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 more accurate name for evangelical christians might be "busybody christians."
Please keep your beliefs to yourselves.
I've been calling them "Old Testament Christians," because a lot of them have thrown out as many of JC's teachings as they can get away with, in favor of pronouncing judgment on good and evil. Or, because they're all about obedience, punishment, and revenge, "Leviticans." It's religion conveniently edited to match one's politics, or should I say, religion cleverly applied to get votes by appealing to fear and distrust.
See, I ADMIT that my religion is based solely upon my own interpretations! That's why I'm able to allow them to do whatever they want, up to the point where they interfere with my beliefs....
Please keep your opinions to yourself. Thanks.
This is a discussion group where -- presumably -- opinions other than yours are welcome.
Didn't you just make VoteforPedro's point for him??
Well, Mr. Mitrovich, I hate to burst your bubble, but "evangelical" is every bit as offensive as "fundamentalist". An evangelical feels he has to check the religious qualifications of everyone he talks to, and if he finds a perceived lack, he then has to bring that person to Jesus. Oftentimes, he will use aggressive proselytizing or even unethical recruitment methods such as behavior modification, social engineering, love bombing, shunning, encouraging "confessions" which are later used to suck in the convert, implanting phobias against leaving the group, and other reprehensible and unconscionable tactics, all of which an institution that enjoys tax-exempt status certainly should not employ on a free American.
Religion has no place in politics. The spectacle of Rick Warren quoting bible verses to presidential
candidates, one of whom has a Harvard education, and questioning them as though they were guilty schoolboys who might have overlooked their catechism, was a debacle that our country used to be too enlightened to permit. And as far as Barack Obama is concerned, if he professes himself as a "born again", well--- that just makes me less likely to vote for him.
If it were not for both evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, both of which are so far to the right that they can be described as fascists, George Bush would not be president and we would not be in the mess we are currently in.
Among the many creepy news stories that come out of Colorado Springs (home of Focus on the Family, the Air Force Academy and other Religious Right enforcers) was one several years ago about a group of evangelicals who temporarily kidnapped children in order to save their souls. According to the story in the local paper, they cruised the streets of Colorado Springs in a van, snatching kids off the sidewalks and taking them to a private home. Then they either frightened or bribed their victims into "accepting Christ as their personal savior" and undergoing some form of baptism before being returned to where they were found.
The scariest part wasn't that religious wingnuts were going around kidnapping children but that the article showed up somewhere around page three of the local news section. In any civilized town, this would have been front page news, with mainstream Christian leaders loudly denouncing this not only as illegal but heretical. In the Vatican of the Religious Right it barely got a mention, although if the kidnappers had been Hari Krishna types we'd probably have heard the brouhaha from here in Denver.
I believe that Jesus Christ is my Savior. Your description of "fundamentalist" describes me. An evangelical is one who evangelizes (shares their faith) – of which I do. I am committed 100 % to working as hard as I can to make sure Senator Barack Obama is the next president of the US. Many other “fundamentalist” who are just as committed surround me. We believe that Senator Obama is a Christian not just, by what he says but his actions. The care and concern he has for all people is evident in the vision he has for America. On the other hand, Senator McCain does not show a relationship with Christ (not being judgmental) - that is evident by his walk. His campaign and Gov Palin (who does claim Jesus as Lord) defames the name of Christ in many ways. They are obstacles for people who want to be Christian but then see their actions. I try to live by What Would Jesus Do. I know that Jesus would not promote hatred of anyone, which is exactly what the two Republican candidates are doing. Nor would Jesus ever lie to win an election. As you describe "fundamentals" - I fit the bill - I do not believe in abortion, gay marriage, I do believe in Creationism, and take the Bible literally - so I guess your theory is not always right. For more information about people like me and to see that there are large numbers of us - check
Check out matthew25.org - to read information on why "fundamentalist" Christians are for Barack Obama!
you're absolutely right --- there are plenty of Believers in Jesus out there that support Obama. Please don't let what you see, hear or read tell you any different.
for more info, check out the Matthew 25 network. This website showcases: Catholics, Pentecostals and Baptists that are voting for Obama and putting away falsehoods.
Click here for more: http://www.matthew25.org
I'm shocked... I commend you and those like you... I've never met anyone, who is overtly Christian and not a republican... is this new, or where there people like you who didn't like George W Bush?... or Ronald Reagan?
Sorry about the "shocked" comment, but I truly am... every fundamentalist I've ever known thinks that any information that doesn't support "their" candidate or anything that doesn't support what they already believe is from the devil... it always seemed like all you have to do is say "praise Jesus!" and they'll do whatever you say... you can get them to support war, concentrating wealth in the hands of the ultra rich, support policies that impoverish themselves and others...
Thank you for all you are doing, I'm glad to see Christians that wide decisions and actually care.
In a country founded on the separation of church and state, this should not be an issue. It is ironic that in this country, candidates for high public office have to pass a kind of litmus test on their religious observance. Going to church every week (with wife, of course) is deemed a good thing, and the religious communities have had a great deal of influence on selection of candidates. 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.
Here (Britain) it is a point of some amusement that your constitution bans religious tests but the voters impose their own.
Yeah, hee-larious.
Let's put things in context--the Constitution forbids the formation of a state church and any requirement to belong to same. This concerns the actions of the government.
It gives no directions to the public. The Constitution is not a voting guide.
Voters can use judge their candidates any way they see fit. It's part of living in a free country. Hope that helps.
The voters do not impose their test. The religious leaders impose THEIR religious test, and the sheep who are their "flock" do what they are told......
These people have been the Republican party's lap dogs and lackeys since the sixties, why? Johnson's civil rights act, just look at where most of them come from. This group of people is representative of the most disgusting narrow minded and hypocritical group of human beings that exist. Who are the 30% of Americans that still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? This country needs to start requiring minimal standards of graduation. If a person is tested and unable to pass basic reasoning and judgment assessments they should not receive a diploma. Look at these ideologues that infected and infested the Department of Justice. lawyers with degrees from pat Robertson's college of fundamental self righteousness.
I too thought of myself as "saved" until what I realized that meant in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with God and everything to do with being better than everyone else, being above everyone else and never having to take responsibility for one's actions or being accountable for where your self serving beliefs lead. I will no longer stand up and claim Jesus as my lord and savior not because I don't believe him to be, but because of what these insidious and loathsome people have twisted it into. I pray always for these people, but a much larger part of me imagines the day when they are cast down to suffer for what they have wrought upon human kind and this once great nation.
You are referring to the difference between being "born again", which refers to adult baptism and a second chance at a new, more moral life as opposed to the gnostic Christianity practiced by many on the political right, such as George W., which claims that G-d has blessed them in such a way that all their actions from the time of adult baptism have G-ds seal of approval on it. Didn't the Pauline epistles condemn this sort of behavior?
it's from the south... the confederates and their decendants... remember, they were a VERY uneducated and VERY heirachical society...
it's not about any test you give them to graduate... it's about teaching reasoning skills and communication skills... today they teach that "Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in blah blah blah..." or you read some generic books in an English class... what about reason?... people need to be taught how to use their mind to learn for themselves, not taught to memorize facts and ideas.
The Church ( Evangelicals,Fundamentalists,Mormons,et al) are complicit to
the erosion of our country in wanting that "City on a Hill" with their quintessential
leader GWB. As a former "Church" follower, I was susceptible to the downright fakery...lies
and outright abnormal cultish personalities that these people wittingly surrender
their own faculties and monies to. The Church's mask has finally been pulled
off in their collusion with government these past few days. "Money" IS their
God. That's why the words "In God We Trust" is printed on our currencies.
And without "Money", they have NO God. Tell your parishioners to suck-up
and forget THE "Economy." Jesus is coming back, and by the way, I need to
make a payment on my Lexus.
Did you actually read the article? speaking out of ignorance no matter what your view is still ignorance......
"Did you read the article" is the new "taken out of context".
I think you missed jeffinseattle's point. he has characterized the televangical leadership very well... they tell their flock to ignore what's really happening on earth because jesus will rapture them soon enough... but in the meantime, keep the cash comin' cause i need to make a payment on my ride. hehe...
I have to disagree with the assertion that fundamentalists think human life begins at conception.
I'm a fundamentalist, and by my reading, the Bible concludes strongly, consistently, and thematically that human life begins at first breath.
To believe it begins at conception is actually an atheist's position that a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible can't hold. Throughout the Bible, the connection is made that life is defined by spirit, and spirit is symbolized by breath. There are number of passages that state this quite clearly. The word for spirit even derives from the word for breath in both Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the Bible. But moreover, the origin of flesh, which is what conception is, means nothing, in Jesus's own words.
And Jesus himself also spoke directly to the moment at which spirit joins with flesh - at first breath.
Maybe there just different kinds of fundamentalists: but there are those of us who believe enough in the Bible to actually study it and care about what it actually does say.
Trust me, someone who thinks the Bible can only be read in the King James Version and know not a word of the original languages, is NOT really a fundamentalist.
He is referring to the word ruach. Pronounced roo-och. Many religious traditions believe that the fetus becomes a human or has a soul at the point when the mother becomes aware of its movement, or the quickening.
Incidentallym, the original evangelists, the Lutherans, are getting a bad rap here. In the 70's, there was a big split in the Lutheran Church of America: the liberal Lutherans, who interpreted their Bible metaphorically, many of whom believed in the divinity of Jesus, and who also believed in evolution. This group tended to be moderate to liberal politically. The other group was up in arms because the first group did not believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, among other things. There was widespread news coverage. You can guess who the second camp votes for.
The Lutheran seminarians in Germany tend to take a more metaphorical view of their Bible.
I am not a Christian, so I am not a cheerleader for any evangelical group. I would just like to point out that it's not fair to paint all evangelicals with the same brush. They are a varied and diverse group.
Where in the Bible did you find that life begins at first breath? Just a question. I'm curious.
I can't speak for what you are talking about (barely being a Christian, and not being born again, having had an infant baptism) but I DO know that during the time of the bible there were many abortofascients known to the ancients. In fact, in the bible, it mentions the use of them, and states that it is only illegal to use them if it is without the parent's consent. In other words, if you give my wife a drug which makes her spontaneously abort without my permission, then you will be punished. On the other hand, if I give her that drug, then it's legal!
that's what I always thought christian doctrine taught, at first breath... there are many references to the "breath of life"...
I think the problem is that the vast majority of those that are called a fundamentalist or even evangelical, haven't read any bible... maybe a quote here or there, but haven't read it cover to cover. I always thought it curious that those that are the most obsessed with the bible don't read it or even care about it's origins.
Media ignorance? Only the mass chewing-gum, broadcast media, and also the corporate print media--Time Newsweek, etc, etc. That mass media simultaneously feeds, and feeds ON ignorance.
There is of course plenty of great independent media that the less ignorant turn to.
If Obama's public acknowledgement helps win over undecided voters, then good.
But whether or not a candidate accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and personal savior is completely irrelevant to how the candidate will govern the country.
yeah, it's too bad that there are so many people who think a non-christian, or even a christian that isn't enough like them, will ban christianity, burn bibles and enslave the christian masses...
but liberal evangelicals do not care to counter the power and demagoguery of the evangelical right.
Why is that?
Why should they? To make you happy?
Excuse me if I'm being thick and not seeing a rhetorical question for what it is (if so I'll just spell it out), but speaking as a moderate evangelical, it's because we don't BELIEVE in the demagoguery or peddling of influence that many of us see in the religious right. In fact many of us view those things as politics corrupting of our religious beliefs, and/or vice-versa.
For all of you out there who have been frustrated in the past by right-wingers trumpeting their Christianity and using it to grab power and exclude people because of your position on the outside of that group, imagine the frustration of being someone relatively on the inside who holds Christianity very dear and sees these things as a perversion of his core beliefs AND as a popular misrepresentation of those beliefs! I for one am sick of having to defend my faith on account of fundamentalists co-opting the term "evangelical," especially considering the places fundamentalists have brought the conversation under Bush. Thank you so much for this article.
Seconded! As a person of faith, I am sickened by the "not-so-religious right." To me, they seem to be the antithesis of Jesus. I think a fairly large segment of professing Christians are progressives who believe in social justice, protection of the environment, peace and not war, equal rights for all people, do not want to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and so on and so on. This group of Christians does not make news the way it is made by fundamentalists. This group is not filled with hatred, and does not want to stir conflict. Unfortunately, media profit from conflict and the far right Republicans gain power from hatred. It is indeed time for a change.
Thank you so much, Vagabundo. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Because the ignorant idiots who are the "low information" voters not only don't analyze the news or what is fed to them by whoever they follow blindly, they don't really read their bible and analyze what is meant by the scriptures.They believe the doctrine of their churches as taught by their preachers.Their minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
Good summary.
One has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.
_
I look forward to a time when Americans won't care who believes in Jesus or doesn't. I find it a bit suspect that Obama really indulges in religion.
"I look forward to a time when Americans won't care who believes in Jesus or doesn't. "
Hear, hear.
Conspiracy theories aside, you don't sit in any church for 20 years and "indulge in religion." Right now we appear to be judging a lot based on our preconceived notions of both candidates. But I don't believe that anyone can say for sure what went on for that 20 years in Obama's religious life without being there. Were you or anyone else who comments on it sitting in that church?
Why? It obviously hasn't affected his campaign or his decisions.
JFK, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and many other great presidents have publicly acknowledged Jesus. It had nothing to do with how they ruled the country, even though in JFK's case people were convinced that the Pope would be leading the country.
The fact of the matter is that most people in America believe in Jesus, and most of them also live their lives. It's only a few like bushco and Palin who are bad at it!
Thanks for eloquently articulating the difference between a fundamentalist (which I am not) and an evangelical (which I am) Christian. To answer your last question: He'll get at least one vote from that demographic.
Sincerely,
An evangelical Christian and proud Obama supporter
For a bit of perspective it's useful to remember that Jimmy Carter is an evangelical Christian.
Yeah, and Carter was a terrible and unpopular President... coincidence.. I think not...
He was an unpopular and underrated president.
Carter was a wonderful president and a stellar human being. His time in office was wrought with problems, and he handled them well. The peace between Israel and Egypt was an epic. Not recognized by losers because the avoidance of bloodshed is never news. Imagine, for a second, if Egypt along with Israel had not found a compromise? Carter was not "afraid" to talke to Arafat because of his personal faith.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
