How Fundamentalists Became Evangelicals
John McCain and Barack Obama are the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties for president of the United States. One has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.
The one who has is not John McCain.
But if you watched the mid-August forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County when McCain and Obama appeared separately with Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life", a run-away best-seller (as in 25 million copies sold), you could be forgiven for thinking it was McCain not Obama who had declared Jesus as Lord. In fact, there is no public record of McCain making that claim. He has never said, as Obama has, he's "born again."
One of the extraordinary occurrences within the Christian church is how fundamentalism became evangelicalism.
The cause is twofold:
First, the word "fundamentalism", ever since 9/11 and the rise of Muslim extremism, carries a hugely negative association, one that most people, understandably, have no wish to be identified with.
American Christian "fundamentalism", which dates, in part, to the great Fundamentalist-Modernist debate of the 1920s and 30s, is still with us - in greater numbers than before. Fundamentalism, at its core argues the Bible is inerrant, that scripture is literally true, without error - every word and every verse of every chapter in every book of the Old andNew Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.
It might astonish you how many people believe the verbal inspiration of scripture, that the books of the Bible, in both Testaments, were written by men as God dictated to them to write. Hence, by that act of composition, the Bible is faultless. Those who hold this view are fundamentalists.
Secondly, there is another community of Christians, however, who hold to a different view. That community believes in the plenary inspiration of scripture. They hold scripture to be inspired but not infallible. Many who hold this view are evangelicals.
To a non-Christian, a non-faith, non-religious person, why should that matter? Verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, fundamentalist, evangelical, who cares?
On the night of the nationally televised appearances by McCain and Obama, Rick Warren asked the two candidates when life begins? Obama gave a highly nuanced answer, saying, among other things, it's "above my pay grade." McCain, conversely, answered directly and dramatically, "At conception." Obama's answer received polite applause. McCain's answer received loud and sustained applause. The notable difference in reactions was no surprise; those in attendance were members of Saddleback, a Southern Baptist church.
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is America's largest Protestant church - and a Fundamentalist denomination; one that rejects modernity (the SBC, for instances, does not ordain women). Warren and his church have achieved remarkable success, and they do good charitable works, but the church's connection to the SBC has been minimized. You cannot find it referenced on the church's Web site (thus avoiding the embarrassing fundamentalist connection).
Should that matter? Yes, because we're in the midst of the most important presidential campaign in our history and the religious right, i.e., fundamentalists, will be a significant factor election day.
Having realized the serious public relations downside of being thought "fundamentalist", those who embrace its doctrine have stopped using the term and have adopted evangelical, which is culturally less threatening and socially more acceptable.
However, while all fundamentalists may be evangelicals in asserting that Jesus Christ is Lord, not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists are pro-life, not all evangelicals are. Fundamentalists oppose gay marriages, not all evangelicals do. Fundamentalists believe in creationism, most evangelicals accept Darwin and keep an open mind. Because fundamentalists oppose abortion and gay rights, the two issues that dominate their political agenda, they vote overwhelmingly Republican (or did you think John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was an accident?).
The chance for Obama/Biden to win votes among fundamentalist Christians is nil. That vote goes to McCain/Palin. Obama/Biden's chances to win votes among evangelicals, however, is dramatically higher. Non-fundamentalist evangelicals have broader political concerns - the Iraq War, global warming, health care, the economy, Wall Street greed, the plight of the poor, etc.
The conundrum of fundamentalist/evangelical is heightened by media ignorance. The media, not understanding the differences between the two, unwilling to do the hard work necessary to separate one from the other, have chosen to identify them as one - "evangelical." And by that failure, confusion is rampant on what issues divide these two differing bodies of Christian believers - politically and theologically.
Fundamentalists and evangelicals share a common faith in the person of Jesus Christ, but it isn't that which separates them - it's everything else.
John McCain will get the fundamentalist vote November 4. But the real question is how many evangelicals will vote for Barack Obama - the one presidential candidate to confess Jesus as Lord.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A letter to John McCain,
Mr. McCain, you have been weighed in the balances and your time is up. The decisions you have made regarding your campaign have been without regard to the American people. You have put yourself first and country last. Your once respected campaign rallies have now become hate rallies. You have allowed Sarah Palin to hi-jack your campaign rallies and turn them into forums for hate. This has opened the old wounds of racism and fear that continues to plaque the south. The south is one part of the country where you are above 50% in the polls. You nor your running mate are talking about real issues for the American people. The more you push division and hate you will be pushed down in the polls. The hands of God will not let you pass. The American people in this time of our history are not looking for messages filled with hate. Since you are not willing to take back the control you have given to Sarah Palin, you are heading for a political disaster that will be in the history books. Your time is up.
Sarah Palin is HOT both as a politician and a woman! She speaks out for what she believes is right and supports the american working class population. John McCain and whats his name Obama from wherever we don't know should get out of the way and let her become the next president of the United States!.
Sarah Palin is attractive in the normal sense. I don't happen to find her attractive at all, because I would prefer a working brain in a woman.
She doesn't say ANYTHING when she speaks, which I guess means that she doesn't believe anything!
Her "support" for the middle class is more of bush's "support" for the middle class, which I cannot afford any more!
And while I think that McCain would be bad for the country, I would MUCH rather have McCain than Palin!!
Sarah Palin is physically attractive, no question on that one but she hasn't supported anyone other than her own ambition. She left a town with a population of 6,000, she left it $20 million in debt, I still don't know how that's possible.
And we do know where Obama is from. He was born in Hawaii, we know this. Even the National frickin' Review has conceded that.
Art. VI of the US Constitution provides that "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
While I understand many of the points being raised, as an American I respectfully reject anyone's raising the question of which candidate has been "born again" as a test for the office of president. There are many good, sound reasons for favoring Obama over McCain without imitating or resorting to the un-American approach of Christian fundamentalists.
The Constitution forbids Congress from giving a religious test--i.e., from requiring membership in a church. As in, a state church. Which, luckily, we don't have.
The voting public, on the other hand, can vote based on any standards or requirements it wishes to impose. We have no right to reject another voter's values in that regard. None whatsoever.
And we're better off with things that way. I don't want anyone telling me how to vote, and I'm sure no one wants me to dictate their choices. I'd like to think you agree with this arrangement, one that's essential to democracy.
The idea that reading the Bible as literal is not only a relatively new idea, but is sensationally ignorant. It decides to ignore all elements of context, literary style, original audience, etc.
Ask a fundamentalist if they believe that Jesus was a four-legged woolly animal. Probably they will say no, but then I guess Scripture calling Jesus the Lamb of God isn't literal. Oh, but that is just a metaphor, right? So we can take metaphor into account, but not other literary tools like poetry, apocalyptic literature, moral stories, etc.
The Bible was not written as a science or history book. To read it as such is to miss the point. To force it to be such is awful science and history, and even worse theology.
Actually, the idea itself is a very old idea. All the way until around the 1700s it was considered THE TRUTH!!!!! and as such MUST be true in every word. More recently people began to find inconsistencies with the Bible and realized that it wasn't THE TRUTH!!!!! but simply a Truth about people and their relationship with God. Then the conservative leaders decided that they needed more control over the people convinced the people that they needed to eschew learning, and simply listen to whatever the leaders said. It was around that time that the Bible became THE TRUTH!!!!! again.
it's amazing to think how relatively recently religious/god belief has so dramatically declined... they'll have their little revivals, but the trend towards rational belief will continue...
they fight back by trying to eliminate universal education, push for creationism/Intelligent design as science, push religious activities to be assocated with educational events (prayers, 10 commandments, etc...), eliminating sex education, portraying themselves as victims 'under attack'...
they'll end up as fringe cults, probably engaging in terrorist activities, black market female/bride trading, training covert operatives to get into political office... oh, wait... I guess they do those things already...
The only time I have seen McCain mention having faith was on 60 Minutes and it was a very weak attempt at pandering. McCain worships nobody but McCain.
If fundamentalists truly believe the the Bible is the ultimate authority, then my interpretation of the Bible is as valid as theirs, or the Pope's, or Rick Warren's, or Pastor Bob down at First Baptist.
WRONG!! Only the leaders can understand the Bible!! And of course, only CERTAIN leaders are the ones who DO understand the Bible.....
If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?
Theological doctrines:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
ORGANIZED religion - the bane of civilization.
According to my sister, a member of a southern wing Baptist church here in MIchigan, the bibile will never contradict itself, and those who believe it does are misinterpretating it. And if you misinterpretate the bibile, you will go to Hell.
I'm not making that up. That is her church's belief. So it doesn't even matter that you are the "right" denomination. You have to belong to the "right" church with the "right" minister or you are going to burn in Hell.
They twist everything to make it work for them. I also laugh everytime I hear my now ex brother in-law say that Shakespeare was not sexual and anyone who reads that into his work is sick.
How can you argue with that kind of logic?
Man, I thought that MY brother-in-law and sister-in-law were bad...... He actually thinks that Shakespeare is not sexual??????? Has he ever even READ any of it????????
NO GODS NO MASTERS
Demomom said: "I am a liberal church-going Christian but I still don't really understand why faith and religious beliefs have acquired such importance in elections in this country."
That's a fair question. For me, the answer is, if you profess a certain philosophy, whether religious, political or otherwise, I can measure your actions against that standard and hold you accountable. If someone professes faith in Jesus Christ, there are certain behaviours I should be able to count on, such as fidelity, concern for the poor, truthfulness, etc., which are overt and concrete characteristics that Christians are called to press towards. (Yes, I know, there are a thousand examples one can come up with where they/we don't, but that's not the point.) It matters less to me that the standard is "Christian" - it could be Buddhist, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, socialist, whatever - as long as there is a standard, some moral compass I can hold them to.
In other words, Tell me what you believe and how you believe it, and I'll reserve the right to vote you out if you turn out not to meet the standard you claim to live by.
Why do religious people believe they have a menoploy on morality.
The truth is, most of the 10 comandments transcend Christianity. I do not have to profess a faith in a deity to be a good person. My issue with Christian morality is that I could commit the most atrocious crimes, live a self-absorbed life, but accept Jesus Christ as my saviour on my death bed and all is forgiven? Meanwhile, innocent children in third world countries who have never even heard of Jesus die and they will burn in Hell?
Here is a sample of my moral compass:
Tolerance for those who are differnent than myself
Empathy for individuals who experience hardships and a desire to help when I can
A belief that I have an obligation to give back to my fellow man and my Earth in some way
A respect for life that is here in this world
Faithfulness to my husband
This is of course not a complete list. The point is, you may not agree with all my values as I may not agree with all yours, but that does not make me an immoral person.
As you pointed out, a person who calls hiself a Christian may not even hold Christian values. Wouldn't it be better to just focus on the actual values of a candidate and look past lables of faith?
I think your logic is flawed. Badly flawed.
We have a living example in GW Bush of how a professed (Born Again) Christian has completely failed to live up to our expectations of Christian behavior. We are talking deceit (lies, manipulation), hypocrisy, coveting power, etc.
In fact, save but for a few isolated cases, I am forced to be highly suspicious of any fundamental or evangelical Christian. All of these people, but particularly those who have some degree of intelligence, have an agenda. What's worse, their ability to reason and think critically is damaged. Take these two factors together and you are left with a person who has the potential to be a hazard.
Finally, I think it's terribly naive to anticipate certain behaviors from people based only on their professed beliefs. We should remember that there are specific cause factors behind each individual's choice to become a believer. Those reasons are more telling to me than the faith itself.
I believe it was Gandhi that summed it up best - "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
True That.
It's a wonderful quote. Here's another from Gandhi...
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
Conservatives ignored him (they were going to run against Hillary after all) they laughed at him (tire gauges, anyone? how about Giuliani and Palin at the convention?) now they are attacking him...we must all keep working to make sure he wins.
Any self respecting person who calls himself a Christian, owes it to himself to understand the history of the book they claim to live by.
Lately, many people have been spending a whole lot of time "vetting" their candidate (or in some cases, having Fox do it for them). One criteria for these folks is whether or not the candidate is "Christian". If these people spent as much time "vetting" their Holy Book BEFORE judging a candidate against it, the political landscape would be significantly different.
There are hundreds of thousands of "versions" of the scriptures that are known to exist today, and many more yet to be discovered. Because these early documents were hand copied, each is different from the other, and the significance of the differences can be important.
Various versions of the Bible have been "created" over the centuries, based on (some of) these older scriptures. Some scriptures have been completely omitted ! One thing all Bible versions have in common is that MEN were behind the selection of what material to include and exclude. Additionally, even the most up-to-date "official version" of the Bible (KJ) does not reflect the more recent discoveries.
Based on all we know about the imperfect journey of the "Word of God", any rational person could simply NOT accept ANY version of the bible as the literal "Word of God".
Not to mention that all of the earliest manuscripts for the new testament date no earlier than about 100 years after Jesus was supposedly around. Some were obviously written by different people as certain passages match the others, but other passages were written by a different hand, were written in a completely different literary style and stray from the point of the story in which they were inserted. A bulk of some of the "books" are simply copies from other ones, such as with Matthew, Mark and Luke... they're identical, but with those "different" passages inserted in. Some have really odd additions, such as the Pythagorean fish story... And as we all know, some of them contradict each other...
The old testament refers to different gods, but christians consider them all to be different names of the same god... back in the day, different jewish temples had different gods, some even had families of gods... at some point they all became rolled up... some concentration of power occurred, either due to war (to preserve their traditions) or some powerful sect took over... but anyway, you've got elohim (plural), yahweh, el and some other one...
thank you for this article, mr. mitrovich. the topic is something i have long considered. i was raised a southern baptist, am the granddaughter or a minister, and the daughter of both a mom and dad who were ordained deacons, and i was also a church secretary for a time. we left the southern baptist convention (sbc), along with many of disaffected baptists, when the fundies took over the sbc. the moderate/liberal wing of former southern baptist are now aligned most prominently with the cooperative baptist fellowship. for those of you not familiar with the fundie takeover, there was a culture war similiar to our national politics with the supposed elites/intellectuals vs. the old time religion/anti-education folks. it is a fascinating story and worth looking into. the takeover was orchestrated a by a few men who methodically set about electing their people to boards and the presidency until they controlled the convention at all levels, including institutions and colleges. they got the masses to go along by gross caricaturizations . i have always felt that the takeover of the sbc was for the republican party akin to how hitler viewed the spanish revolution: it is were their techniques were tested and perfected. even though sarah palin, being a speaking-in-tongues penecostal, is different than baptist conservative who more than likely views her faith as heretical, her ascent is not surprising. she is what results from years of the culture wars.
It is interesting. Although I am a non-practicing Catholic, I have never cared much for the evangelicals or fundamentalist. I always thought they were practically the same. I like to think of myself as a free thinker. I find your comment and the article above interesting because it has showed me a side I did not know. Maybe it is time to talk about religion with an open and intellectual mind.
"John McCain will get the fundamentalist vote November 4. But the real question is how many evangelicals will vote for Barack Obama - the one presidential candidate to confess Jesus as Lord."
For many voters, for a candidate to publicly acknowledge Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior is not a plus.
Many Americans view religion -- ALL religion -- as ignorant superstition, and therefore a very bad thing. Since we enjoy the separation of Church and State, the candidates' religions should be a private matter -- out of respect for OUR privacy, as well as theirs. The candidates may adore Jesus or Allah or the Big Kahuna, but I absolutely don't want to hear about it.
cont...
So it is my belief that such people have created a new religion for themselves, one which holds nominal allegiance to Jesus but which subordinates his teachings to right-wing political views, creating a new faith that I call Christopublicanism. The Bible is one of it's holy book but so is Atlas Shrugged, Ronald Reagan is a saint, Bill Clinton the devil. This is not a faith which found itself involved in politics, it is a faith that exists because of and in symbiosis with politics. Where how one votes is of equal or greater importance than how one worships or even how one lives, where it is socially acceptable to hate and even wish death upon those of different viewpoints. They have their own high priests, their own holy books, their own sainthood.
I could expand on this at length but you get my point.
I think it would be helpful to discuss the phenomenon in 2 parts, the "leadership" and the "followers". Truth is, the "followers" have very little idea of anything you're talking about. They've learned to mock education and treat intellect as some form of affliction. "Elite" is a code word they've been given to describe "East coast Ivy League educated". The word was co-opted from the language to allow their leadership to criticize the educated "others" while isolating themselves from contempt.
I suspect that a huge number, if not a majority of these "follower drones" have never actually read their bible. They rely on spiritual leaders to chew, digest and regurgitate the important bits for them. After all, the biblical english is not simple to understand, and does require a lot of interpretation. That requires effort, and the ability to think, both of which they are loath to do. So, the interpretations they are "fed" are very much within the control of their pastors, many of whom have clear political agendas.
For these anti-intellectual, non-thinkers, it's as though the Gutenberg press had never been invented.
Yes, this is probably true. Altemeyer managed to show that right-wingers (and probably left-wingers as well but he didn't study them) tend to break down into leaders and followers. Leaders are not necessarily the leaders of the party but they are those most actively involved in spreading and enforcing it's doctrine. The followers are not necessarily stupid but they have that very human ability to unquestioningly believe anything their approved authority figures tell them, regardless of how much it conflicts with external evidence (hence how Pastor Wright can be everywhere for weeks and people still think Obama is a muslim).
I suspect the anti-intellectualism is left over from the Populist movement nearly a century ago. Now, the Populist movement weren't generally opposed to thought but they resented the federal government telling them how they should do things when they had never lived the life (and in that time and place, they had a point). When the Populist movement dried up, as these things do, the anti-intellectualism hung around and melded with the resentment city and country folk have always had for one another and the result was primarily a class-based resentment.
It's funny that you mention education in combination with Fundamentalism. When I was working on my English education degree, the debate between whole language and Phonics came up quite often. I was surprised to find out that some churches had created a video denouncing whole language. Why, I thought, would a religion present a position on the matter? But the answer is very simple. Whole language allows for Reader Interpretation. In other words, a reader brings to a text their own pre-information and applies it to their reading to form their own interpretation, and that interpretation can be just a valid as another’s. Such a belief, if applied to the Bible, would undermine the Bible is literal and infallible.
I maintain that the fundementalist base of the Republican party are only Christian in the broadest sense in the same way that Mormons consider themselves a form of Christianity.
I'm not a Christian but I have read The Bible from cover to cover several times in several languages and translations. Examine the social beliefs of most fundementalists and you'll find few of them mentioned in the Bible. Anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion are arguable in context but ok, let's be charitable and give them those two. Now look at the rest. Fundementalists tend to be rabid capitalists and often refer to anyone even slightly liberal as "socialist" or "communist" and therefore worthy of hatred. This proves that firstly, they don't know what the words mean; secondly, that they don't know there is a difference and thirdly, that they've become confused. The Bible mentions neither ideaology or anything aproximating to them (unless you count Jesus's command to sell all your property and donate the money to the poor). Fundementalists tend to be social Darwinists. That is, they believe that poor people deserve to be poor and shouldn't be helped. I seem to remember Jesus having quite a lot to say about the poor and how we treat them. They tend to be anti-enviroment, ignoring the call to be "good stewards" of the earth. They often believe the New World Order claptrap, mentioned nowhere in the Bible. Jesus endorsed church-state seperation, fundementalists tend to be opposed.
cont...
2 Corinthians 8:
[2] Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. [3] For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. ...[7] But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us*—see that you also excel in this grace of giving.
[9] For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.
...[11] Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. ..[13] Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. [14] At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, [15] as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
**************************************************************
Sounds pretty socialistic to me. Now Paul was talking about giving among the churches, but you are absolutely right.
Jesus and the early Christians wanted nothing to do with government, and Jesus even chastised people who wanted him to overthrow the Romans.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
