Phariseeism is a symptom of hubris. As I define it here (I reserve the right to define my own terms and use them as I see fit. A necessary correlary of this practice is the clear definition of the terms before I use them), Phariseeism is the art and science of making fine distinctions which enable the initiated to work around "rules." These rules, though, apply to everyone else. The rules may be clearly and often quite elaborate. In fact, the elaborateness of the rules plays into the hands of those who define the rules and set the parameters of the application of the rules -- and those who manipulate the rules. It was pride that made the Pharisees so dangerous. It wasn't their exceptional understanding of the law that made them dangerous. It wasn't their superior education nor their memorization of the scripture. It wasn't their position of influence on the society that made them dangerous. It was their pride. Their pride made them dangerous to genuine spiritual relationship to the God-Man that walked among them and displayed to them the very essence of the Father (John 14:9-11) whom they claimed to represent.
OK. So any New Testament believer with a simple understanding ofthe the Pharisees and their practices knows all about this. The Pharisees were the master practitioners of legalism. That's Bible 101. Why am I writing about it? In answer to that question, I wish to point in two directions: the title of this article, "Fundamentalism Breeds Phariseeism" and my own personal background.
First, my personal background. I think the reason I am attempting to reason out much of the Fundagelical/Evangelical problem in this atmosphere is because I lived through it. I remember when evangelism really was the central mission of the SBC church of my youth. I remember when the politics of the times were left for each Christian and church member to interpet for him or herself. I remember hearing these words from my pastor in the mid to late 1970s (I can't tell date nor context, but I can say with all honestly that I know this is an exact quote), "I could be involved in the fight against abortion, but I'm too busy trying to reach people with the gospel. Evangelism is more important!" I can then remember -- and lived through the intervening years -- when that one issue had supplanted all others (it was a slow evolution) and one's Christianity was evaluated by how much disdain one had for a political candidate that proposed even a compromise on when an exception to abortion could be made (never minding that those exceptions made up only 4-6% of the general abortions cases so compromising on something easy to agree upon only fueled the controversy more). As this change came over the church in which I grew up, reports from annual meetings of the SBc were brought back to the church and the spiritual condition of the whole convention was dependent upon how strong the resolution against abortion was worded and by what percentage of the vote it passed. Evangelism was still mentioned and talked about and promoted as the "main thing." During this time or shortly after, the annual meeting began to have big crossover events to turn the big meeting into pretend evangelism events (Perhaps those actually happened earlier, but I was young and don't remember them. Actually my first memory of these was in the mid to late 80s -- well into the conservative resurgence). I also remember how church was changing. It became much more anti-societal. Illustrations of how bad society was becoming were punctuated by calls for prayer in school to be once again the law of the land. The "world" changed from being our mission field to being something from which we were to strictly separate. Today that extreme has moved to such an extreme that "real" Christians don't send their children to public schools (or at least have an exit strategy for the day its needed) according to resolutions on the convention floor.
I remember when the youth of the church spoke about peace and McGovern (I was much younger, but as a child watching the youth, I was an observer and a listener) and many of the loving adults pointed out the idealism of the time wouldn't win the election. While McGovern really never had a prayer of winning, what is different today is I don't think those youth would even be welcome in my childhood church today! If they dared come and if they dared speak of a candidate like McGovern, they would not return, and the adults who responded would not hear the students and would not respond with love. Of course this is pure speculation, but my impressions are nonetheless accurate as I see it.
I remember when Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist and his honesty and integrity wer some things that made many SBCers were proud -- those that voted for him and those who did not. Even when they grew to be weary of his inept presidency (whether it really was ineptitude, bad luck or just the "times," I will not try to conclude in this context), SBC people remained proud of his integrity. Some few years later, Reagan -- who brought an astrologer into the white house -- was evidence of positive spiritual movement within the country. Any day now, as long as Christians continued to vote for the candidate God wanted them to vote for, abortion would be illegal in these United States.
Today Carter is denegrated by the SBC prophets Rush and Hannity as practicallhy the brother of Satan (ok, I exagerate a little; Rush and Hannity have not quite yet achieved prophetic status). The point is that there was a time when a Christian could disagree on politics without having to demonize a man of faith. Even when Reagan's revolution swept Carter out of power, I remember when Judge Pressler came to speak in our church and the implication was that if the SBC could restore seminary professors to our schools who just believed the world of God, then God would heal our land and we would see prayer in schools, abortion made illegal, and the nation would begin to elect presidents who would appoint supreme court justices who would restore this land to it's God-ordained purpose. It was almost a postmillenialists dream of restoring the kingdom on earth through Christian zeal -- except that this church was premillenial and Dispensational (just what the Bible clearly says about the future once you have Hal Lindsey [and a little later on Tim LaHaye] to tell you how clearly the Bible says it).
One more, I remember when as a Southern Baptist Church, the church first took the risk of renting the film of a Nazarene psychogist to show on a series of Sunday nights because he actually spoke to family issues of the day. But, as the psychologist moved from family values to political control, the church that I grew up in began to shrink in influcence as it followed suit. Today that church is a mere shadow of the church that I knew as a child.
As I began, I indicated I would talk in two parts: my personal background and the title of this essay -- how fundamentalism breeds phariseeism. I will have to add the reason for that title in another post. I have written further about my growing up during the change in the character and spirit of the SBC (here). I make no separation of myself from this characterization. As a young and idealistic pastor I remember saying that I couldn't see how a Christian could vote for Bill Clinton (thank God I didn't say that from the pulpit or even in church). Later, I was scandalized when Tony Campolo was one of his spiritual advisors to restore him after the Monica-Gate scandal. I don't know what I really expected, doesn't the Bible teach forgiveness? (unless that sinner is a former SBC member and a democrate who is guilty of a sexual sin). I can feel the sarcasm oozing as I type, but I still feel this post characterizes the change in the denomination that once taught me how God loved every sinner.
