fundamentalist mind and bush administration and john murtha and gilbert tennant

I first encountered what I have long since called the fundamentalist mind or fundamentalist thinking when I was a college student in the early 1970s. I was an active member of a conservative Christian campus group which was committed to evangelizing the campus and "making disciples" for Christ. In the course of my time, our group was infiltrated by some young people not from the college community but who seemed very committed to Christian faith and were very vocal about how much they loved God. They invited me to some of their meetings, which I cheerily attended. Within about a month, they asked me to "join" their group. What they had in mind was the following: the group, which they simply called "The Church" (in Providence) was going to move its operations to Boston. All of us would move, find work in Boston and continue our almost daily meetings with each other for evangelism and fellowship. I, who was in my last year of undergraduate work, told them that I wanted to finish school--it was pretty important to me. They admitted school was important but said that their work was more important, and I should recognize that fact. When I didn't budge, they quickly dismissed me, calling me a "non-Christian," and consigning me to places considerably warmer than Providence in early December.

I remember feeling two distinct reactions when I was so treated. On the one hand I was hurt and angered, hurt by people whom I had begun to trust and angered that they could just write me off with such apparent ease when I didn't fit their narrow program. On the other hand, I knew from my study of sociology and history of religion (I was not a complete dummy, even in those days), that many scholars had pinpointed resentment as a mark of fundamentalism. Resentment boils up and over because of the seeming inconsistency between fundamentalist belief (We are the ones especially loved by God; we are the real chosen people) and the stark reality of life (We are ignored, discriminated against and often excluded by the majority society). This dissonance between what people think is true and their actual felt reality creates a kind of mental turmoil that can only be overcome by consigning those who disagree to the hell that many of the fundamentalists experience in their own private lives each day.

I had studied fundamentalism in American history, and believed that a principle manifestation of it came through the preaching of folks like Gilbert Tennent and James Davenport in the First Great Awakening (early 1740s). They violated the basic principle of parish integrity in those days by coming into the parish where called ministers were already serving and declaring to people that their preachers had "no acquaintance with experimental piety," i.e., that they had not experienced the "new birth." Because the ministers had not experienced this "new birth," parishioners were justified in leaving their churches and joining up the fledging efforts of Tennent, Davenport of a host of other ministers who were waiting in the wings. Thus, the classic mark of the fundamentalist mind in religion is to consign to hell those with whom you disagree for the sake of your own gain. This approach to religion ended up leading to major schisms in significant colonial denominations (such as the Presbyterians); bitter arguments between the "old" and "new" lights broke through the placid surface of that great church in the 1740s.

Fundamentalist Political Thinking

Richard Hofstadter wrote his classic work Anti-Intellectualism in American History in 1963. His thesis, that a spirit contrary to reasoned inquiry and scientific analysis has appeared throughout American history, is certainly valid, but his book really needs retitling. The more appropriate title is The Fundamentalist Mind in American Culture because the mode of thinking which I have just described (in religion) is not only rife in the land today, but is a direct outgrowth of religious fundamentalism. What I refer to is the spirit alive in America which questions someone's patriotism for opposing the War in Iraq. Just as the religious fundamentalists were eager to consign to hell anyone who disagreed with their construal of reality, so the political fundamentalists today send people to "political hell"--lack of patriotism--if they don't toe an ideological line. This approach backfired on the adminsitration in the past week when a pro-War Democrat John Murtha (D-PA) urged a pullout from the Iraq War within a reasonable time.

At first the attacks on Murtha were classic fundamentalist attacks. He must lack patriotism. As US Rep Jean Schmidt (R-OH) said, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do....," obviously a slashing reference to Murtha. The Administration leaders, President Bush and VP Cheney, had to toe a more careful line, even though they had opened the door to calling dissenters "reprehensible" following the President's Veterans Day speech in PA and VP Cheneys' invocation of that word a few days later. I think that the attack on "reprehensible" protestors arose not simply because the President's approval numbers were declining but also because the Administration is, at least with respect to the War in Iraq, so burrowed into a fundamentalist mode of thinking that anyone who disagrees with their position has to be delivered over to the political equivalent of hell. In my judgment the quick retreat beat by the Adminstration this week with respect to Murtha was not for ideological reasons (i.e., because they really "cherish" dissent) but because they knew they were much less credible than Murtha when they spoke. Therefore they have to try to praise him while at the same time undermine his credibility. It is a delicate line to walk.

Conclusion

We now live in a time of unabashed fundamentalist thinking in high places. Fundamentalism, indeed, is one very long-lasting and well-represented position in the history of religions. Every Western religion has fundamentalist movements, movements that purify, that consign others to hell, that bring "purity" to the mixed-up policies and life of others. The question for America today is whether we want fundamentalist thinking to characterize our approach to domestic and international affairs. I, for one, don't.

1523