Review and Response to “The Evangelicals” by Frances Fitzgerald, part 2
Last week I wrote part 1 of my review for this book and you can read it here.
Today I pick up with a new section starting in 1900. The author starts to make the shift to the underlying conflict that will plague the Evangelical movement going forward – the conflict between fundamentalist and modernist ways of seeing the world. Fundamentalism will have a significant impact on evangelicalism. While the two are closely related and often appear indistinguishable to the untrained eye, there are key differences. Having said that, it can not be denied that fundamentalism has left its mark on evangelicalism.
As a really quick history, fundamentalism arose in response to a more liberal theology that was taking hold of most major seminaries and divinity schools in the US (pg. 95). Much of this conflict is centered on the idea of biblical infallibility – the inability of Scripture to be wrong and that it should be interpreted literally. The Scopes trial would come about during this period.
If you want a summation of what the rise of fundamentalism means, along with it’s views of biblical inerrancy, here’s what Fitzgerald writes, “In a movement that depended on absolute certainty about biblical dates and the identity of such figures as Gog and Magog, there could be no compromise and, as the Byzantine disputes of old, the quarrel turned ugly.” (pg. 99)
And ugly it would remain to the very present. This would be the time in which the Rapture theology would gain popularity with its wrath and destruction of the earth. This would be the foundation for seeking easy, certain answers to questions while ignoring the complexities of the world and people. This would be the time that a strand of Christianity would turn against science.
It was during this period that the ugliness extended beyond theology. “Zeal for war and zeal for the Gospel, [Billy Sunday] preached, were much the same thing. ‘Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms,’ he declared, ‘and hell and traitors are synonymous.'” (pg. 106). This is the rise of Christian Nationalism.
So much of the orientation of fundamentalism was not towards a hope-filled future, but in returning to an idealized past. It’s core belief being that the best days are in the past, so let’s try to restore them. “We” were in control then. This is the same conflict that has a grip on the Christianity in America today – a conflict that has been raging for over a century.
“Fundamentalist ministers were, after all, men of strong egos. Those who had built up their own churches or Bible schools were rulers of their own fiefdoms, and, as believers in absolute standards of right and wrong, they tended to be authoritarian of temperament.” (pg. 116). This is no different today. It comes down to control – who has it, and who wields it, and how it is used.
Control comes through in other ways that still carry on today – like in education. “Along with [William Jennings] Bryan’s populism came a distrust of experts and bureaucrats, and the view that democrat meant popular sovereignty and the absolute right of the majority to rule. Teachers, he told the West Virginia legislature, have the liberty to say what they please as individuals, but ‘they have no right to demand pay for teaching that which parents and the taxpayers do not want taught. The hand that writes the paycheck runs the school.” (pg. 127). Sound like a familiar argument in 2021 around how history is taught? This is not a new argument. It’s just another chapter in century long battle that fundamentalism has been waging against modern society for control.
While so many think that what we have is a conflict of left versus right in America, it really would be more accurate to say that the fundamentalist-modernist conflict is ongoing. It permeates so many of the conflicts that happen in our society. So much of the remainder of the book is about control – who has it? Control of churches. And gaining political power and influence in order to exert control over others through policy to implement a worldview.
When the focus is on fundamentalist right/wrong ways of thinking, ideological and doctrinal purity are the main foci. This is why we see so many break offs happen – fights over who is right. And when there is no room for compromise, people take their ball and go home, starting something new. But here’s the thing – the more purer you want to get, then you have to be comfortable with the reality that you will have a small number of pure adherents. This is still the case today. Fundamentalism has no tolerance for ecumenical relationships because when the focus is on being right without compromise, how can you be in the same room with people that you see as being wrong. When being right is most important, it makes relationships difficult. It makes working together difficult.
As the book continues, the author moves the reader to the mid-point in the century, after WWII. It is during this time that there is a huge surge in worship attendance. People were impacted by the World War and faith is often a comfort in times of distress. This the time in which people like Billy Graham comes on the scene. His story is interesting and Fitzgerald gives a lengthy portion to Graham and his impact on evangelicalism.
Along with this Fitzgerald goes to great lengths to talk about the meshing of faith messages with patriotism. Eisenhower was big on doing this. “In his speeches Eisenhower used religious rhetoric more than most other presidents and repeatedly called for a spiritual revival. he institutionalized national prayer breakfasts, and during his presidency the Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and had “In God we Trust” engraved on the currency and adopted as the national motto over “E Pluribus Unum.'” (Pg. 184-5). “Religion and patriotism thus became inextricably linked.” (Pg. 185).
Remember, this was the time in which the Cold War was getting started. It was in the national interest to rally the country and have something to unite under. This was the advent of civil religion. It was a way of going to an ancient idea in many respects – a nation and their god were intimately linked. For the US, that god was God. And for the Russians, it was Communism. Faith and politics were meshed together for the epic battle and clash of civilizations.
During this period, evangelicalism also had another conflict going on – economics. There was a view that was catching on: “[J. Howard] Pew was an ardent political conservative who believed the Scriptures endorsed his own version of laissez-faire capitalism and thought the church shouldn’t concern itself with social reform.” (Pg. 188). The key question was exactly that – is faith merely a private matter that has no say in public affairs, or is faith about having an impact on society?
Fitzgerald also gives significant attention to evangelicalism in different parts of the country – particularly different ways in which race is viewed in relation to faith. Race relations, desegregation, civil rights – all of these things had an impact. Or rather, the evangelical view on these varied. This shouldn’t be surprising given the preference for individualism in faith.
This was also the time of anti-war protests and many evangelical preachers “expressed horror at the antiwar protests.” (pg. 246). Combine this with the focus on law and order what you see is “Evangelicals…had a particular respect for authority and a particular fear of disorder.” (pg. 247). “For over a century white southerners had looked to government as the guarantor of white rule, preferring order to democracy, and living in constant anxiety about a black rebellion.” (pg. 247).
As I look back through my notes in the book, there is one word that I wrote more often in the margins than any other. It’s the summation of what evangelicalism became – Control. And here’s one of the best examples of how that was applied: “For Thomas Road people (Jerry Falwell’s church), education – in the broad sense of the word – was not a moral or intellectual quest that involved struggle or uncertainty. It was simply the process of learning the right answers. The idea that individuals should collect evidence and decide for themselves was out of the question.” (Pg. 282). And that right there is the reason why I’ll never be an evangelical.
It was during the rise of Jerry Falwell that there is shift that takes place in evangelicalism – a shift to direct political engagement. As a result of this, evangelicals turned to more controlling methods. Throughout this section, the author uses words like “theological war” (pg. 340), a focus on Old Testament law (pg. 343), “victory” and “Ministry of conquest” (pg. 344), “Supplying the ammo” and “the knife at the throat of monopolistic humanistic schools” (pg. 345). Ideology was taking the place of theology in many cases with political victory becoming more important than anything else.
There were some Evangelicals who were concerned about this shift. Frank Schaeffer wrote: “We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.” (Pg. 358). Although he would also write “that the Constitution was not a secular document,” (Pg. 358). Kind of hard to have it both ways don’t you think Mr. Schaeffer?
As the book continues towards our current time, Fitzgerald lays out the history of the Evangelical influence and exertion of power over the Republican Party. Here’s a summary sentence, thus sparing you the details: “Kevin Phillips, the former Republican strategist who had once triumphantly announced the emergence of a Republican majority with its base in the South, titled his new book American Theocracy, writing that ‘the substantial portion of Christian America committed to theories of Armageddon and the inerrancy of the Bible has already made the GOP into America’s first religious party’ and is creating ‘a gathering threat to America’s future.'” (pg. 535).
There are a few bright spots though in Evangelicalism – the Rev. Gregory Boyd being one of them. In 2005 he published his book The Myth of a Christian Nation, in which he argues that “to identity the Kingdom of God with that of any version of the kingdom of the world is, he wrote, to engage in idolatry. The myth of a Christian nation, he continued, has led to the misconception that the American civil religion is the real Christianity.” (Pg. 540). Truer words have not been written more powerfully.
Fitzgerald goes on to finish the book in 2016, showing how Evangelicalism cemented its hold on the Republican Party, was very much opposed to science, and more concerned with winning elections in order to advance it’s preferred policy preferences, than anything else.
The book is powerful. Not because it left me hopeful. But rather because it is important to understand the history of a movement that still has a great deal of influence on society. And even though the sheer number of self-identified Evangelicals is diminishing, the impact and influence they have had on the nation will have long lasting impacts.
There are many other portions of this book that I didn’t highlight in this review mostly due to space that are well worth looking into. There was the rise of Evangelicals who come from a more progressive approach. There’s discussion the link to the Confederacy. There’s the ties to capitalism and individualism. There’s personalities that have had great influence. And so much more.
I highly recommend this book. But again, be warned – it’s a big book at over 600 pages. It will take you some time to get through. And there will be times when you just need to put it down because it will feel crushing to you, often reading sections saying to yourself some variation of “you’ve got to be kidding!”
Comment
As always, thanx for offering this reader’s digest and critique. Your remarks here help me to process better things which are important, things I have thought about, new thoughts I didn’t have yet and so forth. So, yes. Thanx.
I watched a documentary (and maybe an old movie about (it seems like)) the Scopes Monkey Trial a couple of years ago. I had some familiarity with WJBryan already too, and so that helped fuel my interest. I have often thought that his otherwise brilliant career is completely tarnished by his stupidity in waging unnecessary war with science in such a public spectacle – which should embarrass himself and the faith.
Of course, that puts me on a slippery slope of another sort. Intellectual pride is still pride. Not that it is the only other option to take against Scopes Trial, but it is the handy one, and I am not immune either.
This brings me to some reaction with a couple quotes from your post. Let me offer the quote and then my remarks:
“But here’s the thing – the more purer you want to get, then you have to be comfortable with the reality that you will have a small number of pure adherents. This is still the case today. Fundamentalism has no tolerance for ecumenical relationships because when the focus is on being right without compromise, how can you be in the same room with people that you see as being wrong. When being right is most important, it makes relationships difficult. It makes working together difficult.”
There are two separate ideas at work in this quote, both painting the picture of the problem of “control” you speak of in the post, but I want to separate them out for my observations. In the first quoted sentence there, you say “… purer… be comfortable… smaller number…”
Then you merge that with “… being right without compromise… same room with people … [who are] wrong…”
I can’t help but think of Jesus being right when everyone else is wrong. I can’t help but think of all his disciples abandoning him and fleeing at the moment of truth (Mark 14:50). He is uncompromisingly right, they are wrong, and the number of people with him dwindles to zero. I don’t see him as particularly “comfortable” with that. On the contrary, I see him distressed. But, I also see him as divine.
Insofar as I see it to that point, I think I am still in company with the Fundies and the Gellies. This is a stark place to be. You came in the room with friends, but now it’s just you and God, and your life is on the line for being uncompromisingly right. But whereas the everyone else now reaches for swords, guns, strength in numbers, and any other compromise which will hide the compromise in fear, authoritarian claims, or any other smoke-n-mirrors attempt at CONTROL, Jesus holds fast only to LOVE.
LOVE is a word I didn’t see covered in any of the analysis. (Neither did I see “empire” a somewhat more illusive term, but still one I find extremely useful.) I keep thinking about how Jesus tells us we will not lord it over others like the gentiles. It will not be so among us. He didn’t compromise, he was right when all others were wrong, but it wasn’t some mystical heights of intellect he promoted, but rather love. Pure love. Be holy as God is holy and loving as God is loving.
I don’t see that being addressed, but it is biblical. It is central.
This brings me to the next quote from the post above which I want to react to here:
“The idea that individuals should collect evidence and decide for themselves was out of the question.” (Pg. 282).”
I went to school where this form of thought process was highly prized too. I value it even yet, but – BUT – but I don’t think this is the end-all-be-all of human thought. People are sheep. Without the formal education we enjoy as commonplace today around the world (for the most part), you grow up believing (not terribly different from Fallwell’s strategy) what is “right” based on what is taught you by the authority figures (Mother/Father/Village Elders) you trust.
As I see it, this is practically a divine institution of human thought.
Very fragile and ripe for abuse, I certainly see that too. But if the adherents of this “system” of education humble themselves before God and one another, and love one another as more important than themselves (getting very idealistic now), then any damage from being wrong should be mitigated tremendously. But, as I see it, this is largely how St. Paul might “convert” a whole household rather than just a few individuals. IF Lydia comes to faith in Jesus, all those dependent upon her do too. It’s not like the lowliest child and slave in the household listen in deference and then make up thier own minds after careful, intellectual deliberation.
I might be driving too stern a wedge there between these ideas, but I think there is SOMETHING to this. I think about how my grandparents’ faith seemed so very proverbial. And before I came into the world, my family, just two generations back from me, lived on a farm in Central Texas with no TV, no radio (which might have showed up around that time), but they could read, write, and work sums and the like. They sat together to eat meals. At the end of the work day, their entertainment consisted of sitting on the front porch playing harmonica and reading Scripture, of talking about it and the like.
(I don’t mean to suggest this was purity, but it was a form of education which today we might fear is thought control.) It would take a lot to change people’s views in that world. If you went to work on my grandpa when he was just a boy, you MIGHT affect a change in his thinking, but he likely would run it by his daddy and granddaddy and get reeled back into the family viewpoint rather easily. Same for most of the others. However, if you affected a change in views with my great granddaddy, you stand to make a change in all the others rather profoundly.
I sense there is something right about that process, but like any other, it requires humility and will only be perfected in love.
THAT is something Fundies and Evangelicals are not even talking about today.
Oh… and before I go… (sorry, I have way more thoughts than I (0r you) have time for), EMPIRE…
Empire splits the church into “denominations” (AND OTHER splinterings too). But if you look carefully, empire subtly calls forth other allegiances which gladly cross these lines within the same hearts. “In God we Trust” on the money which has our hearts and devotion even more (but subtly more) than our adherence to our Rapture doctrine. That kind of thing.
Gotta go… Talk later…
Thanx for this.
X, thanks for reading and for the comments.
As for the first set of quotes you mention – I think the key difference is that Jesus is divine, as you say, and we are not. Jesus can be uncompromising because he is God. We are not. There’s a difference between compromising though and getting along with people you disagree with. It seems to me that in the history of fundamentalism the line is blurred and the two are seen as the same thing. The fundamentalists became primarily concerned with being right. And when that trumps everything else, then there is no room for getting along with anyone, unless they adopt the fundamentalist way of thought. That’s not just a Protestant fundamentalist issue. I dealt with it with more fundamentalist Catholics too. It was their way or the highway to hell. I simply have very little tolerance for such ways of thinking. It doesn’t seem very Christ-like in nature. Maybe this is the difference in how evangelism gets defined. Is evangelism, the act, going and convincing someone of your belief system? Or is it noticing what God is already up to and inviting others to participate? the first way of thinking is colonization to its core. Submit to my way, or die. The second way recognizes the humanity of others and that they may encounter God differently than I have, that my job isn’t to convince, but rather to be in relationship. The ends justify the means versus the means are as important as the ends. To me this matches well with what Christianity is all about – the means. It’s why Christianity was called “the way” at the very beginning.
Good observation that Love didn’t make it in the review. That’s because love was never talked about really, except maybe a few small references. Love doesn’t seem to be the focus. It’s hard to love when one is concerned with being in control. I recall 1 Cor. 13 and when I contrast that with what I read in this book, they are not the same thing.
On to the second set of quotes. I think there’s a difference between what you are talking about and what was going on in Falwell’s church. Falwell was concerned primarily with being right. Your family is more concerned with other things first before being right. There is care and concern, relationship, and more. That’s not to say there weren’t those things in Falwell’s church. It is to say that the core center and foundation between the two are different. In your family, it wasn’t education for the sake of being right. It was education for the sake family, relationship, survival even. It was integrated into entertainment and being together. Family provided experience and expertise that were unavailable elsewhere. It’s not a matter that your family wasn’t open to other ideas as it was that there was a trusted source that had shown to be helpful more often than not. There was a long term tie. Other options were not available readily. The internet didn’t exist. Libraries were not as common or as readily available. Formal education beyond primary school was not as valued, etc.
Empire – I think it could have easily been inserted into the book, but that wasn’t Fitzgerald’s thrust. It may have caused a distraction in fact. The book is a history of the movement. Does Evangelicalism have an empire bent? A portion of it, sure. So does every other movement. This was a focus on the leadership and how the leadership of the movement over the centuries has impacted the faithful and the country. If the 2016 election had gone differently, I wonder if such a book would have been published? I also wonder if Fitzgerald is working on an update covering 2016-current. It seems that things have progressed even further than where the book leaves off. Although it’s not a change in course. Everything in evangelicalism’s foundation and history leading up to 2016 provide a pretty set trajectory to show us that what happened with evangelicalism should not be a surprise.
I look look forward to talking more with you.