Fundamentalism

Two insiders' writings should be weighed carefully by evangelical-watchers in the press

Two insiders' writings should be weighed carefully by evangelical-watchers in the press

As U.S. Protestant evangelicalism copes with internal divisions and problematic status in the broader society, along with the usual brickbats from the Left, non-partisan journalists and evangelical strategists alike should carefully monitor the thinking of knowledgeable insiders who are not wedded to customary loyalties and assumptions. Two in particular: David French and the lesser-known Michael F. Bird.

Preliminaries: (1) The media should indicate when they're talking about WHITE evangelicals, who are so distinct from the Hispanic and Black subgroups in socio-political terms. (2) Contrary to the customary media story line, it's important to acknowledge that grassroots, evangelicalism remains the LEAST politically involved of U.S. religion's major segments, as seen in the National Congregations Study.

Attorney-turned-pundit David French is, yes, a critic of Donald Trump who even flirted with a quixotic third-party run against him in 2016. Therefore his journalism is ignored if not despised by legions yearning for a second Trump term (which would end when he's age 82.5). Yet consider that though a Harvard Law product, French is a conservative's conservative and an evangelical's evangelical.

The Tennessee-based writer, who worships in the conservative Presbyterian Church in America, is a senior editor of The Dispatch and formerly a National Review writer. During his prior legal career he was a senior counsel with two top evangelical shops, the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Perhaps no attorney has labored more effectively to defend Christian voices and organizations on U.S. campuses, harassed local churches and conservatives and pro-lifers exercising Bill of Rights freedoms.

Additionally, he served with the U.S. Army in Iraq, winning the Bronze Star for combat service. His importance as a conservative thinker was depicted in this 2019 New Yorker article. Wife Nancy was a Sarah Palin ghostwriter and founded Evangelicals for Romney in 2012.

With that background, you'll understand why The Guy keeps thinking about the contention in French's weekly column on religion February 13 that "the seeds of renewed political violence are being sown in churches across the land."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

THE QUESTION:

What does biblical "inerrancy" mean?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

A February article by Stephen Young of Appalachian State University in North Carolina pulls the "inerrancy" of the Bible into a surprising media spotlight.

Writing in the liberal ReligionDispatches.org, Young blames this concept for American Christian racism and "white patriarchy" that subjugates women. By coincidence, days before Young's posting Michael F. Bird of Ridley College, an Anglican seminary in Australia, contended via the interfaith Patheos.com that his fellow evangelicals in the U.S. advocate a version of inerrancy that's a bit skewed.

Hold those thoughts while the Memo sketches some background.

Merriam-Webster defines inerrancy as "exemption from error," with "infallible" as a synonym. However, the modern debate distinguishes between those two words, as we'll see below.

Churchgoers may simply view the Bible as trustworthy because, after all, it's the Word of God, but "inerrancy" is a more sweeping contention meant to cover every detail of the events depicted in the Bible.

Inerrancy came to the fore, especially among U.S. Protestants, through Princeton Theological Seminary professors such as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) who believed Christianity had always taught the Bible is error-proof.

As theological "modernism" made inroads, the largest Presbyterian denomination in 1910 defined five tenets as "essential doctrine" required of clergy candidates. The first one stated that "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error." The 1910 platform evolved into the "five points of Fundamentalism," embraced by that militant new movement even as the Presbyterians themselves moved away from their requirement.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Reporting on white Christian nationalists? Try talking with some of these Americans in person

Reporting on white Christian nationalists? Try talking with some of these Americans in person

“White Christian nationalism” (WCN) has become quite the bogeyman in contemporary religion coverage, even though few reporters seem to have spent much time actually engaging with people in the flocks led by said nationalists.

Instead, journalists read their social media, watch their YouTube videos and talk with sources drawn from a rather predictable list of activists and experts who oppose the bogeyman.

But that does not a complete story make. Readers end up with, at best, half of a debate.

One outlet that’s building or staking its reputation on WCN continuing to be a thing is Religion News Service, which has been rolling out stories on the topic since last September, thanks to a grant from the Pulitzer Center. The latest story in its “White Christian Nationalism since the Jan. 6 Attack” series ran Jan. 26 here. It began:

When supporters of former President Donald Trump rallied near the White House on Jan. 6 of last year, a boisterous pocket of young men waving “America First” flags broke into a chant: “Christ is King!” It was one of the first indications that Christian nationalism would be a theme of the Capitol attack later that day, where insurrectionists prayed and waved banners that read “Proud American Christian.”

It also announced the presence of followers of Nick Fuentes, a 23-year-old white nationalist and former YouTube personality who was subpoenaed this month by the U.S. House of Representatives committee investigating the Capitol attack. …

“Christ is King” is not controversial in itself: The phrase is rooted in Christian Scripture and tradition. But Fuentes’ supporters have given it a different connotation. They have chanted it at anti-vaccine protests and the anti-abortion March for Life, some of them holding crucifixes aloft. It was heard in March, at an America First conference, where Fuentes delivered a speech saying America will cease to be America “if it loses its white demographic core and if it loses its faith in Jesus Christ.” Fuentes also declared the country “a Christian nation.”

There are a bunch of academics and other sources quoted here but what appears to be the central thesis –- that WCN is bleeding into the mainstream institutions and life of conservative Christianity –- was not proven by a long shot.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

When reading That. Vanity. Fair. Article, it will help to focus on the obvious answer to the big question that will immediately pop into your head (especially if you happen to be a journalist).

The question: Why did Jerry Falwell, Jr., choose to talk to a magazine with a solid footprint on the American cultural and journalistic left?

The answer: Falwell is a lawyer who, at the moment, has a number of pressing legal issues in his life. To put this in D.C. Beltway lingo, he appears to be “hanging a lantern” on his problems. Here is one online definition of that term:

"Hang a lantern on your problem” was entered into the political lexicon in the 1980s by Chris Matthews, a former chief of staff to Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill. Matthews explained “hang a lantern on your problem” to the New York (NY) Times in 1987: “The first step is, admit you have a problem; that gives you credibility. The second step is to use that credibility to redefine your problem, or use the problem for your own purposes.”

As I explained during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), it is interesting to read the Vanity Fair piece and, with a mental highlighter pen (a real one if you get the analog magazine), mark the questions that Falwell chooses to answer and the ones that he declines to answer. Then, repeat the process with the questions that are answered and rejected by other key voices — think Giancarlo “pool boy” Granda and legal representatives for Liberty University.

This process will yield insights into two of the most obvious plot lines in this soap-opera mess, as in its steamy Miami-angle sex scandal and the ugly legal wars between Jerry Falwell, Jr., and the shamed leaders of Liberty University.

Once you’ve done that, you’re read to dig into the deeper elements of this story, which are clearly visible in the long, long, long second deck of it’s double-headline:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Add that forthcoming U.S. House report on Jan. 6 riot to your 2022 religion news calendar

Add that forthcoming U.S. House report on Jan. 6 riot to your 2022 religion news calendar

We can expect that the U.S. House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack will unveil findings in time to help Democrats' Nov. 8 prospects and, thus, spur Republican ire.

Even if the report ignores the matter, this report can peg thoughtful and thorough journalistic re-examination of the religious significance of continuing furor over the nine troublesome weeks from the 2020 vote through Jan. 6. Carefully balanced, non-partisan contexting will be needed.

Media and amateur videos show us that -- yes -- some of the rioters uttered prayers and brandished Christian signs, slogans and symbols. Were they isolated cranks, or representative of a broader religious phenomenon, or a bit of both?

A New York Times anniversary walkup last week counted 275 defendants with federal charges for obstructing Congress, 225 or so for acts against police, and another 300 for minor trespass or disorderly conduct. So far, a fifth of these defendants have admitted legal guilt.

Importantly, the Times reported that the mob included "church leaders" (plural).

In a national newspaper, that phrase suggests not some small-time parsons from independent churches but notable media stars, denominational and "parachurch" officials, influential college and seminary thinkers, or at least local pastors from "big steeple" congregations. In fact, that reference appears to echo this Times passage that has been discussed several times here at GetReligion, referring to religious image on Jan. 6:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America.

At some point, it would be good to cite examples of “church leaders” linked to “evangelical power.”

By contrast, last year The Washington Post's Michelle Boorstein perceptively profiled certain of the rioters to highlight Americans' growing trend of concocting idiosyncratic "do it yourself" religions for themselves.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Return of a Godbeat F-bomb: The 'curse of Ham,' Twelve Tribes history and a Colorado fire

Return of a Godbeat F-bomb: The 'curse of Ham,' Twelve Tribes history and a Colorado fire

Let’s start with a journalism question about the news coming out of Colorado about possible links between the Marshall Fire and a controversial religious group known as the Twelve Tribes.

The New York Times has used that popular journalism F-word — “fundamentalist” — in a major story that ran with this headline: “Colorado Wildfire Inquiry Focuses on Christian Sect.” The read-out under that headline states: “Investigators are looking at the possibility that a fire that destroyed more than 900 homes started on property owned by a fundamentalist Christian sect known as Twelve Tribes.”

Once again, we need to talk about what the word “fundamentalist” means and what it does not mean. Let me ask this question, before we proceed: Is the “Twelve Tribes” movement a “fundamentalist Christian” group in the same sense that Black or White independent Baptist churches found in many or most American cities are accurately described, in doctrinal terms, as “fundamentalist”?

Perhaps the crucial question for journalists covering this story is whether the Twelve Tribes movement is a “sect” or, in sociological terms, an actual “cult”? Hold that thought.

First, here is the overture of the Times story, showing the context for this religion-beat F-bomb:

Investigators looking into the cause of a colossal wildfire in Colorado that forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of people are focusing on a property owned by a Christian fundamentalist sect, after witnesses reported seeing a structure on fire there moments before the blaze spread with astonishing speed across drought-stricken suburbs.

Sheriff Joe Pelle of Boulder County said at a news briefing … that the property owned by Twelve Tribes, which was founded in Tennessee in the 1970s, had become a target of the inquiry after investigators ruled out the possibility that downed power lines might have sparked the fire.

With that in mind, let’s return to the pages of the journalism bible know as the Associated Press Stylebook (h/t to Bobby Ross, Jr., for checking the evolving online edition).

Let us attend.

fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early-20th-century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Can someone write a decent article about Rob Bell? That LA Magazine piece wasn't it

Can someone write a decent article about Rob Bell? That LA Magazine piece wasn't it

It’s been awhile since we heard from Rob Bell, the Grand Rapids, Mich., superstar pastor whose 2011 book asking if hell is truly real got him booted out of evangelical Christian circles. He was quite the phenomenon a decade ago and then he disappeared for a time.

Turns out that, like many folks who live in the northern half of the country, Bell wanted to escape to a better climate — so it was off to California he went.

Los Angeles Magazine just ran a long piece on what Bell is up to now as he lives near the tony Venice Beach section of Los Angeles. The soulful photos look like, as one Twitter poster remarked, “like he delivers sandwiches for a hipster restaurant in Portland.”

Bingo.

The story begins with a casual mention about Bell having surfed that morning in Malibu. But (cue the flashback) 10 years ago:

… Bell was among the most prominent Evangelical pastors in America. His Michigan megachurch, Mars Hill, attracted over 10,000 worshippers a weekend. His debut book, 2005’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, sold half a million copies. And he performed annual speaking tours to packed theaters around the world. One newspaper called him “The next Billy Graham.” But that was before Bell went to hell.

In his fourth book, 2011’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell wondered aloud whether a loving God would really condemn billions of nonbelievers to eternal torment. The book sold half a million copies and landed him on the cover of Time. It led to friendships with the likes of Oprah Winfrey. But it also led conservative pastors to label him a heretic and a false teacher; it led to him leaving not just his church, but the church; it led to him questioning the faith that had made him famous. And it led him to Los Angeles.

Then he began a podcast in 2015.

More than 300 episodes and tens of millions of downloads later, the Robcast has helped to resurrect Bell’s career.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalism tips on: (1) Evangelical crack-ups, (2) campus faith fights, (3) COVID exemptions

Journalism tips on: (1) Evangelical crack-ups, (2) campus faith fights, (3) COVID exemptions

A potential U.S. evangelical crack-up continues as a lively story topic since Guy Memos here since these two Memos here at GetReligion, “Are we finally witnessing the long-anticipated (by journalists) evangelical crack-up?” and also “Concerning evangelical elites, Donald Trump and the press: The great crack-up continues.” In USA Today, Daniel Darling, for one, sought hope despite his recent victimhood in these tensions.

Media professionals considering work on this theme should note a lament at book length coming next week: "Struggling with Evangelicalism: Why I Want to Leave and What It Takes to Stay" by Dan Stringer. The author is a lifelong evangelical, Wheaton College (Illinois) and Fuller Theological Seminary alum, leader of InterVarsity's graduate student and faculty ministries in Hawaii and Evangelical Covenant Church minister. This book comes from InterVarsity Press.

The Guy has yet to read this book, but it looks to be a must-read for reporters covering American evangelicals in the Bible-Belt and elsewhere. Stringer ponders how evangelicalism can move beyond too-familiar sexual scandals, racial and gender conflicts, and Trump Era political rancor -- what a blurb by retired Fuller President Richard Mouw calls "blind spots, toxic brokenness and complicity with injustice."

Regarding the Donald Trump factor, the evangelical elite was largely silent, with one faction openly opposed, while certain outspoken evangelicals backed the problematic populist.

As The Guy has observed, recent politics exposed the already existing gap between institutional officials and the Trumpified evangelical rank and file. Problem is, to thrive any religious or cultural movement needs intelligent leaders united with a substantial grass-roots constituency to build long-term strategy.

Evangelicalism has always combined basic unity in belief with a wide variety of differences. Think denominational vs. independent, Arminian vs. Calvinist, gender "complementarian" vs. "egalitarian," Pentecostal-Charismatic vs. others and a racial divide so wide that many Black evangelicals shun the e-word alltogether.

In an October 21 Patheos article, historian Daniel K. Williams at the University of West Georgia added North vs. South to those internal divisions. He recounts that the Southern Baptist Convention remained mostly apart when northerners began to supplant "fundamentalism" with "evangelicalism" in the World War II era. Eventually, he says, this movement formed a North-South alliance but it's now eroding.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Indie fundamentalist near Nashville shows how to punch Washington Post buttons

New podcast: Indie fundamentalist near Nashville shows how to punch Washington Post buttons

For decades, I have felt a strange mix of anger and mild amusement whenever I heard news consumers, when complaining about something that upset them, say that journalists write and print “bad” stories “just to sell newspapers.”

“Bad,” of course, meant stories that they thought were biased, inaccurate or simply silly, perhaps something that in our digital age would be called “clickbait.” Of course, clickbait is clickbait because there’s digital evidence that readers consistently click on certain types of stories, which increases traffic and that helps the newsroom generate money (sort of like selling more newspapers).

Produce enough stories that please the faithful readers of a given publication — down South we call this “preaching to the choir” — and you can turn those readers into digital subscribers. That’s the Holy Grail, the ultimate goal, in the business-model crisis that has dominated American journalism for a decade or more.

This brings me to this unusual Washington Post headline that I saw the other day: “Evangelical pastor demands churchgoers ditch their masks: ‘Don’t believe this delta variant nonsense’.”

Now, was this pastor the leader of an important congregation somewhere in Beltway-land? Well, the answer is “no.”

If he wasn’t local, was he a prominent member of a major, powerful evangelical Protestant denomination or network of megachurches? Again, “no.” Was he connected, somehow, to an influential evangelical college, seminary, publishing company or parachurch ministry? A third time, “no.”

In other words, to ask the question that drove this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, why did editors decide that this story worthy of coverage by a reporter at the Post? (Click here to tune in this episode.)

Well, I think it’s safe to say that this stereotype-packed piece of simplistic, shallow, clickbait was produced because it punched all kinds of buttons that pleased digital niche-audience Post subscribers. In other words (I feel guilty typing these words), they did it to sell newspapers. Here is the overture:

Since the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, Greg Locke, the pastor at a Nashville-area church, has repeatedly called covid a hoax, undermined emergency mandates and refused to comply with guidance from public health officials.


Please respect our Commenting Policy