One thing that often creates the largest divide between a fundamentalist and a non-fundamentalist Christian is how each respectively approaches the bible. The former, see the bible as an infallible book, written by God using men as passive conduits, superseding their humanness altogether, creating a perfect construct devoid of error or contradiction, mirroring the absolute perfection of God. The latter, see the book as an indispensable tool for faith and practice, but there is an understanding that men wrote scriptures about God, rather than God writing about Himself. There is the notion that the bible contains the word of God in numerous and variegated ways, but is not in its entirety, the word of God.
I can relate to the fundamentalist position. It was something that was taught to me from a very early age and an assumption that permeated my time as a fundamentalist pastor. I can remember vividly making statements that essentially equated the Bible with God, with virtually no distinction between the two. In retrospect, I now realize that what I was doing was essentially making an idol out the bible and elevating it to a position that it was never intended to be in.
Recently, I finished reading a book entitled, A Layman's Introduction to Religious Existentialism, by Eugene B. Borowitz. In the book, Borowitz introduces the reader to a number of famous religious thinkers, categorized as religious existentialist. Among them is the well known and prolific, Karl Barth. In the chapter dealing with Barth's existentialist thought, he addressed Barth's approach toward the Christian scriptures. The following is an excerpt from this description:
