity is nonsense. (This may explain why Bawer, an Episcopalian, never quotes in "Stealing Jesus" from C.S. Lewis, the most renowned Anglican writer of the 20th century; Lewis himself insisted that Jesus could only be either the Son of God or a liar and madman. Lewis, however, also didn't live to see the ascendancy of Robertson and Falwell, and would have been appalled at their flat denial of the worth of human logic, intellect, and imagination.) There are also times when Bawer lets his cultural prejudices show, as when he describes the congregation of an Atlanta fundamentalist church as "people brought up on TV and country music." (I happen to have three close friends who by night are country musicians; by day they are a computer systems designer, a librarian at the Environmental Protection Agency, and a producer at CBS News. They are all extremely well-read, and if anything would think that Bruce Bawer is soft on Pat Robertson.) Nevertheless, Bawer's main point is undeniable for anyone for whom the spirit of Christianity is more important than its letter. It is put best in Bawer's quote from Harry Emerson Fosdick, the great liberal theologian of the 1920s: Speaking about fundamentalists, Fosdick said, "They call God a person, and to hear them do it one would think that our psychological processes could naively be attributed to the Eternal. It is another matter altogether, understanding symbolic language, to call God personal when one means that up the roadway of goodness, truth and beauty, which outside personal experience have no significance, one must travel toward the truth about the Ultimate--"beyond the comprehension of the human mind." Of course, that is vague; no idea of the Eternal which is not vague can possibly approximate the Truth."

Certain books change your life. They create paradigm shifts, open new vistas of thought and/or resonate powerfully with some deep inner sense of truth and reality. 'The Road Less Travelled' was one such book when I was in my late teens. Later in my twenties and thirties it was Joseph Campbell's 'The Power of Myth' and the writings of Elaine Pagels and Marcus Borg. I now add Bawer's 'Stealing Jesus' to that list.He has a very strong point of view so this is not an "objective" book. But the title makes that clear from the get go. He uses lots of negative adjectives to describe what he calls The Church of Law (as opposed to The Church of Love) and the leaders who espouse its' views. He is an openly gay man and his experience within the Christian church as such definitely colors his writing.That said, this book is exceptionally well researched and informative. I also think he's just a darned good writer. I learned some amazing (and sometimes frightening) things about the history of Christianity, it's varied doctrines and the key individuals who developed those doctrines in the U.S. in the last several centuries. Bawer explores people and schools of thought within the Protestant denomination that I had never heard of in over 40 years of active involvement in and study of Protestant Christianity.I do not agree with every conclusion Mr. Bawer comes to. I'm sure we would have some lively "discussions" if we ever sat down to talk. Nonetheless, I honestly wish EVERYONE who calls themselves a Christian would read this book. Heck I wish everyone PERIOD would read this book. I simply cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone who is a seeker of knowledge about his or her faith or who wants to understand Fundamental Christianity and the vital choices facing "The Church" in the U.S. today.

This book gave me a great perspective on Christian fundamentalism in terms of what it is, why it is, and it's history in America. He brings the story to today, showing how fundamentalism came to be so influential, addressing the most important fundamentalist issues and it's most important leaders this century, right up to the present. The best chapter in the book is the one entitled "Who Is My Neighbor?". The author wonderfully develops the theme of "Church of Love" vs "Church of Law" (which is the fundamentalist church). My only qualm with this book is Bawer"s very evident anger at both fundamentalism and fundamentalists, which I understand. He almost seems to say there is no good fundamentalist who is good and loving, though he does half heartedly say so from time to time. In my view, if Christianity is all about love, as the author says, and with which I agree, then we are to love fundamentalists as well. That does not mean we have to love fundamentalism, but we are called to love all people, and this includes the people who are fundamentalists. The author blurs all this, in my view, thus I give 4 stars instead of 5. Neverthless, this is a great book, informative and enlightening. It deserves to be read by every person, especially every Christian, who is hungry for a new vision of what Christ was and is all about.

I've had this for almost 10 years and when a person in my book club requested it I decided to read it again. It's a good historical account of how, where, and when different theological doctrines within Christianity originated. It's academic, but written for the layperson, and I learned a lot from it. There were a few too many personal anecdotes, perhaps, but that's typical of well-researched books aimed at the non-academic, and I could relate to most of them, anyway.

Excellent

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. What Bawer does with that passage - suggesting it shows Paul as a pharisaical legalist - is nothing short of scandalous.