Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

[myotch]

If I cared about fundamentalism and the evangelical movement, I'd probably read something by Francis Schaffer on the subjects. As it is, I'm trying to catch up on 20 years of learning 1500 years of Christian history that was neglected by my Fundy ed.

I know everything I need to know about fundamentalism. "The means justifies the end."

[bean]

Discovering, yes I have used it in the past. Ours is still free! It's gotta be in the system though..I think they can go statewide. What I want to do is compile a list of 3 or 4 and then bring it to my friendly local librarian and see what she can do..Thank you for the suggestion!

Myotch, I hear ya! I don't know what it is. I think I get the "how" and now I'm interested in the why. I'm very curious by nature and I have always wondered how for instance the influence on personal morality became so pervasive throughout both evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Maybe I don't need to know any more either hahahaha!

[Mark]

Here's what I wrote about Sharlet's book:

I learned some things I didn't know, but the weaknesses of the book detracted from the more important points about the mix of religion and politics that Sharlet made.

My comments:

1. Sharlet doesn't understand the difference between Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is John R. Rice, the Bob Joneses, Jack Schaap, etc. It isn't Ted Haggard, James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell. There is some crossover appeal and gray area, but Sharlet doesn't demonstrate that he knows the difference.

2. While he tries to hide his derision of evangelical Christianity, it comes through and affects his interpretation of his evidence. He tends to offer snide descriptions of the Chrisitians with whom he comes into contact, depicting them as either naive buffoons, hypocrites, or malevolent manipulators. If there's any doubt about their motivations, then you can count on Sharlet attributing the worst to them.

3. The background on The Fellowship (now The Family) is quite interesting. I would like to have seen Sharlet finish that story. Instead, he gets lost in critiquing modern evangelicalism, somehow connecting the Christian abstinence and home schooling movements with The Family. At least, I think that's what he tried to do; it's hard to tell.

4. Sharlet is disingenuous at times. For example, he claims that Ralph Reed's focus on "shorter commutes, more time with family, and lower mortgages" were coded allusions to suburbs, patriarchy, and geographic space between neighbors (310-11). That's a stretch that lacks evidence.

5. Sharlet is spot on with some of his criticisms. His take on evangelical Christian masculinity (think John Eldgredge) is, I think, accurate, as are some (but not all) of his criticisms of evangelical views on sexuality.

In sum, I think it's a book that Christians and non-Christians should read, but with a cynical eye. Sharlet accurately explains some of the problems and contradictions of modern evangelical Christianity, but don't buy the idea that its adherents are fascists.