An Interesting Idea About The Origin Of Fundamentalist Christianity

So - the other day I listened to Joe Rogan's podcast with guest Cambridge biologist and writer, Rupert Sheldrake. I generally like Sheldrake, and I found this snippet very interesting.

Sheldrake says he is an Anglican Christian, and believes in a wholly symbolic interpretation of the Bible. He says that the Catholic church, the Anglican church and European protestant churches all pretty much reject a literal interpretation.

But here's what piqued my interest - Sheldrake claims that the origins of fundamentalism can be found in the USA, and specifically can be traced back to the time of the civil war.

Both sides, North and South, wanted to have a Biblical endorsement for their respective causes. For the slave owning south, it was much easier to make the case if you took the Bible literally, as it can then be seen to endorse slavery. And where are most of the fundies?

I'm not sure if it's quite that simple, but maybe there's something in what he says. Or do you think he should stick to biology and his theory of morphic resonance?

 

Here's a link to the podcast on youtube in case you want to check it out

http://youtu.be/ZklRSn92ek4?list=PLk1Sqn_f33KuS7ZSVMJqzFaqOyyl-esmG

 

I think he'd be better off sticking to biology, although his view isn't completely wrong. It's hard to pinpoint causes of social phenomena. Christian fundamentalism does tend to be an Anglo-American phenomenon, and U.S. preachers have been particularly prominent in pushing it. The time frame is also about right, although a little early. And the issue of slavery played a part with some denominations, particularly the Southern Baptists (who split with the Northern Baptists over the issue). But there were also other factors in play. Fundamentalism was, broadly speaking, a reaction against a number of social and intellectual developments that were impacting the United States in the second half of the !800s, especially the waves of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox immigration to the country, social challenges to the traditional family and the role of women, and the impact of German "Higher Criticism" of the Bible (Straus's The Life of Jesus in 1846;Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis in 1878 ) and publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species in 1859. As mainline Protestant seminaries began capitulating to Darwinists and the Higher Critics, and the waves of immigrants put pressure on traditional culture, traditionalists reacted in a fundamentalist movement which came to a head at the Niagra Bible Conferences in 1878-1897, leading to the publication of The Fundamentals, a set of tracts calling for Biblical inerrancy and literalism, in 1910.

 

Yes, well I said I'm not sure if it's as simple as Sheldrake says it is.

When you say an 'Anglo-American' thing, I assume you mean English people who'd gone over to the US. It's hard to find much trace of fundamentalism in trad British churches, and where it does exist, it's mainly because of American influence.

BTW don't get the wrong impression here - I'm not trying to 'blame' anyone for fundamentalism. I found it interesting because I'm quite interested in US history, and I hadn't given that kind of consideration much thought before. But I have to say I think it adds up - slave owners in the South would definitely have favoured a type of Christianity which enabled them to better justify their position.

 

When I said "Anglo-American thing", I meant to acknowledge that outside of the United States, which by far has been the epicenter of Christian fundamentalism, the only country in which it had any real presence at all, albeit minor, was the U.K. See http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/09/evangelicalism-and-fundamentalism-in-uk.html and the book Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the United Kingdom During the Twentieth Century by Bebbington and Ceri Jones (Oxford University Press, 2013).

 

It seems like a rather contrived explanation to be honest.

"Bible endorses slavery" - questionable
+
"Southern slave owners needed religious justification to have slaves" - questionable
=
"Source of Christian fundamentalism" - questionable

 

Doesn't account for Islamic fundamentalism. I think any connection to America as driving force on this issue is tied to the idea religious freedom and therefor the proliferation of sectarian forms.

 

So basically you are saying Sheldrake then you are saying the rest of Christianity and thus the world didnt exist until the politics of the American Civil war

 

I think what he's saying is that Christianity didn't become fundamentalist until then. i think he's basically right that Christian fundamentalism is American gothic.

 

Typical Americans

 

Yes, but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss fundamentalism as "typically American". Historically, that was the origin of the Christian version, but fundamentalism today is a global phenomenon infecting Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, as well as Christianity. It's causes seem to be similar to those in the United States--not slavery but more generally the trauma of change. Fundamentalism is a reaction against the unsettling uncertainties of modernity, characterized by a desire to return to the stability and certainty of an earlier era--e.g., the Caliphate--after an ultimate showdown with the forces of modernity that have been causing all the trouble: the Great Satan and his minions, etc. ("How can I be sure, in a world that's constantly changing?" Young Rascals) It's attractive to those who have been uprooted or marginalized by change, and those who have a low tolerance for ambiguity. It offers a sense of security provided by "The Answers" in whatever holy book their's society has to offer. It offers a sense of empowerment, as the previously powerless and confused see a simple way to solve their problems by joining God's Movement. And it's gaining ground, because uncertainty is the inevitable result of globalization.

 

Fundamentalism teaches against critical thinking, reasoning, and rational thought.

 

The Salvation Army are pretty much fundamentalists - and they'e definitely a British phenomenon that originated in the latter part of the 19th C. So I would agree it's not wholly an American thing. But the US is the epicentre of such views.

 

the pauline herrisy. pretty much that simple. the second mycian council made it the vision of christianity, instead of anything to do with christ, other then in name.

 

It makes no sense to me why they want to convert us all and keep talking about God 24/7. Rational thought! Stop talking for a minute and maybe the fundies will have a minute to THINK!

Anyway thats my Aunt. She's over for Thanksgiving and the weekend and I love her and respect her and she's a very kind and caring person but as soon as she starts talking religion I leave the room.

Aint got no time for that life is short enough.

 

I would say that fundamentalist religion bordering on aggression and violence begins when religion becomes organized by politician-priests to the point where it creates an 'us versus them' unconscious instinct. At this point religion ceases to be a path to higher states of consciousness, and instead regresses to a limited ideology bringing conflict,ego and misery in its wake.

 

Something in that maybe. But look at the Catholic church They certainly qualify for you definition. They've been on a power trip for centuries, they have a rigid male-dominance hierarchy, but they say they're not literalists. They believe the Bible contains symbolic truth Not that it is literally true.

The Anglican church was created purely from political motives and became fused with the British monarchy. But they're not fundamentalists either.

I'm not at all sure that any of the western monotheistic religions ever really was a path to a higher consciousness. certainly not for the general mass of people.

Then there's the case of the Hare Krishna movement. Certainly fundamentalists, but not much history of political power tripping.

 

When I remarked about fundamentalism, I meant the rigid organization of religion fuelling violence in the process, and not just a literalist beliefset.

There can be fundamentalist religions which can be totally peaceful as well, just as some jain sects are quite fundamentalist in the observance of some austerities but does not harm anyone in the process.

 

If by 'western monotheistic religions' you mean christianity too, perhaps there are exceptions.

Saint Francis was a superb lover of God, while Dr. Albert Schweitzer is one whom you can state to be a great karma yogi.

And yes, due to certain historical reasons, Christianity could not become a path to a higher consciousness, for the general mass of people.

 

OK. But in this thread I was more trying to discuss literalist type beliefs. I'm not actually sure if there can be fundamentalism which isn't literalist. But I could be wrong.

I think that even if fundamentalists are peaceful they're still deluded. And I' not sure how harmless they are, because they tend to want to spread their narrow views. Children are taught that the earth is 6,000 years old and we shared the planet with dinosaurs.I think that has to be damaging.

Schweitzer may be seen as a karma yogi only by those with a broad enough view. For the fundamentalist Christian, karma yoga and the rest of Hinduism are simply works of the devil.