Bibliolatry

[Anxious Girl]

I noticed that most of these Christian fundies confuse Christianity with Bibliolatry aka bibliolater :

Quote

one having excessive reverence for the letter of the Bible

from Merriam-Webster's site. Most fundies confuse adhering to Christ and worshipping him to adherring to and worshipping the Bible. Particularly fundies like the Tool, the Duggars, Bates, Pearls' and others. They would rather ignore Jesus's teachings and listen to the fire and brimstone history of the OT. Why do you think this is? I personally think that they don't want to listen to the person they want to worship who tells them to obey their country's government, pray in private and give all their belongings to the poor. Rather, they want to tell others how to worship and believe exactly as they do. Thoughts?

[louisa05]

The Second Great Awakening had a number of less educated evangelists teaching that sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers means that all Christians can and should interpret the Bible for themselves. The movement was very against theological studies and responsible for the roots of fundamentalism in this country and the undercurrent of suspicion about education that persists in American evangelicalism.

[Gertie]

Could it be that a certain personality type is attracted to Bibliolatry? I.e. people who have a desire or need to follow a lot of rules, or maybe a strong need to know that they're "doing it right" which they would get by following a lot of rules? Or if your community follows a lot of rules, you get some kind of acceptance points by embracing them as well? I don't know anything about psychology or behavioural science, but I remember during my brief foray into being Very Religious, in certain situations (e.g. drinking alcohol or something), I would find myself wondering what my opinion on the subject was "supposed" to be.

[louisa05]

Could it be that a certain personality type is attracted to Bibliolatry? I.e. people who have a desire or need to follow a lot of rules, or maybe a strong need to know that they're "doing it right" which they would get by following a lot of rules? Or if your community follows a lot of rules, you get some kind of acceptance points by embracing them as well? I don't know anything about psychology or behavioural science, but I remember during my brief foray into being Very Religious, in certain situations (e.g. drinking alcohol or something), I would find myself wondering what my opinion on the subject was "supposed" to be.

I have long thought that it takes a certain kind of personality to embrace fundamentalism. An interesting piece of the puzzle is that there is a discussion among Evangelicals at least about how introverts don't seem to fit in the church. The emphasis on being part of the group, always being at church doing activities and being with people is certainly part of that. But I think that more introspective people have a difficult time with fundamentalism and legalism as a general rule and introverts are generally more introspective. My most extroverted friend thrives in the most legalistic Catholic parish I have ever heard of that is not Latin mass/rad trad and tells me that I need to "stop thinking so much" when I disagree with her or point out that the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two different things.

[Arete]

I agree, when talking about fundamentalism it isn't the literalism of the Bible per say that is needed, but a strict adherence to a set of rules. That is why there are Jewish fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, etc. I think what makes the Bible in particular such a focal point of near worship for Protestant fundamentalists is the belief that it is "unchanging". That is also the reason some of them are so batshit about the KJV being the only legitimate translation. Supposedly they have these words on a page and they can be copied exactly from now till Kingdom Come and if you memorize it you will know if someone tries to change a word here or there.

That is why an infallible book is so much better than an infallible church for Christian fundamentalists. The church as a body of believers can grow and change as more information and knowledge becomes available (think Vatican II). In other words, you can change the rules to reflect the times you live in. A book can only be changed with a new translation, and we already know these people don't think linguistics and translation theory exist.

One more thing. Never underestimate the need for certain people to want their thinking done for them. That is what fundamentalism in general, and Biblical inerrancy in particular, offer. It's already been figured out, you don't have to think about it or make a choice. Even better, you don't have to worry that maybe you will make the wrong choice. Not everyone enjoys freedom, sad to say.

[louisa05]

My exceedingly legalistic Catholic friend told me when I converted that the great thing about being Catholic is that "you don't have to figure anything out, the church will just tell you".

That is not the Catholicism she and I and our classmates were taught in Catholic school. But I think it is very demonstrative of what you say about people not wanting to think.

[RosyDaisy]

This is the kind of thing that finally made me leave the Church of Christ. I refused to accept "the church would tell me" ideology.

[Becoming_Me]

I have long thought that it takes a certain kind of personality to embrace fundamentalism. An interesting piece of the puzzle is that there is a discussion among Evangelicals at least about how introverts don't seem to fit in the church. The emphasis on being part of the group, always being at church doing activities and being with people is certainly part of that. But I think that more introspective people have a difficult time with fundamentalism and legalism as a general rule and introverts are generally more introspective. My most extroverted friend thrives in the most legalistic Catholic parish I have ever heard of that is not Latin mass/rad trad and tells me that I need to "stop thinking so much" when I disagree with her or point out that the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two different things.

You both bring up interesting points. I am introverted and I like to follow rules which made life as a fundy interesting. I tend to believe that introverts are at a disadvantage the way society as a whole functions, but it's even worse as a fundy. I always felt guilty for not going up to random strangers and "telling them about Jesus" like I was supposed to. All the books I read, all the speakers I heard condemned me as having a "fear of man" and not caring people or loving God enough. Looking back, it wasn't any of those things, it was just my personality coming through. Also, I was very introspective growing up and in my inner life I border on cynicism. I think things through my own way and in my own time and it takes a lot for me trust or believe anything.

But like I said I also like to fit in and follow rules, so I often followed rules I didn't believe in. But if you just obey and smile and have a "reason" for acting the way you do, no one is the wiser.

[louisa05]

I am not only introverted, but I don't naturally walk around smiling. In the fundy-lite interdenominational (and the latter word meant evangelical or charismatic--certainly not mainline Protestant or Catholic!) Christian school I taught at, I was constantly being confronted for the sin of not being bubbly. Women were expected to be smiley and giggly and outgoing all the time. And not being so was not "reflecting the love of Christ". Men didn't have to be that way, though. It was downright abusive to constantly be told that your very personality was a "sin".

I also can't find anything in the Bible that tells me that being bubbly is a "reflection of Christ".