Religious Fundamentalism

Class Notes
Professor Henry Schissler DRAFT COPY
The Sociology of Religion


Religious Fundamentalism


(1) Reacting to the Industrial Revolution

Between 1870 and 1920, the Evangelical Protestants were distressed by what they perceived to be as an erosion of religious influence throughout society and its institutions. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing, dramatically affecting how many Americans lived from day to day.

The Evangelicals believed that science and the increasing public confidence in the inductive scientific method for attaining truth was responsible for increasing secularism in society. Of concern to them were such developments as the spread of the accounts of Darwin and others concerning the evolution of people and their world – at the expense of deduction from their standard repository of truth, the Bible.

They also felt that the Christian religion was being betrayed from within. The increasing emphasis on social service and the social gospel by individuals and groups within the broad Christian community was a significant part of their concern. They believed that when social service was emphasized, the traditional redemption/salvation prominence was neglected.

What further alarmed the Evangelicals was the development of a form of biblical scholarship known as higher criticism, an approach to the Bible asserting that it is a collection of human documents subject to the same principles of textual criticism as any other group of documents.

Most Protestant denominations did not support higher criticism per se. They viewed the Bible as the inspired word of God. But, in direct opposition to Evangelical anti-modernity, they asserted that the Bible should be interpreted and analyzed because some of the content reflected situations from another time in history. A literal interpretation was impossible and, frankly, beside the point. To them, the Genesis creation story was not a scientific account of the origins of life but a more spiritual reflection upon the ultimate significance of life itself, about which science has nothing to say.

Throughout the previous two and one-half centuries of American history, conservative Protestantism, social traditionalists’ religious home, was the dominant, pace-setting religion. For the first time, their power and their beliefs began to be threatened.

New immigration patterns saw the arrival of Roman Catholics and Jews. Industrialization and the erosion of the farming and small business patterns were impacting family and community life. Previously, the Evangelicals, while not terribly conscious of their political nature, were nonetheless comfortable with notions of this as a Christian nation that puts Christian principles of morality into practice. A key example of this was the “Blue Laws” that defined much of what was acceptable and unacceptable behavior for men, women, and children.


(2) The Fundamentals

Evangelical Protestants adopted a number of important themes from Calvinism.

First, individuals should separate themselves as much as possible from the evil world because it can contaminate and infect them spiritually. (The Old Order Amish are an example of this today). They should, therefore, concentrate on regeneration and making the people in a society moral, attempting to perfect the society one person at a time.

Second, if a group of well-informed believers can achieve God’s design for humanity by controlling the governance of a social system, then they should do it (theocracy).

These seemingly contradictory beliefs caused much ambivalence toward the evangelicals’ involvement in public affairs. While such involvement brings believers closer to the “evil”, a social system could, in fact, be changed by their efforts. The evangelicals took an activist role that was not focused on politics per se. It was a powerful rebuke of “modernization” and affirmation of their belief system that, unbeknownst to them, set the stage for much overt political action in the decades ahead.

In 1910, the Evangelicals, or social traditionalists, began publishing their twelve volume manifesto titled The Fundamentals. A series of Biblical conferences held between 1876 and 1900 were the catalyst for the publications. The term “fundamentalism,” derived from the manifesto title, was first used by a journalist in 1920.

The Fundamentals exposited five central doctrines and an additional four that could more or less be inferred from the central five. The five were:
1. The verbal and inerrant inspiration of the Bible;
2. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ;
3. The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ (Jesus taking the punishment for sin in people’s place);
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;
5. The imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.

The four related documents were:
1. The deity of Jesus Christ;
2. The sinful nature of humanity;
3. Salvation by faith through the free grace of God;
4. The expectation of the bodily resurrection of true believers on the Last Day.

The manifesto also paid much attention to repudiation of errors, such as the theory of organic evolution and higher criticism of the Bible. Answers were written as to ways of relating to such heretic religious groups and movements as Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and spiritualists.


(3) Joining Forces After “The Manifesto”

Evangelist leader Billy Sunday led the call for true Christian traditionalists to come together and oppose the “extremely clever satanic plot afoot in the world.” The plot consisted of kaiserism (World War I had just ended), bolshevism (the Communist Revolution in the Soviet Union was in 1917), evolutionism, higher criticism (modern biblical scholarship), and moderate, centrist and liberal theology in general.

After World War I, the Christian or social traditionalists, now referred to as Fundamentalists, openly and vigorously opposed the teaching of evolution in schools, and strongly supported prohibition. In 1925, they reached their height of publicity and infamy at the Scopes “monkey trial.”

(Many of the movements and ideas that fundamentalists oppose today were not serious issues at this time. Abortion was illegal; homosexuals were discriminated against; minorities were “in their place”; and women knew their place – helpmate to a man who gave her his name.)


(4) Anti-Communism & the Politicizing of the Fundamentalists

Following WWII, evangelicals joined the anti-communist crusade that linked them to right-wing political groups, including those supporting Sen. Joseph McCarthy. The movement professed commitment to traditional morality as well, including condemning “liberated” women, homosexuals, and civil libertarians; and frequently an expression of anti-Semitism. Right-wing political groups, in alliance with fundamentalist Protestant theology, led many anti-communist crusades, including Fred C. Schwartz’s Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and Billy James Hargis’s Christian Crusade.

This growing connection between religion and politics among radical right groups was duly noted by Hargis: “Christian Crusade’s fight against Communism is Christ’s fight. Christ is using out Movement...I know we are on the right track, getting the job done for Jesus.”

These groups substituted for religious tolerance an insistence on uniform acceptance not only of Christianity but of their particular highly dogmatic version of Christianity. It contained highly emotional appeals for maximum cultural conformity based on small-town and rural American lifestyles, an explicit antiintellectualism, and a defense of the status quo so far as economic and racial disparities were concerned.

The close association between right-wing political groups and fundamentalist Protestant religion was based on several intimate connections.

• Simplistic Dualism. The fundamentalists see two categories, good and evil, with nothing in between. Tolerance is only for those who do not believe strongly in anything. Hatred of evil is, therefore, perfectly logical, and heresy hunting perfectly legitimate.

• A Conspiratorial View of the World. Satan conspires to deter people from the path of righteousness. As a result, political discussion takes on a strong moral fervor. Politics becomes a crusade, and one’s patriotism proof of a mature Christianity.

• An Individualistic Emphasis (Individual Salvation). Social action in general and social welfare programs in particular win fundamentalism’s disapproval. This is the wrong direction for religion to take because individuals are more important than society and are capable of satisfying their wants and needs in the free enterprise marketplace.


(5) Anti-Modernization: the Mainstay of Fundamentalist Doctrine

Fundamentalism then and fundamentalism now, is a reaction to events and changes that have occurred in the modern world – a constellation commonly called modernity. Fundamentalism seeks to restore what has been lost or discarded in the face of changes that modernization has made.

Modernization is essentially the tremendous growth in technology that includes most of what people see around them and use every day. Electric power and telephones, the Internet and the marvels of modern medicine are a few examples of modernization. Fundamentalists use all of this technology. As such, they too have become moderns. But they reject becoming modernists – people who embrace all of these changes and reject old world views, old core beliefs and explanations of reality (creationism, for example). Fundamentalists want to see a return to these old world views.

According to Sociologist Peter Berger, modernity had strong consequences for individuals and families. There was the reduction of the significance of individuals and their families because of the anonymity of the larger communities they moved to, alienation of labor at their jobs, and lack of solidarity and relationship with others. The supportive community that sustained individuals prior to modernity was replaced by the distant megastructures of modern society. The concreteness, stability, and safety of communities of lifelong residents where one’s work is a direct and nearby part of one’s life were significantly diminished.

There was also the development of futurity. Previously, people’s concentration had been on the present and past, with a future that would most probably be pretty much the same. With modernity, the future became a major focus for both thought and activity.

The element of choice was introduced to many areas of life that in earlier generations were viewed as governed and determined by God, by fate, by nature, by the all-powerful king, or by the constellation of the stars. Tradition was no longer binding; the status quo could and probably would change; and, the future was an open horizon.

Choice gave rise to secularization because of alternative answers and explanations for phenomena and events that in an earlier day were explained as God given, directed, and ordained. This liberation from tradition and generalized secularization relegated God to being one among several explanations for reality.


(6) The New Christian Right Emerges: Maximum Cultural Conformity

In order to stop the spread of secularism and promote a return to traditional values (anti-modernization), fundamentalists galvanized behind leaders who took advantage of the very modernization that they were opposed to – the mass media culture.

The electronic church refers to the brisk expansion of preachers and groups into television ministry. Reacting to the rapidly changing landscape of American social and political life during the 1960’s and 1970’s, such ministries as Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson’s 700 Club and James Bakker’s P.T.L. broadcasts grew. By 1980, 1,400 radio stations and 60 television stations were wholly owned by religious groups.

The epitome of this trend was the “Moral Majority” founded in June, 1980 by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Falwell promoted the following agenda: America is in a state of terrifying moral decay that will result in the rise of atheistic dictatorships throughout the world and the fall of America; this nation is a chosen instrument of God for good in the world; Christians have a moral obligation to vote for candidates who pledge to support the religious principles of the Moral Majority. The Christians that Falwell refers to are “social traditionalists”, people who call themselves “born again”, who express absolute certainty that their beliefs are correct and their brand of Christianity is the only “real” one.

Falwell urged his followers to support Ronald Reagan for President that year, and convinced Republicans to include some of his views in their party’s platform. Reagan’s political operatives saw the opportunity to use this committed block of voters to help them elect Reagan and other Republicans. While Reagan himself would not speak about his religious views publicly, his operatives signaled to Falwell a willingness to work collaboratively. This fundamentalist connection to partisan politics was the start of a potent force in American politics that continues to evolve today.

Falwell and his followers picked the following issues to focus on in their campaigns: end legal abortion; stop the growing tolerance of gay and lesbian Americans; promote the need for prayer and Bible study in public schools; nullify the Equal Rights Amendment; defeat liberal senators and members of Congress who were viewed as aiding and abetting moral decay.

Falwell’s tactics have been notoriously negative toward candidates that were targeted for defeat by his organization. Inferences about support for the homosexual “agenda”; or claims that candidates were “baby killers” were commonplace. Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana summed up the strong feelings of those opposing Falwell when he stated, “The cause of liberty is not served by organizations that brand public officials as being immoral or anti-God because they hold different views.”

By the end of Reagan’s two terms in office, the Moral Majority and other leaders of the social traditionalists movement had lost a great deal of clout. Missteps on the part of many leaders caused them to be discredited. Swaggart acknowledged having an affair, as did James Bakker. There were also accusations of fiscal mismanagement at the Bakker’s P.T.L. ministries. Oral Roberts, in a famous speech, told his followers that they had better send money to his ministry or God would “take him home.” This threat from God did not sit well with Roberts’ followers. And when Pat Robertson ran for President in 1988 during the Republican primaries, his extreme statements in support of a Christian nation (theocracy) did not earn him strong voter support.

History repeated itself. When the social traditionalists, allied with Christian extremists, became outspoken (including the statement that killing doctors who performed abortions was “justifiable homicide”), public support waned. Similar bouts of outspokenness soured Americans to their movement during the “monkey trail” in 1925 and during the McCarthy “witch hunts” in the 1950’s.


(7) One Last Chance: The “Born Again” President and the Post 9/11 World

The classic fundamentalist perspective is to restore traditional religious values as the rules and norms by which citizens live. In order to accomplish this, they must push their agenda by using the political arena as well as mass media. As we have observed, a political objective often dominates their attention, and the notion of “getting along”, of embracing diversity or “difference”, is neither acceptable nor necessary. The “enemies” of their agenda must be defeated.

After George Bush was sworn in as President in 2000, he gave speeches that were peppered with Biblical references, code words or phrases, which signaled to the fundamentalists that he was one of them. While espousing a belief in something called “compassionate conservatism” he, nevertheless, quickly showed his affiliation with and affection for the fundamentalist view. His anti-modern views, including opposition to stem-cell research, his classic stances against gay/lesbian rights and abortion, and his promotion of faith-based initiatives resonated with the fundamentalists. Further, his post-9/11 references to America’s “crusade” against the “axis of evil,” and his commitment to the state of Israel as it related to Biblical prophecies in the book of Revelations about the second-coming of Jesus and the “rapture,” were bull’s-eyes with fundamentalist-“speak.”

His election in 2004 emboldened his fundamentalist followers further, and helped them to embrace causes that symbolized their new slogan-of-sorts, “the culture of life.”

Will George Bush’s fundamentalist connection flourish? Or will he, like “Scopes,” McCarthy, and Reagan before him, be the next leader to preside over the overreach of the fundamentalist “cause” that turns the majority of Americans away from them? God only knows.