How Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Are Codifying Uncertainty and Doubt

When I received Jesus Christ, I gave up my life.   I surrendered my ambitions, my time, and my possessions to the Lord.  I could have kept my life for myself, but I didn’t.   Like Paul, I counted everything loss.    I gave up any possibility of worldly success and popularity and even riches for this way I take.  Why?  I know how it ends.   I know.

I understand how men judge success.  I really do get what career choices are impressive to people.  I have a good knowledge of how one reaches worldly fame.  But no.  I fully comprehend the reproach and hatred and rejection that comes with biblical Christianity.  So why go the latter direction and avoid the former?  I know what real success is, I know what pleases God, and I know that worldly fame is worthless.

Again, I know.  I’m certain.  I’m sure.  When we read the Bible, we read faith and certainty.  The language of God’s Word smacks of full assurance.   Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:12, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded.”   Luke wrote so that those reading would have certainty (1:4):  “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”  Paul told Timothy that “we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.”  John wrote 1 John (5:13) “that ye may know that ye have eternal life.”  Not hope so.  Know so.

How can we say that we know something that we cannot see?  We know because God’s Word can be trusted.  “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).  Paul to Titus (1:2) wrote:  “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”   We can count on God’s promises, because God does not lie.  So we know.  He does not lie.  His Word is Truth (John 17:17).  It is knowledge we can count on, not knowledge falsely so-called.

More than I’ve ever seen, men do not have the certainty of which God’s Word speaks.  As it applies to faith and theology, many call this postmodernism, where skepticism and lack of objective truth prevails.  Belief takes a back seat to feelings.  Doubt reigns as authentic with certainty as closed and totalitarian.  Nuance abounds.  Dogmatism is not tolerated.

One would think that, of all things, Christianity would contradict postmodern philosophy.  Satan wants doubt.   He questions God.  He attacks truth.  Now Christianity cooperates with that plan and uses theology to explain, affirming the doubt that Satan and the world system spawns.  Most responsible, I believe, are evangelicalism and fundamentalism for codifying uncertainty and doubt.

We live in a day of assault on meaning.  We’re now arguing about the words and symbols that are used to communicate.  Few can be sure anymore.  Is that modest?  I don’t know.  Is that foul language?  Maybe.  Probably not.  I don’t know.  What’s the man’s role?  Maybe this.  Could be this.  I don’t know.  What’s male dress?  (laughter)  What we are sure about is how unsure we should be.  Being sure is not only impossible, but it’s mean.  It’s insulting.  It’s disunifying.  But I didn’t offend you?  But you did.  How?  Why?  You did.  So stop.  OK?  Alright.  There’s something to believe in.

You can see how masculinity disappears in such an environment.  Or whatever we once thought it was to be a man.  I don’t want to be dogmatic.  In the absence of manhood, we get the replacement manhood found in harsh, loud music, denim, shaved heads, two days of facial hair, salty speech, and man hugs.  And lots of “dude.” Dude this and dude that.  Like dude.

I’m saying that evangelicalism and fundamentalism have retreated to uncertainty and doubt, leaving everyone who wants certainty nowhere to go.  If you choose certainty, evangelicals and fundamentalists will mock you.  Evangelicals have been doing this for a long time.  Fundamentalists have gotten started a little more recently.

Alright, so what do I mean?  By the way, I’m contending that I can mean something.  I’ve got to do that for the sake of argument.  You might laugh, but that’s where we’re headed, if we’ve not already arrived, with no offense to those who think no one can arrive, but can only take the journey.  Where does this all break down?  It breaks down primarily in three ways that are major components now of evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

Number One Way Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Codify Uncertainty

I don’t want to give my point away with my divisional word.  Evangelicals and fundamentalists will stop reading because they think it is too funny.  At least, lol.  Evangelicals and fundamentalists gave away certainty when they transferred certainty from the text of the Bible they held in their hands, the apographa, and moved it to only the original manuscripts, the autographa.  At one time evangelicals, which were then also the fundamentalists—they were the same group—believed what God inspired, verbal-plenary, they possessed.  They believed God’s promise of preservation.  They believed that they had every Word of God in their possession by which they could live.

Now they don’t believe that.  They’ve explained it away.  So now we’re not sure anymore about what God’s Word is.  We’ve now got dozens and dozens of English translations, and people have waned in their confidence in Scripture, and ultimately in God.  God said He would preserve every Word, but they say, “No.”  Their position is not what Christians have believed through history.  God had promised, so they believed in what they called “providential preservation” of Scripture.  Now evangelicals and fundamentalists say we’ve got the “Word” (not the Words) and the “Message” (the particular Words don’t matter so much).  We’re supposed to be satisfied with that even if God promised to preserve every Word.

Since we can’t be sure about the Words of God, then we can’t be certain about the promises of God.  We lose seriousness and stability in Christianity.   The Bible is one part God’s Word and the other part human speculation, and a new edition of Scripture could come out any year.  I believe this is the most foundational of these three.  We’re basing the biggest decisions of our life on a book that is now wrought with uncertainty because only the original manuscripts were the very Words of God—so says evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

Number Two Way Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Codify Uncertainty

The new doctrine, which you won’t find in Scripture, that is now not only a doctrine but a major belief for evangelicals and fundamentalists, is that all believers unify only over “essential” doctrine.   They say we give liberty in the non-essentials.  And the essentials are an ever shrinking list and the non-essentials are a mounting, growing, gigantic list of doctrines.  Because we have liberty in the so-called non-essentials, it ‘essentially’ doesn’t matter what you belief and practice in those areas.  We’ll still have unity with you if you disagree only in the non-essentials.

Now if you disagree on the essentials, which, by the way, is a very amoebic, fluctuating list, then evangelicals supposedly can’t unify with you.  The dirty little secret is that evangelicals don’t separate even over the essentials.  They don’t separate–that’s only fundamentalists.  And mainly fundamentalists and sometimes conservative evangelicals constantly argue over what the essentials and non-essentials are.  They have stopped arguing over the very doctrine of essentials itself.  You’ve got to believe that we unify only over the essentials.  Why?  Well, there’s no way you could “separate over everything.”  You just can’t.  Why?  Cause that would be a lot of separation.  Nobody separates that much.  That’s just way too much separation.

This “essential”/”non-essential” doctrine has become a major doctrine in and of itself.  Of course, that allows for uncertainty.  You only have to be certain about the essentials.  Everything else is sort of up for grabs.  And if you are uncertain about a lot, that probably means that you get along with more people and you’re probably going to be liked more.  And being liked is, well, big in evangelicalism and fundamentalism.  Standing only on the “essentials” probably also makes you “gentle,” which has risen in importance as a trait to have.  And if you are still struggling along, attempting to get a grip on what Scripture says, not quite getting it, but really trying, you’re more intellectual and definitely more authentic.  And what this does is exalt uncertainty.

I’ve noticed evangelicals and fundamentalists scouring historic materials, looking for people who communicated this essential-non-essential doctrine, quoting anybody that gives a possible whiff of it, trying to establish its historicity.  And now it is preached quite a lot.  And the ones pushing it are saying that this is the way to “unity in the church.”  By doing so they redefine scriptural fellowship, church discipline, and many other doctrines.  Uncertainty can triumph in the environment of “only essentials.”

Number Three Way Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Codify Uncertainty

Evangelicals and fundamentalists teach a new uncertainty in the application of Scripture.  Historic applications of Scripture to culture are now doubtful.   The old standards are thrown out as Pharisaical and legalistic.  Because of this, there is very little that you can see or hear that differentiates Christians from the world.  This is doubt as it relates to the interpretation and application of the Bible.  If we don’t even know what the Words are, how could we expect to know what it means.  The latter seems far more elusive than the former.

At one time, we knew what male dress was.  Now we don’t.  We knew what modesty was.  Now we don’t.  We knew what fleshly lust and worldly lust were.  Now we don’t.  We know what worldliness was.  Now we don’t.  And even if we do, revert back to number two—it’s a non-essential.

All of these three combined result in a tremendous amount of disobedience to God, an extreme volume of unholiness, and a gigantic quantity of dishonoring the Lord.  And above all these, uncertainty abounds.  Because evangelicals and fundamentalist have codified uncertainty in these three ways, professing Christians are uncertain as to what Scripture is, what Scripture says, and how Scripture applies.  And even if they are, it doesn’t matter, because you need only be certain about the essentials, which they are actually uncertain about.

Three Imperatives for the New Man (Colossians 3:15-17)

If You’re Not Interested in This, You’re Already Disobeying This

The new man puts on new clothes with his new belt, but he’s not quite ready to walk out the door without these three commands that every new person needs to keep to act like the new man that he is.

First,  “let the peace of God rule in your hearts” (v. 15). Whatever decision we happen to have come up in our life, we don’t break the pact of peace that we have with God.  “Rule” is in essence ‘to make a decision for you.’  A president has to think about his relations with other countries when he makes decisions.  We have to think about our relations with God when we make our decisions.  The peace we have with God needs to be what makes our decisions for us.  The treaty we signed when we got saved has to rule our decision making process.  We chose not to be at war with God any more, so we continue to honor that compact.

This peace with God is the basis for our union with the church.  We all get along based on the same peace pact.  The body life of a church is a oneness with each other that we get from our oneness from God.  We don’t come together based on doing our own thing, but based on what will keep us aligned with God.

How does that command relate to being thankful?  When God’s way comes down the pike, we just keep thanking God for it.  We’re thankful for this new life that God has given us and we keep thanking God for it.  A lack of contentment, unthankfulness, will lead you to go searching for satisfaction outside of God and His people.  We keep thanking Him and that’s akin to letting peace with Him rule in our hearts.  We didn’t join His church to do our own thing, but to fit together with others who as well want to do what He wants, and are thankful for it.

Second, “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” (v. 16). That’s to say that God’s Word should control our lives.   We look at life through chapter and verse eyes.  Scripture has its home in a settled, complete way in us.  The parallel of this is in Ephesians 5:18 with “be filled with the Spirit.”  Being controlled by the Spirit and by the Word of God are the same thing.  The “sword of the Spirit is the Word of God” (Eph 6:17).   When God’s Word controls us, we will have the discernment to make right applications to all the various areas of our life, that is, “in all wisdom.”

When you are filled up with God’s Word, you can teach and admonish others one another in the body and then sing to the Lord in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.  You can truly help others and truly worship the Lord in song.  What people need to hear is the Word of God and what God wants to hear in praise is the Word of God.  Psalms are the Word of God.  Hymns and spiritual songs should also be Scriptural.

Since the direction of singing in the Bible is “to the Lord,” then what matters is whether God likes the singing.  The Words and the music both need to be scriptural, that is, in fitting with the taste of God, His nature and His standard.  We sing among each other as a church, but we sing to the Lord.

Third, “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 17). Everything that we do, both verbal and non-verbal, spoken and action, should be consistent with the Lord Jesus Christ.  What did Jesus do?  What would He have you to do?  Don’t have anything you do be something that Jesus wouldn’t do.  Honor Him in everything.

Since we’ve put on Christ, we want to make decisions that are at peace with Him, have His Words control us, and only do things that would be consistent with Who He is.

Thoughts about a Few Fine Points in These Verses

Verse 15 — “to the which also ye are called in one body”

I’m mainly wanting to think about what the “one body” is.  “Body” is not soteriological, but ecclesiological terminology.  “One” is not “one” as in “numeric one,” but “one in unity.”  A physical body is one.  A church is one.  The “one” is about “unity” very much like the “one mind” and the “one mouth” are about unity in Romans 15:6.  Colossians 3:15 is not telling us that there is one numeric body.  A body, a church, is one through aligning itself with God.  The church is where the believers at Corinth realized or experienced the true belief and practice that was peace with God.

We obey God in a church.  The church is where we find the oneness that God wants, expects, and requires for believers.  God’s peace is not ruling where false doctrine exists and wrong practice occurs.

The “ye” are the church members of the Colossian church to whom Paul was writing.  Notice that Paul excludes himself from that group here by saying “ye.” If this was thinking about some mystical body that one enters by faith alone, Paul would need to say “we” in order to include himself in that group.  He doesn’t say that.  He says “ye.”  Each believer allows peace to rule His life through a church.  A church is one because the church members submit to the will of God.

Verse 16 — “psalms . . . , singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord”

If a church is not singing the psalms (Psalm 1 through 150), could it be obeying this verse?  So a first fine point here is the singing of psalms.  That has been the norm in the history of the church.  Spurgeon’s hymnbook had a full psalter in the text.  His church sang all 150 psalms to various tunes according to the meter of the versification of that psalm.  I commend you to return to the singing of the psalms.  “You” is plural in v. 16, when Paul writes “in you richly.”  The Word of Christ is to dwell in the church, and it in part does so through the psalms.  I contend that a church disobeys Colossians 3:16 without implementing a psalter in worship.  Some do it out of ignorance, but having read this, that would no longer be the case.

I also want to emphasize that singing in Scripture is “to the Lord.”  God is the audience of worship.  We sing to Him.  That is the only direction of singing in the Bible.  For that reason, the music is not a matter of our taste, but God’s taste.  “What kind of music does God want to hear?” should be our question.  Instead, as influenced by the mainstreaming of Charismaticism into evangelicalism, by the labeling of and acceptance of the Jesus movement as a legitimate revival, and by the reception of the principles of the modern church growth movement, churches now use music that God does not tolerate.  The scriptural content of songs, like the versification of the text of the psalms, does not correspond with or harmonize with worldly, fleshly, ungodly tunes.   Most forms of music in the world are unacceptable to God.  By singing them to God, the people doing so manifest either a blatant self-gratification contradictory to scriptural worship or a woeful lack of discernment.