Not just 'wishy-washy', but militantly wishy-washy :-)
There is something new under the sun
Published on April 11, 2006 By Chakgogka In Religion
Recent postings on JU have expressed frustration and annoyance with what has been seen as a fundamentalist hijacking of the Christian religion, while the fundamentalists in reply claim to be doing no more than expressing the original purity and power of the Christian religion as it was known to those who encountered and followed Jesus of Nazareth. My own view on the matter is that this Christian Fundamentalism, far from being a renewal of the faith in its pristine original purity, represents a historically new American religion, rooted in Christianity (as Christianity itself was rooted in Judaism), but representing in many ways an impoverishment of the original message.

In the last years of the nineteenth century the young American republic began to overtake the great powers of the day – Great Britain, France and Germany – as the centre of global political and economic power crossed the Atlantic. America was in part founded on European political idealism, while at the same time rejecting the various tyrannies by which that continent was then ruled - and in some places continued to be ruled until the late twentieth century.

So distinguishing themselves from Europeans, even while peoples of European origin made up the bulk of its immigrant population, was always an important priority for the young Republic. It began with language: although utopian schemes to replace the English tongue with Ancient Greek, or some other politically and culturally neutral language were quickly rejected, Noah Webster and other pioneers began self-consciously to try and construct an American language. And today, it is the American language that the businessmen of Asia are keen to learn: those of us from other English-speaking countries fortunate enough to make our living from teaching English can largely do so by hanging on to the economic coat-tails of the contemporary world’s only ‘hyperpower’.

The new Americans also brought their religion over from the Old World, with a clear Protestant Christian majority, but even here there was a pressure to make their religion, like their language, distinctively ‘American’ in some way. The most spectacular example in which this was realised was the foundation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who came to believe that Jesus Christ could never have overlooked the nation of Manifest Destiny in his earthly mission and must in fact have gone there at some stage in his ministry. This, however, was only the most extreme measure to give an ‘American’ dimension to the Christian religion.

America today embodies a fascinating contradiction: some of the early colonies were founded as Puritan theocracies, reflecting the utopian desire to create an earthly New Jersualem away from the corruption of the Old World. Today American conservative christians insist that the nation was founded as an avowedly christian country. At the same time the Founding Fathers who actually brought the nation into existence, under the influence of European Liberal beliefs, thought hard about how to establish a clear separation of church and state, protecting unbelief as well as belief in a way that most European nations took generations to catch up with.

For the most part, the early American Christians came from protestant non-conformist backgrounds, and the New World served as a refuge from the indignities, sometimes petty, sometimes lethal, that they were subject to in the nations from which they fled. For this reason religion also took on a political dimension, noting in particular the Anglicanism (Episcopalianism) of the pro-British Tories of the Revolutionary war, which continues to be main religious tradition of the East Coast’s ‘Wasp’ or ‘Boston Brahmin’ ‘aristocracy’.

For most of the nineteenth century, Americans still looked to Europe for leadership in cultural matters and it took a long time for the new nation to acquire the cultural self-confidence which it so abundantly enjoys today. Before the age of jazz, rock ‘n’ roll and Hollywood, it was widely assumed that the citizens of the young Republic still needed to look back across the Atlantic to acquire the latest fashions and artistic tastes.

The nineteenth century, which was the crucial era in which America first stepped forward in to a world leadership role, was also a pivotal time in the evolution of the Christian religion, as the explanations about the world from traditional faith came under increasing fire from new scientific discoveries and theories, in particular Charles Darwin’s ideas as embodied in The Origins of Species (1859). While it is true that most European Christians also re-acted to these new ideas with scepticism and hostility, as indeed they had to the earlier ideas of Galileo and others, the United States saw a particularly powerful confluence of a rejection of scientific modernism alongside a number of dramatic revivalist movements, like the Restoration Movement and the Great Awakenings, that was to lead to the creation of what I would argue is a largely new religion, based in traditional christianity, but marked by an uncompromising resistance to every taint of modernism, and a literalist reading of scripture, which while seeming to be highly traditional was actually something new. Ironically, in fighting the science of the day, these forefathers of the new American fundamentalist religion took on a kind of ‘scientistic’ thinking of their own: whereas traditional christians had a long tradition of reading the Bible in an allegorical and symbolic way, the new fundamentalists saw the good book as something to be read as a kind of scientific manual, - science after all being the new spirit of the age - but God’s science, not the ‘Devil’s science’ of evolution, man from monkeys, and dinosaur fossils planted by Satan to shake our faith.

To highlight the different ways in which Christianity developed in the United States and in Europe, it is worth pointing out that there was no real European equivalent of the Scopes trial of 1925 which sought to prohibit the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" in state funded schools in Tennessee. And while Americans today continue to argue fiercely about the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools, it is worth noting how differently the Christian churches in Europe have re-acted to this issue. Pope John Paul II in a letter from 1996 says of evolution, "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge", and that "the convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favour of this theory…" In the UK, the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the world-wide Anglican (Episcopalian) fellowship had this to say recently about the proposal to teach Intelligent Design in UK schools, "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it". [My emphasis]. The title of John Paul’s letter on the matter, ‘Truth Cannot Contradict Truth’is itself indicative of a certain attitude alien to fundamentalism, that is that modern science, including Darwinian ideas, and religion can march hand in hand as human beings attempt to penetrate the mysteries both of the natural world and of our ultimate spiritual destiny.

Some American fundamentalists counter this by arguing that christianity is ‘dying’ in a secularised Europe, while it remains strong in America. While arguments about who is a ‘real christian’ are ultimately fruitless, if not even a little blasphemous, I would have to argue that the number of those truly and sincerely trying to live out the gospel is unlikely to be that much higher in the US than in Europe or anywhere else.

The new Christian Fundamentalism is therefore largely an American cultural phenomenon. In as much as it exists elsewhere in the world it does so mostly, like Coca-Cola and Levis as a successful cultural export. Though churches like the Assemblies of God, and Church of Christ can be found in many nations around the globe, all these denominations had their origin in the US. On a personal note, my paternal grandfather was the secretary of the first Christadelphian Ecclesia set up in England, yet another missionary religious movement that had crossed the Atlantic to establish itself in a foreign soil.

In summary I would argue that America’s increasingly dominant position in the world has created an opportunity for a particular kind of religion, rooted in patriotism and American Exceptionalism, to serve as the de facto spiritual ideology of American power and might. And for this reason it needs to be a particularly American religion, clearly marked out from traditional christianity with its European, and Middle Eastern origins. Just as the Roman legionary looked to Iupiter Optimus et Maximus, as the spiritual force behinds his nation’s power and destiny, the Jesus of the Fundamentalist faith can play the same role for his American equivalent today. Not that this is always the case. It is important when tempted to automatically equate Christian Fundamentalism with American hegemony to remember that many fundamentalists are highly critical of contemporary American society and culture, and in their other-worldly ‘end times’ (the ‘rapture is just around the corner’) theology, some fundamentalists see American power as simply another part of that world which is about to pass away. Nevertheless, my argument remains that Christian Fundamentalism is a historically new phenomenon, derived from but differing from the Christian religion as traditionally understood, arising out of America’s social and religious history, and that its world-wide spread is a by-product of America’s political, economic, military and cultural dominance of the world today.

Comments
on Apr 11, 2006
Interestiing. I understood Christian Fundamentalism was born out of neccessity during a time of Charismatic Chaos. This was to get back into scripture and away from the extreme emotionalism of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

The chuches that I have enjoyed the most and feel are the best spiritually are those that have gone back to the basics. Gone are the thrills and frills and back is the simplicity of the gospel preached, hymns sung and last but not least Christ as the center of worship.

I know of fundamentalist churches in Bulgaria, Poland and Russia. They are all over the globe. They are the ones that are simply teaching, serving, sending and glorifying God. Maybe it is as you say, a seed planted by Americans or maybe it's just semantics.

Thanks for the article. Good one.
on Apr 12, 2006
I understood Christian Fundamentalism was born out of neccessity during a time of Charismatic Chaos. This was to get back into scripture and away from the extreme emotionalism of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Although I've written about what I see as the sociological origins of this strand of Christianity its obvious that you know much more about the religious impulse behind it and I would love to read anything that you might like to share about it at some future time.

It must be obvious from what I write that I have a number of intellectual difficulties with Fundamentalism (to say the least!), feeling closer to the older, more established christian denominations. Nevertheless, although I disagree with almost all of the 'fundamentals' of Fundamentalism (particularly Biblical Inerrancy and the rejection of modern scriptural scholarship) I am able to respect the fact that those who hold these beliefs often do so out of a desire to live out their religion in a no frills and no-holds barred way, and I think that that really ought to be respected.

Thanks for the article.

You're welcome.
on Apr 12, 2006
are you familiar with what are commonly described as the great awakenings?
on Apr 12, 2006
Maybe it is as you say, a seed planted by Americans or maybe it's just semantics.

I'd obviously go with the former. Although unfamiliar with the particular churches you mention, I am aware of the extraordinary success of American missionary movements worldwide, and it can't be a coincidence that protestant fundamentalist churches in other countries are using translations of American tracts and sermons and a theology that can be traced quite clearly to the kind of religious and social movements I've talked about above (which is very different from the Catholic/Orthodox traditions of the countries you mention).

are you familiar with what are commonly described as the great awakenings?

I wouldn't put myself forward as an expert on American religious history, so I am only really familiar with the bare bones of the matter - the cycle of revival movements in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that saw the creation of new denominations and sects and an amazing outpouring of conversions and religious enthusiasm. As I understand it, fundamentalism in part was an attempt to impose some order on this 'chaos', as KFC alludes to above, while also feeding on the religious energy produced. I'm intrigued though why you ask...

On a technical note: does any one know why this article posted to the forums but doesn't show up on my blog page? I'm been trying to figure out whether its a JU glitch or if I did something wrong this time. Thanks.
on Apr 12, 2006
I can only look with fairly ignorant bemusement at the surprising popularity of American cash Christianity, but your tech question I might be able to help with:

On a technical note: does any one know why this article posted to the forums but doesn't show up on my blog page? I'm been trying to figure out whether its a JU glitch or if I did something wrong this time. Thanks.


If you selected 'create article' or 'new post' from the forums webpage it creates a forum post rather than a blog article, so you won't see it on your blog. To make sure that you can see your articles in your blog you have to create them there rather than from the forums.

Of course if you did create it from your blogpage I've got no idea what happened.
on Apr 12, 2006
your tech question I might be able to help with

I think you've solved it. Thanks a lot!
on Apr 12, 2006
With palms together, Very nice job, Chakrogka. While an undergraduate, many moons ago, I was taken with a study of New World theology, including the Adamic Redemptive model in early americam literature. People coming to the New World, truly saw it as such. A New World Garden, they were the adams and the eves, shucking the Old World and its constrainsts. In this sense, many were progressives, looking forward, understanding Manifest Destiny as something they could build, like a city upon a hill.

As Americans gained property, wealth, and established themselves as a power, the natural, sociological tendancy was to attempt to keep it. This requires a conservative view, suspicious of things new, keeping the gates closed against any possible threat. Enter the present 'modern era' and threats are at every corner. Modernity itself, as Karen Armstrong has ably pointed out, is creating a fundamentalism and a battle for God. I do not quite swee this as a new American religion, as much as a sociology of religion itself.

I spent a number of years in a very small town in South Carolina: 5000 people, 52 Baptist Churches, one Catholic Church, one Episcople Church. The nearest synague was fifty miles away and if you were not Christian and local, you were a foriegner. I spent many nights fending off assaults on my heart and soul, each knock on the door an opporetunity for some young Christian to "complete" me. What was interesting was that the number of churches seemed to continue to expend, while the population seemed to be shrinking. The sociological movement was simple, I think. There as an erffort to be in the "spirit." Authentic, bible-believing Christians. As churches grew older, the charismatic essence cools, essential to becoming a pillar, so to speak. Pillars do not have the spirit in the same way, not as vibrant or something, so pretty much every few months I'd see a new church open proclaiming itself has the possessor of the Truth.

As the world seems to have gotten smaller through speed of light communications, information sharing, hook-ups at every orafice, my sense is that fundamentalists are both frightened and entrenching. Change is scary. Muslims fear most of all an erosion of their ways, as do people living in the communities I just described.

Over the years, while hurt by their fear and the things it dseemed to drive them to do, I also developed a deep love for some elements of that culture. It is useful to be selectrive about what changes we make. I took three years recently, for example, and built a house deep in the mountains. It is off the electrical grid, has no well, and not furnace. I set out to see what was actually necessary to live. The elevation is 7500 feet. It gets cold in the winter and the road to my house becomes impassable at times.

I used a wood cookstove, oil lamps, and a propane refrigerator. By necessity, I chopped wood daily, got up very early to build a fire in the cookstove. We collected rain water to use for cooking and bathing. Once every week or two we would make the 3 hour trek to the grocery store for water and groceries.

From this experience I learned to value some things conservatives hold dear: self reliance, independence, and hard work. On the other hand, I also learned how much we are not independent, that we are truly dependent on others, both human and animal, for our civility, happiness, and survival.

I would like us to now attempt to regain that sense of value in being progressive. Looking with hope to the future, seeing value and opportunity in change, being willing to risk: all an anathema to conservatives.

This was a very interesting blog. Thank you. Be well.
on Apr 12, 2006
it is worth pointing out that there was no real European equivalent of the Scopes trial of 1925


I would argue that there is indeed a European equivalent. The Church of the middle ages and the persecution of Galileo.

Otherwise, an interesting article.
on Apr 12, 2006
I would argue that there is indeed a European equivalent. The Church of the middle ages and the persecution of Galileo.


Yes I agree. I think that I alluded to this:
While it is true that most European Christians also re-acted to these new ideas with scepticism and hostility, as indeed they had to the earlier ideas of Galileo and others...
although I could have said more on the matter.

However it is my contention that traditional christianity in Europe and what I see as the new American religion of Christian Fundamentalism developed in very different ways in the period I am really concerned with (late 19th, and 20th centuries).

Otherwise, an interesting article.

As always, thanks for your kind comments and interest.

Over the years, while hurt by their fear and the things it dseemed to drive them to do, I also developed a deep love for some elements of that culture.

Yes, I agree. While it is not an immediately attractive culture - for the very reasons you mention - it is at least an attempt to really 'live' religion. Indeed shorn of its harsh judgementalism (very different from judgement) it comes close to the mystical kinds of religion that I have always found attractive.

I do not quite swee this as a new American religion, as much as a sociology of religion itself.

You may be right. However, to us foreigners, the 'Americanness' of this - whatever it is (new religion? sociological movement within a religion?) is the thing that really leaps out at us. It really feels like an argument that is happening in another culture: as we don't understand the original 'question', of course we can't make head or tail of the 'answer'.
on Apr 13, 2006
are you familiar with what are commonly described as the great awakenings?


yes, are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?"

Chak:
Here's an excerpt from a guy I trust:

"I was talking to a man in our church this morning who had for a number of years worshiped here and then had returned to his native Scotland, living just out of Edinburgh. And I said, "Have you found a church?" And he said, "Well, yes we have." And I said, "Is it one of the Scottish Baptist Churches (knowing that most of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches are long gone liberal, with of course some exceptions)? He said, "No, it is not a Baptist Church. For the most part, most of the Baptist Churches have moved into the Charismatic Movement. Scotland.

It is a major problem in Eastern Europe and will continue to be one. It is a problem in Australia. It is a problem is Asia. It is a problem of massive proportions in Latin America. It is everywhere, confusing millions of people. The Russian Church now is waiting patiently for the finishing of this book, and they want the manuscript even before the American Publisher publishes it because they desperately need it translated into the Russian Language and distributed immediately in the Soviet Union because of the rampant confusion about these matters"
So as you can see, it's more than fundamentalism that has spread abroad. For the rest of the article.....
Link
on Apr 13, 2006
For the rest of the article.....

I read the article with interest. By now though you should know that I'm not that interested in hearing why one group of christians believe that they are truly saved and others are not - after all, I'm not even a christian!

And I said, "Is it one of the Scottish Baptist Churches (knowing that most of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches are long gone liberal, with of course some exceptions)?

This is interesting and revealing. I am certainly a liberal - in religion, in politics and just about everything else (at least that is my ambition ), so I am really unlikely to find it shocking that the Scottish Presbyterians have apparently gone that way too. That fundamentalists and charismatics are feuding and have differing theologies was a nuance that I was previously unaware of, so you have helped my education in that respect.

The bottom line, to try to explain my own 'liberal' thoughts on the matter is that I believe that it is possible to have a commitment to truth without that necessarily translating into exclusivity. For that reason East Asian religious wisdom appeals to me more than most christian thought because it recognises that we are all at least in part deluded whenever we plunge into the religious realm, and deals with that inevitability really well.

I can see that you get something really powerful from your religion; so powerful that you are prepared to put to one side, for excellent practical reasons, all the usual nuances of doubt and wonder that characterise our human condition to believe instead in absolute truth (what you believe in) and absolute error (what those who disagree with you believe in). If this works for you, fine. The bottom line is that I could never embrace that kind of thinking without ceasing to be who I really am. If that means that I am pre-destined for the fire, brimstone and the lake of sulphur, then so be it.

I do enjoy debating with you and learning from you. I just have to make it clear that, although my thinking on these matters has some deliberately wishy-washy aspects to it (my blogpage title "Not just wishy-washy, but militantly wishy-washy" is semi-humourous and wholly serious), I believe in my doubt just as strongly as you believe in your faith, and I dare to say that it serves me just as well.
on Apr 13, 2006
......and that's ok!! I'm not out to convert....only to educate. There is so much floating around out there, I hope to just do my part to share what I've learned over the years. To try and separate truth from fiction.

As you know, I do believe there is a deceiver out there throwing obstacles in our pathway to God. I feel strongly about this so I do my best to help others get those boulders taken care of. The rest is up to the HS.

And besides all that.....I love a good debate...as long as it's friendly!!!