Once upon a time, the word “evangelical” was not the primary curse that public intellectuals (and some journalists) hurled at people they considered dangerous.
Instead, they used “fundamentalist.” That’s a term that, originally, was much easier to define because it was linked to a specific set of documents — the “Fundamentals of the Faith” — produced by a specific set of Protestant thinkers. This crowd, believe it our not, included quite a few conservative Anglicans, Presbyterians and other “mainliners,” including some from the Northeast.
Over time, use of the term got sloppy, even among scholars (as opposed to journalists). As I wrote in an “on Religion” column on this topic:
Anyone who expects scholars to stand strong and defend a basic, historic definition will be disappointed. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame once quipped, among academics "fundamentalist" has become a "term of abuse or disapprobation" that most often resembles the casual semi-curse, "sumbitch."
"Still, there is a bit more to the meaning. ... In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views," noted Plantinga, in an Oxford Press publication. "That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch.' ... Its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' "
However, as your GetReligionistas have noted many times over the past 17 years, the Associated Press Stylebook maintained a nuanced and historically accurate reference to this term. (If this has changed, please let me know. The stylebook on my desk is several years old.)
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.
Alas, the use of “fundamentalist” in other contexts kept spreading, producing “fundamentalist” Muslims, “fundamentalist” Catholics and other non-Protestant variations. The idea was that, instead of specific doctrines, “fundamentalism” could be seen as an approach to culture, faith, public life, leadership, etc.
With that in mind, readers should check out this recent David French piece from The Dispatch, which ran with this headline: “America Is in the Grips of a Fundamentalist Revival — But it’s not Christian.”
Oh my. In my experience, there are few things that anger folks on the illiberal left more than being accused of failing to be liberals. #DuckAndCover
The key to this piece is what French (and others) describe as a political religion riding on the winds of “The Great Awokening.” French argues this has reached fundamentalist status, in terms of how believers relate to those with whom they disagree. Here’s a key quote from John McWhorter, writing in The Atlantic:
[T]hird-wave antiracism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic. What is called “virtue signaling,” then, channels the impulse that might lead a Christian to an aggressive display of her faith in Jesus.
French also quotes old-old-school liberal Andrew Sullivan, with a somewhat broader analysis that points to the First Amendment:
[Intersectionality] is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.
As you would expect, #NeverTrump French pauses to discuss the many ways that followers of Trump resemble their counterparts on the left. Can you say “First Baptist Church, Dallas”?
It is certainly true that “cancel culture” exists on the far right, as well as the illiberal left. However, the cultural and religious right doesn’t control most of elite academia, social media and trendy corporations on the urban coasts. Oh, and you can add to that the many — not all — journalists who look to The New York Times for cultural truth.
That leads to this thesis statement:
The more I experienced the extremes of both left and right, the more I felt like words such as “illiberal” or “authoritarian” or even “religious” didn’t quite capture the totality of the devotion and the darkness of the world view. “Fundamentalist” is a better match. Our nation’s secular revival looks and feels very much like the fundamentalism I’ve seen with my own eyes. It looks and feels like the fundamentalism I’ve experienced. And so, … I tweeted this:
So what kind of definition is French using, when he applies the Protestant term “fundamentalist”?
Well, he is starting, as an evangelical Protestant, in scripture — as opposed to sociology. The main goal, for French, is to defend the First Amendment as a wise standard in a diverse culture:
I’m reminded of the old religious maxim, “Error has no rights.” That impulse lies at the heart of much of the Christian nationalist/integralist critique of classical liberalism. That impulse lies at the heart of the speech code and the metastasizing intolerance of woke capitalism.
In a culture stripped of existential humility, the only valuable speech is the speech of those who speak existential truth. Dissent harms the body politic by introducing error. Thus “free speech” — as an independent liberty interest — cannot possibly be in the common good. The common good is advanced only by truth, and thus only truth has rights.
Thus:
What is to be done with our nation’s toxic fundamentalist revival? Here’s a short but difficult list: First, reaffirm our nation’s commitments to pluralism. It is central to our classical liberal founding that error does, in fact, have rights. Second, construct and cultivate opposing institutions that model the values of humility, charity, and free inquiry that we seek to advance. Third, maintain a wide-open door to converts. And fourth, pray without ceasing for our nation and its people.
Obviously, this piece will offend many on both the left and right. I hope journalists will read it and ponder how many Americans are attacking one side of the First Amendment (religious liberty), while other Americans attack the other side of the First Amendment equation (freedom of speech and the press).
French is attacking illiberal fundamentalists who often want to do both.