What We're Reading
- God and Race in American Politics: A Short History
by Mark A. Noll - It Happened in Italy: Untold Stories of How the People of Italy Defied the Horrors of the Holocaust
by Elizabeth Bettina - Tradition: Concept and Claim
by Josef Pieper
Our Blogroll
« Six Wrong Things You Thought When You Heard Galileo's Name This Week | Main | Man with the Golden Mouth »
Six Things I Learned While Writing about Contemporary Fundamentalism
Including why a movement planted in the North came to full flower in the South and the reasons real fundamentalists called Jerry Falwell "pseudo."
A few months back I wrote the chapter-length essay “Fundamentalism: Contemporary” for the forthcoming Encyclopedia of American Religion, edited by Charles Lippy and Peter Williams (CQ Press). And six things about the American Protestant fundamentalism of the past few decades jumped out at me with new clarity. I wonder, as I note them in this blog entry, whether everyone else knew these things but me, or whether some of this will come as “new information” to the readers of Lippy and Williams’s encyclopedia.
Here they are:
1. In the 1970s, fundamentalism transformed itself from a theologically focused movement engaged in a heated church battle within several Protestant denominations, to a culturally focused movement engaged in a heated battle with the “forces of secularism” in America:
By the 1970s, the forces of godlessness seemed to have rooted themselves within America itself—attacking American children in their schools, American families in their cohesion and sexual identity, and American institutions in their moral moorings.
The result was ...
a new sort of fundamentalism—one in which the cultural battle now eclipsed the theological battle both as motivator and as engine of growth. The old theological commitments were still present. Now, however, the crusade was not primarily denominational and theological but cultural and political, not about how to read the Bible or understand the end times, but how to vote and act on abortion, feminism, homosexuality, school prayer, and a host of related issues.
2. In a sense, it was the Roman Catholics who led the charge of the fundamentalist brigade into the cultural arena. The issue at stake was abortion:
Abortion had long been treated as an excommunicable sin in Roman Catholic canon law, but in 1968 Pope Paul VI (1897 -1978) explicitly reaffirmed this stance in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. Then Roe v. Wade triggered a massive wave of Roman Catholic anti-abortion activism. Countless politically active right-to-life organizations were founded without official Roman Catholic ties, but staffed by Roman Catholic laypeople. To make progress in the cultural battle, the fundamentalists had to swallow centuries of confessional pride and join with Catholics.
3. Without apparent awareness of the contradiction, fundamentalists now held at one and the same time both a view that the world would only get worse until the (imminent) end times, and a strong commitment to making that world better through political activism:
From the 1970s on, says historian George Marsden in Fundamentalism and American Culture, revised edition, 2006, ‘sermons and fund-raising appeals described in lurid terms how America was under judgment. . . . Yet the United States at the very same time also remained a moral beacon for the ideals of freedom and best hope for defending righteousness against the powers of darkness.’ America was now, oddly but compellingly, ‘simultaneously Babylon and God’s chosen nation.’
4. In the early 80s, when Jerry Falwell led the fundamentalist movement into this new cultural engagement, he found he needed to make common cause not only with Roman Catholics, but also with Mormons, Jews, and other groups concerned with American moral decline. Result? He was blacklisted by fellow fundamentalists:
Dr. George Dollar (author of the insider History of Fundamentalism and former dean of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota) spoke for these when he derided Falwell as a ‘pseudo-fundamentalist’ for his coalition-building connections with non-fundamentalists.
5. Fundamentalism was born in the North, in the 1920s, but it came of age in the South, in the 1970s:
It took longer for pluralism and secularization to hit the South hard. Despite the controversy that the famous Scopes Trial of 1925 brought to Tennessee, well into the 1960s Southerners could still think of their region as a "Zion," dedicated to Christian conservative values. But in the 1960s and 1970s, the larger national changes began to be felt even in Zion—and by the end of the 1970s, Southerners were united in feeling that their heartland was in danger of becoming instead a "Babylon," infected with the secularizing trends of modern culture. So when America began to organize against these trends, Southerners led the charge. Disturbed from their separate slumber by the divisive campaign for civil rights, second-wave feminist and gay activism, and signs of secularization, the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Robison (b. 1943) now became national leaders in the fundamentalist political reaction.
6. Despite the obvious political identity and the obsession with issues of public and private morality since the 1970s, the heart and soul of fundamentalism is still found in such distinctively religious concerns as the “born-again” experience of conversion and the disciplines of a holy life:
Evangelical seminary president Richard Mouw (Fuller Seminary, Pasadena, California) grew up fundamentalist, and although he is critical of such fundamentalist theological commitments as dispensational premillennialism, he singles out a number of "spiritual merits" that have resulted from that commitment: good preaching on the Old Testament; preaching about a Savior who loves Gentile and Jew alike; and loving action in such ministries as inner-city rescue missions. In short, says Mouw (in The Smell of Sawdust, Zondervan, 2000), dispensationalism "embodied a spirituality that produced some of the most Christlike human beings I have ever known.”
What do you readers of this blog think? Do these insights ring true with what you already knew? Or are they “little-known facts”? I’ll be interested to hear from you.
recent posts
Archives
March 2010February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Comments
I'd be interested to know know who you consider contemporary fundamentalist leaders, Chris. Your blog post shows someone who has been dead for a couple of years, and you mention Pat Robertson (nearly 80 years old now, I think) and James Robison (about the same age). James Dobson? I believe he is semi-retired. Who are the young (or middle-aged) fundamentalist leaders today?
I'm asking partly because one of the churches I visited in my year of church visiting was Bible Presbyterian Church, the church in which Francis Schaeffer was ordained, which is in some ways an epicenter of fundamentalism (http://strangereverysunday.blogspot.com/2009/06/be-ye-separate-part-1.html). It looks very much as though it is struggling to stay in business. Is that typical of contemporary fundamentalism? Or do you think it is today a major influence in American religion or politics?
Looking at this from another angle, your point 6 seems very different from points 1-5. Do you think that the point 6 indicates some tenets of fundamentalism that might provide "common ground" for bridging differences with other Christian viewpoints?
Posted By: Emilie Babcox | September 3, 2009 7:47 PM
No mention of Lahaye's LEFT BEHIND? Even Lahaye has made significant changes in his ecclesiology-- he appeared with
a noted controversial Charismatic healer on TV to promote LEFT BEHIND, that would never have occurred in the 1970's when Lahaye was pastoring on the W.Coast. So, aspects of fundamentalism has CHANGED!! I've been part of it for the last 40 yrs as church member, student, pastor and simple observer.
Posted By: Dave McPherson | September 5, 2009 10:06 AM
Emilie, great question. There are still (I am told) large and thriving fundamentalist churches. There is also still a vibrant fundamentalist blogosphere and an active network of fundamentalist radio stations. I just don't move in that circle, nor has it been a research focus for me. I do, as a historian, specialize in "dead people," so I'm not the one to comment on fundamentalism's _current_ health or future prospects.
Dave: I did mention _Left Behind_ in the larger encyclopedia article. The partnering with the charismatic healer is really interesting. Fundamentalists and Pentecostals were certainly bitter enemies from the start. But as I say, the shape of "contemporary" fundamentalism has been more the barrier-crossing kind.
And that gets back to Emilie's point: it seems the other, older, separatistic fundamentalism (Bob Jones, etc., and perhaps the Bible Presbyterianism you encountered) is indeed dwindling. It's the new, socially active kind that is thriving and continuing to impact the American political and social scene, I think--so, more Rush Limbaugh than Bible Presbyterianism.
One apparently active area of what might be called fundamentalism is reflected in the handful of active "cult-busting" and "heresy-hunting" websites; for example those that are happy to lump Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and other folks together, assuring us that their spirituality will lead us straight to hell.
I'm thinking here, for example, of the site calling itself "lighthouse trails." This site seems to reflect old-fashioned fundamentalist theological separatism: anything that could taint or call into question a presumedly orthodox theological system is to be avoided. I would be hesitant to judge the size or influence of such groups by the loudness of their internet or radio bark, however.
As a side note, I sit on an evangelical-RC dialogue here in St. Paul (sponsored by the Catholic Bishops), and one of the members is a Bible Presbyterian. THAT wouldn't have happened in the 1920s!
A name I've heard in discussions about "young fundamentalist leaders" is Mark Driscoll, but I don't really know much about him. I've attended John Piper's church here in the Twin Cities a few times, and it seems to me that he bears resemblance to the old-school theologically focused fundamentalists--especially when he gets to preaching about God's wrath. He has assumed that sort of self-appointed "doctrinal watchdog" identity that I associate with the sorts of websites I mention above and with the old-school fundamentalism of the 20s-50s. But in other respects he's probably not a fundamentalist.
The larger article in the Lippy/Williams encyclopedia also deals with this question of definition: if these post-70s socially activist people are fundamentalist, then is ANYONE with an orthodox religious belief and a desire to change society a fundamentalist? Something like that was the argument of Martin Marty's Fundamentalisms Project. I'm not sure that's useful. I tend to want to stick to a more limited, American definition rooted in reaction to evolution and higher Biblical criticism, and holding premillennial and other distinctive theological views. So I am cautious in the encyclopedia article, noting that these post-1970s social activists are the group most folks CALL fundamentalist these days, and there are some continuities with earlier fundamentalism, but the question of definitions is still an open one.
Well, this is starting to become another article, so I'm signing off.
Posted By: Chris Armstrong | September 5, 2009 10:35 AM
Fundamentalists no longer (and haven't for some time) used that particular title in describing themselves. It evokes images of red-faced, screaming preachers, or worse. Most are Baptist, nondenominational, or have a varied church past including Catholicism. The fundamentalists I have known tend to regard Bible teaching and criticism as highly important, along with body ministry. Fundamentalists respond to varied social issues based on need, and tend to be liberal givers, even if they hold to conservative social values. "Fundamentalist" has, unfortunately taken on a negative connotation with television preachers, and such, and it would be nice if there could be a replacement word. Also, there are many, thriving, contemporary, young - and since you insist on using the word "fundamentalist" leaders in the church today.
Posted By: Terah Curry | September 5, 2009 1:34 PM
I have considered myself to be part of fundamentalism for most of my 46 years and most of your descriptions sound peripheral and even foreign to my experience. I would say most of the "fundamentalist" Christians I've known are far less politically motivated than other forms of Christianity, this is especially true among my friends and associations. Fundamentalists tend to be much less politically motivated than others. We did have Falwell come to our Christian college and he spoke relating to some political issues and a conference called (I think) "Baptist Fundamentalism 84." It was a pretty small and minor part of our overall experience and I always sensed a certain "dis-ease" over that emphasis in our circles. I never felt it in anyway would be considered a defining part of fundamentalism.
Point 6 seems to come closest to my experience. We did have a strong and repeated call to experience the new birth and to live a holy life separated from sin and worldliness. Doctrine and Bible study was always strongly emphasized and we were taught to fear not holding the Bible as inerrant and the sole basis for life and Christian practice. We never really had much "fire and brimstone" preaching, but a solid emphasis on Biblical exegesis.
There was also a fear of encroaching worldliness through "corruptive habits" (smoking, drinking), but more so through the desensitizing influence of TV and movies.
Posted By: Tim Smith | September 5, 2009 2:36 PM
by the way... my experience in fundamentalism has been almost entirely in the Northeast. We did know something of the Southern element, but did not seem influential in our cirlces.
Posted By: Tim Smith | September 5, 2009 2:38 PM
There needs to be a new way of distinguishing between Christians who hold different approaches to their theology and interpretation of Scripture. It stresses me no end to have so many labels to keep track of. For instance, I would probably fall into the "dispensationalist premillennialist" group, but not really. I do not think there will be a pretribulation rapture, nor do I have any idea how Jesus will keep us from the "hour of temptation" (Rev 3:10), what place he has prepared for the church (Rev. 12:6), or what he had in mind when he says to "pray always to be counted worthy to escape [tribulation] Luke 21:36), nor am I remotely worried about it or trying to figure how I would be spared that tribulation. But I do believe that when Christ returns, it will be to stay here for what we would say is a considerable length of time, a time when the Jews and Israelites will be gathered together in Israel and begin their own "place in the Son," and the resurrected saints will reign on the earth with him. To this extent, yes there appears to be an "elect" as Jesus would say, but this does not mean that everyone not in this elect group (in the first resurrection, Rev 20) will perish. Far from it, for it is God's will that ALL come to repentance (1 Pet 3:9) because he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 33:11). Nor do I have an attitude that I am 100% correct, and you are damned if you don't agree with me. It's just that after many, many years of examining and praying over the many eschatological points of view out there, this scenario makes the most sense to me, and shows a gracious God who loves every son and daughter who ever popped out of a womb and is very jealous that they live.
Why can't we all agree to describe ourselves first as "Christians," and then qualify that with something like, "who lean in such-and-such a direction," or "we are Christians who interpret the Bible in a more literal way than some our brothers and sisters who interpret it more liberally." Every time we speak of our particular bent of Christian belief, we should preface it with "We are ALL disciples of Christ and look to him as the author and finisher of our salvation, and the opinions each of us hold after saying this are not essential for salvation--thus even at the end of the day if it turns out we are wrong, our salvation is not in jepordy." Saying something like this, we can then maintain some level of love for each other that fulfills Christ's words that Christians will be recognized for the love they have for each other.
We need Jesus back here on earth to 1) set the record straight for us Christians who disagree on so many items, 2) set the record straight for non-Christians so they too can know Jesus, and 3) show the world how to live in real, Christ-centered unity. Can we all agree to that? We have a personal resurrected body to look forward to that will never die when he gets back here. Can we all agree to that? "Come quickly, Lord Jesus, we need you and want to see you so much as gracious King of Kings, Lord of Lords, with the government on your shoulders. Only you can do this. Come now and do it now. Amen."
Charles Horton
Posted By: Charles Horton | September 6, 2009 3:32 AM
Chris, I appreciated your good question and thought I'd take the opportunity to express some thoughts... Hope you find them interesting and (at least somewhat!) relevant.
I became a committed Christian in 1974, and God has continued to bless my life greatly to this present day. I was part of a "movement" numbering in the many thousands both in the U.S. and in other countries God rescued in those troubled times, yet we were not mentioned in your article...
In a related matter, just for fun, would you consider an idea about the concept of "fundamentalism"? I'd say that I am the most fundamental of "fundamentalists" because I believe that the Bible is God's Word, with everything people need to live and thrive in this world, and I have made it my life's guide. When I first followed it, God FUNDAMENTALLY changed my life from the destructive path on which it was headed, and set me on a higher road, believe you me. As I continued to learn, practice, and be set free by Him, my life was fundamentally transformed, and contin- ues to be.
However, I was left out, along with thousands of others, in your article! (It's really OK:) This is giving me a wonder- ful opportunity to write about and make connections with some past history...)
In the '70s I became involved in a nondenominational fellowship ministry which blessed folks from every walk of life - hippies, regular church goers, farmers, gang members, etc. etc. etc. I was personally set free in several areas, and saw addictions overcome, crutches dropped, hearts healed, relationships restored. And, I am finding that now as then, more and more folks are hungering for, believing for, and finding our God's love and power.
Home and small groups fellowships have been scorned by "the organized" church at times in the past and present, but I and friends are involved in the growing movement of just such fellowships with great benefit to our lives.
But, if I may say, as I look BACK in time, and OUT at the present spiritual climate, and IN to God's Word and heart, I REALLY see HIM, blessing His children whoever they are, wherever they've been. Do you agree that spiritually we are truly one big family (even if we fight now and then?!), and that the fundamental Biblical truth of The One Body with Christ as the Head is a reality? Human distinctions of denominations or differing doctrines do not really count for much since these will all pass, but "the Word of God lives and abides forever"...
I am finding great freedom in following Jesus' example of not getting involved in the divisive strife of politics, but rather I am learning to focus on the strength of His love for all. John 10:10 is still true today!!! I am of an intellectual bent, and have found many answers regarding today's issues in the Bible, but knowledge can indeed "puff up"...
So I pray for peace and unity for us as our Father exhorts through out His Word addressed to US, His New Testament saints. I pray that we can see ourselves as Christ's Body for this dark dying world, and know that we have been anointed to preach the gospel to the poor, been sent to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised...
"For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and of sound mind" 2 Timothy 1:7.
Thanks and God bless you, Ann
Posted By: Ann Barrentine | September 6, 2009 2:04 PM
Hi Ann,
Thank you for your post. I personally find a lot there that I am in sentiment with.
You asked Chris, "Do you agree that spiritually we are truly one big family (even if we fight now and then?!), and that the fundamental Biblical truth of The One Body with Christ as the Head is a reality?" I'd like to posit a response too.
I think only time will tell the answer to your question. If Christians who hold a particular position, whether evangelical, fundamental, literal, liberal, or Roman or Orthodox or Protestant, etc., etc., cannot first say to those with whom they disagree that "I recognize you as a brother or sister, fellow-follower and disciple of Christ, and we both are in agreement that we are both sinners, that He is the one who can and does heal us of the burdens our sins have put on us, and He is the one who can save us for eternity," --if we cannot say something to each other up front along these lines--then for the moment it seems the answer to your question might be an unhappy 'no.' But hopefully over time, if we CAN learn to FIRST say this OPENLY to each other as a foundation of love in gratitude to Jesus for what He has unselfishly sacrificed for all of us, THEN express our disagreements with the understanding that neither of us can know with absolute certainty the degree of inspiration by which God has motivated our opinions, and that we are waiting until we see Christ face to face when together we can ask Him to help enlighten us about our disagreements, then the answer to your question starts sounding like a wonderfully healthy, world-changing 'yes.' This is just my opinion of course and I could be wrong, but I believe that when we start putting our love for each other, brothers and sisters, neighbors, first -- and asking Christ to give this love to us -- and making our very real and strongly-felt disagreements subject to this higher agreement, then the melodic sound of YES in answer to your question might start to be heard.
Posted By: Charles Horton | September 6, 2009 9:21 PM
I grew up as a fundamentalist in the 50s and 60s and, for several years, the son of a fundamentalist minister (later a Christian school founder). I agree very much it became a much more politically and culturally active force, which also changed it, I think in these ways: making alliances with Catholics (!), as you noted, so presumably recognizing many of them as "legitimate" fellow-believers; deepening the anger about politics (my mother learned to hate from the divorced, non-Christian Rush Limbaugh); allowing movie attendance (I gather), though I assume still no dancing (?), and generally improving the music.
On abortion, I've heard a Yale historian whose name escapes me say that the issue first came up among Christian educational leaders concerned about a Supreme Court decision that threatened their tax-exempt status, and were wondering how to raise political consciousness among their constituents, when one suggested abortion. Previously, this historian said, the Southern Baptists actually had a statement favorable to Roe v. Wade. Does that match your research?
Randy Welch
Posted By: Randy Welch | September 8, 2009 12:39 AM
Hi folks. Thanks so much for pressing in with good dialogue, and personal experiences, on this topic. I'll try to address a few of your comments below:
Terah observes: "Fundamentalists no longer (and haven't for some time) used that particular title in describing themselves." This is right, and I should have noted it. The one exception is a small group of separatist fundamentalists who still claim the title as a badge of honor. But you're right, these are rare. And I agree that the term is used as a pejorative in the media.
Tim relates that he considers himself a fundamentalist, but does not recognize my "social" description of the movement, preferring instead to identify with point 6. First, I'd say this is the weakness of large-scale analysis: there are always exceptions! But second, I wonder if this indicates a shift _back_ toward the more spiritually and theologically focused sort of fundamentalism. For me, this is all to the good!
Tim also says he heard in his circles "a strong and repeated call to experience the new birth and to live a holy life separated from sin and worldliness." The "holiness" backbone of fundamentalism always interests me. From what I know, the teachings of the Keswick movement, morphed into language of "victorious life" and "higher life," made its way pretty deeply into fundamentalism, and it is still there today. You can find it in Oswald Chambers, the Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International University), Moody, and many other places. This holiness influence helps to account for the fundamentalist allergies to smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, etc.
Thanks for identifying your region, Tim. I do wonder if Northeastern fundamentalism (which has got to be pretty embattled given the secularization of that region) is perhaps more often still focused on fighting the doctrinal and spiritual battles (including the defense of an inerrant Bible) than picking up the political cues of the Southern wing of the movement. I would think it would be hard to throw yourself behind a nationwide political emphasis when you feel embattled in your own church life and spiritual life!
Out of curiosity, Tim, do your Northeastern people like James Dobson? He's another name that often comes up in discussions of present-day influential fundamentalist leaders.
I agree with Charles when he says we are too addicted to labels. I think many evangelicals today, let alone fundamentalists, are tired of the party terminology and want to get back to what C. S. Lewis called "mere Christianity." I'll give that a hearty amen. Yet: we do lose some real spiritual strengths when we completely throw away our denominational and movement labels. Denominations and movements tend to arise in order to defend important aspects of biblical faith, and they often develop robust and nourishing beliefs and practices. When we take "Baptist" off the door, we also stop reading about Lottie Moon and Adoniram Judson, and that's a real loss.
I also agree that love should be our ruling motive at all times, as long as "our salvation is not in jeopardy," as you put it. Unfortunately, there are beliefs and practices in many churches today that do indeed, it seems to many of us, put our salvation in jeopardy. There are wolves in sheep's clothing. That's where terms such as "liberal" and "modernist" came from in the early 20th century fundamentalist movement: As long as people could continue to call themselves Christian while denying the divinity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation, and much more, it is necessary to "out" such people by pointing out that they have diverged significantly from the historical tradition of the church, as it has interpreted Scripture under (as most Christians through most of history have believed) the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Wolves eat sheep. Better know them for what they are!
Ann mentioned growing up as a Christian in a movement I didn't mention--I'm wondering, would this be the "Jesus People"? I have the deepest respect for that movement. Interestingly, so did Billy Graham, which makes me respect that man even more. I have also read that many who were involved in that movement and its often-failed intentional communities went on to become members of small independent fundamentalist churches with a strong biblical backbone and high respect for the authority of the pastor. Perhaps you can't comment, because this wasn't the movement you were alluding to. But I'd be interested to hear from someone who went that route. (I did forget about that story when I wrote the encyclopedia article on which this blog post was based, and perhaps I should have mentioned it.)
Randy mentioned a different route in to abortion activism on the part of the fundamentalists. I had not heard this story: I was basing my material on abortion on work by historians George Marsden and Mark Silk, and others. I will look into this, though. If you remember the name of that historian, could you post it here? Thanks! As for the SBC having a pro-abortion statement--that's possible. The moderates may have made some such statement. Of course by the late 1970s, with the changing of leadership in that denomination, this change. But I'd also like to look into this.
Again, thanks all, for making this blog a real conversation place!
Posted By: Chris Armstrong | September 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Chris:
I liked your piece and think that it would be worthwhile to pursue further the question of whether a new fundamentalism is being born just now. While it is not impossible that old fundamentalism has current viable successors (and your metropolis' Central Baptist Seminary would want to be thought of standing in that succession) I think it is actually more helpful to think of fundamentalism as a tendency which can always be unleashed in the face of perceived erosion of Christian teaching and erosion of standards of Christian living. Now, in a sense, this is also why there will always be an evangelicalism, in that it exists to correct perceived deficiencies in mainstream Christianity.
But fundamentalism, as a militant expression of that evangelical tendency, is certainly emerging in fresh ways at the current time. I want to make plain that what I say here is not intended to disparage. But conservative Christians are rallying afresh just now around the doctrine of the new birth, of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, of the supreme authority of the Bible - not because these things are necessarily disparaged by wider Christianity, but because they are at least being softenened and re-negotiated. Call it militant conservative evangelicalism if you will, but it is resurgent now, as illustrated in such conferences as Together for the Gospel.
But there is no one-to-one correspondence between this new militant conservative evangelicalism and the old fundamentalism. It is not dominated by eschatological speculation; it is not characterized by taboos against film, tobacco, and alcohol. But it is strong on missions, evangelism and church planting. I have personal sympathies with this movement, but sometimes blanche at the exclusionary tendency to leave out perfectly bona fide evangelicals who just don't say 'shibboleth' the right way. _That_ smacks of fundamentalism's hey-day.
Posted By: Ken Stewart | September 8, 2009 9:07 PM
Randall Balmer, professor of religion at Barnard College, Columbia University, who is (or was) a contributing editor to CT, wrote "Thy Kingdom Come - How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America," which includes a chapter on "The Abortion Myth." This includes the SBC's position (and that of other Evangelical leaders) around the time of Roe and an explanation of how the Right's abortion activism grew out of concern over challenges to the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University. I haven't read the book, and I'm not a historian, so I'm not endorsing (or disputing) the quality of the scholarship. The exerpt linked below, though, portrays the origins of the Religious Right movement (at least from the evangelicals) as morally bankrupt.
NPR posted an exerpt of the book and audio of an interview with Balmer.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
Posted By: Christian Lawyer | September 8, 2009 10:34 PM
I'm a historian who studies the religious right, and Chris forwarded me this blog post a couple days ago. I have really enjoyed reading the comments and thought I'd offer a few thoughts of my own.
Balmer is correct that the 1978 IRS ruling had a more immediate effect than did Roe v. Wade in mobilizing evangelical and fundamentalist leaders to create political action groups. Very few of those leaders said anything about abortion prior to 1979, when Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop published Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (The book actually came out at the end of 1978.) Moreover, both Southern Baptists and Presbyterians passed resolutions in the early- and mid-1970s offering support for "therapeutic abortion." But, as some commenters have pointed out, neither of those denominations were controlled by evangelicals or fundamentalists in the 1970s. Furthermore, small but growing numbers of evangelicals and fundamentalists joined the pro-life movement after 1973 (as documented in sociologist Kristin Luker's 1984 study Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood). Thus, there existed a small constituency of evangelicals aware of and committed to the pro-life cause by the late 1970s.
So, is the "abortion myth" correct; did the religious right emerge in response to Roe v. Wade? No. But that doesn't mean that Balmer's conclusion -- that the religious right "arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools" -- accounts for the complex nature of the religious right's emergence. When leaders began preaching about abortion, there were some receptive audiences among the faithful. Abortion wasn't the issue that launched the religious right, but it very quickly achieved prominence in the movement's agenda.
Finally, as many of you pointed out, the real problem is that identifying fundamentalism or evangelicalism as solely political misstates the nature of those movements. For many evangelicals and fundamentalists, the political activities of the religious right were a sideshow. (On this point, I recommend Christian Smith's book Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want.) That's not to say the religious right is unimportant--conservative Protestants today vote more Republican than almost any other constituency, something that wasn't true in the 1970s. The religious right has helped changed voting patterns. But it's not the only story to tell about contemporary fundamentalism, and I'm thankful to Chris and other commentators for illuminating the theological and sociological aspects of the movement.
Posted By: Seth Dowland | September 10, 2009 9:07 AM
Hey, thanks for weighing in, Seth! Watch for Seth's name in lights, folks. He's a rising star.
Posted By: Anonymous | September 10, 2009 4:52 PM
Piggy-backing on Seth's comment above, I would add that Randal Balmer was by no means the first person to chart the 1978 IRS ruling/abortion/religious right constellation. Other scholars (much less than polemical than Balmer) argued the same thing years earlier and with more nuanced analysis. I'm thinking specifically of Bill Martin in _With God on our Side_ and Tom Edsall in _Chain Reaction_. Since Balmer's book appeared, historian Joe Crespino has published a chapter on role of private schools in the rise of the religious right. It is certainly worth reading and can be found in _Rightward Bound_ a 2008 book edited by Bruce Schulman and Julian Zelizer.
Posted By: Rusty Hawkins | September 10, 2009 5:04 PM
Actually, I like this article. I have even given it a new name "Six 'bad' things I learned about Fundamentalism that I am sure you already know, and that may also be true of other evangelicals".
My renaming is due to the fact that what ever 'good' is said about "Fundamentalism" is said almost in an off-handed kind of way about believers generally.
According to the writer the things he learned about contemporary fundametalism is that:
1. In he 1970s "fundamentalists" went from fighting other believers to fighting "secularists" (fundamentalists just seem to love a good fight).
2. Fundamentalists believe that any enemy of their enemy is a friend.
3. Fundamentalists are a good example of how to live with/in contradiction.
4. Fundamentalists sometimes turn against their own.
5. Fundamentalists seem unable to see and plan for up-coming social and cultural changes.
6. Despite their many short-comings, fundamentalists, fortunately, have one or two good things going for them, still.
What do I think about these "insights"? Respectfully, not much.
Pick any group of believers in Christ, call them by any name you want, and you will most likely find them in the above six points.
My feeling is, that any group of believers in Christ, called by any name, would have a greater impact on society and culture if they would only be consistent in the areas of personal integrity and corporate moral responsibility.
"Fundamentalists" like too many other Christian "ists" talk too much and "walk" too little.
Posted By: Steve Skeete | September 13, 2009 7:23 AM
Just to say that I enjoyed reading this. The transition from theological divide to cultural divide that unintentedly brought Catholics and Fundamentalists together: a good insight I must say. God bless.
Posted By: D Babu Paul | September 19, 2009 8:39 AM
Speaking of Falwell, I'm wondering how many have seen evidence of his plagiarism in "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal" on engines such as Google. The author of it, journalist-historian Dave MacPherson, has revealed that one co-author of Falwell's "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" - Ed Dobson - has apologized but that another co-author, Ed Hindson, has not and that Falwell, of course, cannot. In light of MacPherson's incredible output for several decades of his discoveries of long forgotten (and even deliberately hidden!) historical documentation relative to dispensationalism's earliest development, it's rather strange that so many works and articles covering the same topic somehow bypass his much endorsed findings (Google "Scholars Weigh My Research"). Could it be that the initial endorsements he received in the '70s and '80s were so hurtful to d-ism (my computer needs a rest from too many long words) that d-ist leaders were desperate for some noisy strong-arm defenders? Could be. Witness d-ists Thomas Ice, Grant Jeffrey and a few others using the internet as well as writings to noisily protect the d-ist fortress - but only after MacPherson received kudos from many eminent Christians (who had no noisy axe to grind either for or against a pretrib rapture) including F. F. Bruce, Harold Ockenga, Merrill Tenney, J. I. Packer, R. J. Rushdoony, Harold Lindsell, Robert Gundry, J. Barton Payne, J. Gordon Melton, Ian Rennie, Oswald J. Smith and even the editor of the oldest and largest Darbyist Brethren magazine in England, to name a few. MacPherson is still finding and airing buried facts about d-ism's 179-year-old history including recent knowledge from European scholar Timothy Stunt that the celebrated Margaret MacDonald (whom MacPherson names as the actual pretrib rapture originator) later married her biographer, Robert Norton M.D. And MacPherson has learned that they had several children including Rachel Norton that are buried in the churchyard on Henry Drummond's Albury (UK) estate. More recently he has learned of a old handwritten document listed in the British Library catalog as "Margaret McDonald's Vision" which is part of a Catholic Apostolic Church collection. Since many believers currently are abandoning the still influential pretribulation rapture view, those who value a balanced approach to the present dabate over it may want to be exposed to further light on defenders like Ice and Jeffrey, both of whom influence millions, and Google articles such as "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "Thomas Ice (Hired Gun)," "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers," "Wily Jeffrey," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," and "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty." I have a feeling we will soon find out which rapture view is the Scriptural one - and it will be comforting if we don't have to find out the hard, screaming way! Louise Edwards
Posted By: Louise Edwards | November 1, 2009 12:19 PM
Christian people like to wear coloring jewelry more and are preparing for Christmas before time. I have very good jewelry from vintage yard. Gold jewelry with diamond or stone have there for more look on Christmas day,..
Posted By: vintage engagement rings | November 24, 2009 11:26 PM
Christian people like to wear coloring jewelry more and are preparing for Christmas before time. I have very good jewelry from vintage yard. Gold jewelry with diamond or stone have there for more look on Christmas day,..
Posted By: vintage engagement rings | November 24, 2009 11:32 PM
Good and a new ting about it is they have a good option to maintain rules with keep on changing. Change is very necessary for all nowadays... Thanks for sharing.
Posted By: r4 dsi | November 30, 2009 7:25 AM