Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden

[senda wales]

(Anyone else read this one? I apologize in advance if I got any of my interpretation/information wrong. This was a very academic read, and I had to be very awake to read this. I've heard that another book that Marsden wrote, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, covers similar content but is geared more towards a layperson audience. Not that this book is not accessible to laypeople, but like I said, it wasn't really bedtime reading.)

There are few things as misunderstood and controversial as American Christian fundamentalism. Opponents and outsiders condemn what they see as an extremist group that came out of nowhere in the 1980s with the Religious Right. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, often perceive their history as continuous, claiming a small but unbroken lineage back to the churches of the New Testament. Neither view is particularly accurate. In Fundamentalism and American Culture, George Marsden locates Christian fundamentalism as a uniquely American phenomenon, shaped by its cultural experience and its reactions to social and political changes. He traces fundamentalism's roots to the 1870s, shortly after the Civil War, in an era of perceived American prosperity and dominance. He identifies philosophical, scientific, and ideological influences on Christianity. As cultural ideologies shifted, Christian leaders reacted, going along with the changes, opposing them, and/or integrating them into their movement. There were also American wars and modernization to contend with, so that even while Christians faced liberalization within their movement, they also faced broader social changes that affected their practice and acceptance of changes in their faith.

I was surprised to learn that theories of premillenialism (that Christ's kingdom has not yet come) and dispensationalism (that history can be divided into special ages and this is the "Age of Grace" or "Church Age") were not widely held beliefs until relatively recently. Many Christians in the 1870s subscribed to postmillenialism, believing that Christ had already come and they were already living in the kingdom. America's prosperity and the civilizing and missions movements worldwide seemed like strong evidence for an argument for postmillenialism. Thus, Christians were motivated to evangelize the world to further the kingdom and were open to the social gospel, reaching out to the poor and standing by some social/political reforms (such as Prohibition and public education) in an effort to continue improving the kingdom of God. Gradually, social gospel proponents became associated with a more liberal wing of Christianity. Other Christians espoused premillenialism, believing that this was the Church Age where society would get worse and worse, that the modern day world was run by Satan, that time could be divided into different dispensations, and that Christ would eventually return to take up the believers and usher in a new kingdom. These two contradictory views, while not the main motivators of practice and belief for laypeople compared with simple soulwinning and evangelism, were significant underlying themes in Christian thought. This contradiction carries through to today - the Religious Right evokes a history of a Christian nation that is the only hope for the world while simultaneously condemning America and American culture for its morass of sins and cultural decline.

I was also intrigued to learn how Christianity at this time was strongly influenced by Baconian Common Sense philosophy. This philosophy/scientific paradigm argues that phenomena can be separated into observable facts. Using their basic senses, humans can come to a universal, objective understanding of these natural and external laws and truths. This was huge during the Enlightenment era, affecting how many Western societies approached science, art, and religion. Notably, America came into existence during this era of scientific thought. American Christian thought reflected this; Christians believed that through exercising one's common sense, individuals could read the Bible and come to an understanding of God. Eventually, the rest of Western European transitioned from the Common Sense paradigm to romanticism, developing theories about naturalism, subjectivity, and the experience of a phenomena (the idea of a thing, rather than the thing itself). However, America was late into adopting romanticism as a paradigm, and much of its Christian thought remains steeped in Common Sense philosophy. This is why teaching evolution faced such high tensions in the U.S.; there simply was no room for evolutionary thought in a Common Sense scheme that depended on creationism at its foundation. This is also why it is not really accurate to speak of fundamentalists as anti-intellectual. They ARE intellectual, but their movement is based in a different intellectual paradigm that conflicts with romanticism (and pretty much every other paradigm that developed afterwards).

Another thing that was interesting to me was that fundamentalism has not always been overly militaristic in its lingo or political stances. During World War I, premillenial fundamentalists took a strong pacifist stance. Part of this was a belief that Christians should not engage in warfare. A major part of this was that they were not terribly concerned with being overly engaged in worldly affairs: the world was all going to the devil, and Christians should stand outside of it. Liberal Christians criticized fundamentalists of being unpatriotic and subversive. Faced with such accusations, fundamentalists began promoting a more militaristic view. By the post-War years with fear of Bolshevism arising and leftover war time fervor, fundamentalists turned their Christian wartime energies and lingo towards the major social changes occurring in 1920's modern America. Thus, the overly militaristic overtones of Christian fundamentalism were not inherent and appeared largely as a reaction to WWI and accusations of a lack of patriotism.

Marsden is specific in writing about how particularly AMERICAN Christian fundamentalism is. For example, Britiain has had a longer history of religion and fundamentalists in Britain learned to accept their minority position in society. By contrast, American fundamentalism grew out of a series of revivals, without a long-standing religious historical tradition to compare itself to. Fundamentalists also enjoyed greater power alongside Protestants initially. As power and social trends shifted, fundamentalists lost much of the influence they originally held in society. This fueled much of the desperate overtones in the movement. I can understand now why U.S. churches insist on sending IFB missionaries to the U.K. It's not for a lack of Christianity in the region but for a lack of a particularly AMERICAN Christianity in the country.

Overall, Marsden provides an excellent historical account of fundamentalism history. I can't really do such a nuanced and detailed book justice with a short review like this.

[Elijah Craig]

yeah, I've read it. it's a good start to understanding Fundamentalism.

[Darrell]

I've read it as well. It's pretty good although I enjoyed Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism a little easier to digest.

[elfdream]

Quote: I was surprised to learn that theories of premillenialism (that Christ's kingdom has not yet come) and dispensationalism (that history can be divided into special ages and this is the "Age of Grace" or "Church Age") were not widely held beliefs until relatively recently

So was I. Many people started the road out of fundamentalism by taking a good long hard look at the beliefs and practices. I found out there are a lot more things that are 'recent' additions to the faith.

Thanks for the review.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

A very helpful book for recovering fundys. Anyone who hasn't read it - it is worth the effort.

[Bonhoeffer]

I read it cover to cover in 6 weeks. Fantastic look at Fundamentalism by a scholar.