I’ve been thinking of going through The List and seeing what Canadian god-bloggers are saying about our upcoming election.
In the meantime, as I’ve pondered the various divides in Canada, I found this article by Joe Bageant, who grew up in a Texas fundamentalist home.
He looks at his roots, and at the American evangelical offshoots of Dominionism and Reconstructionalism (there are those ‘isms’ again!) Bageant is speaking to political liberals and asking them not to dismiss the strength or the dangers of this unique American phenomenon.
For liberals to examine the current fundamentalist phenomenon in America is accept some hard truths. For starters, we libs are even more embattled than most of us choose to believe. Any significant liberal and progressive support is limited to a few urban pockets on each coast and along the upper edge of the Midwestern tier states. Most of the rest of the nation, the much vaunted heartland, is the dominion of the conservative and charismatic Christian. Turf-wise, it’s pretty much their country, which is to say it presently belongs to George W. Bush for some valid reasons. Remember: He did not have to steal the entire election, just a little piece of it in Florida. Evangelical born-again Christians of one stripe or another were then, and are now, 40% of the electorate, and they support Bush 3-1. And as long as their clergy and their worst instincts tell them to, they will keep on voting for him, or someone like him, regardless of what we view as his arrogant folly and sub-intelligence. Forget about changing their minds. These Christians do not read the same books we do, they do not get their information from anything remotely resembling reasonably balanced sources, and in fact, consider even CBS and NBC super-liberal networks of porn and the Devil’s lies. Given how fundamentalists see the modern world, they may as well be living in Iraq or Syria, with whom they share approximately the same Bronze Age religious tenets. They believe in God, Rumsfeld’s Holy War and their absolute duty as God’s chosen nation to kick Muslim ass up one side and down the other. In other words, just because millions of Christians appear to be dangerously nuts does not mean they are marginal.
You can feel the strange tug-of-war this author personally experiences in his attempts to explain his birth identity to those he hopes will begin to understand this demographic and it’s strange bedfellows.
Only another liberal born into a fundamentalist clan can understand what a strange, sometimes downright hellish family circumstance it is—how such a family can love you deeply, yet despise everything you believe in, see you as a humanist instrument of Satan, and still be right there for you when your back goes out or a divorce shatters your life. As a socialist and a half-assed lefty activist, obviously I do not find much conversational fat to chew around the Thanksgiving table. Politically and spiritually, we may be said to be dire enemies. Love and loathing coexist side by side. There is talk, but no communication.
He goes on to explain these heretical offshoots of orthodoxy before circling back.
If we are lucky as a nation, this period in American history will be remembered as just another very dark time we managed to get through. Otherwise, one shudders to think of the logical outcome. No wonder the left is depressed. Meanwhile, our best thinkers on the left ask us to consider our perpetual U.S. imperial war as a fascist, military/corporate war, and indeed it is that too. But tens of millions of hardworking, earnest American Christians see it as far more than that. They see a war against all that is un-Biblical, the goal of which is complete world conquest, or put in Christian terminology, “dominion.” They will have no less than the “inevitable victory God has promised his new chosen people,” according to the Recon masters of the covert kingdom. Screw the Jews, they blew their chance. If perpetual war is what it will take, then let it be perpetual. After all, perpetual war is exactly what the Bible promised. Like it or not, this is the reality (or prevailing unreality) with which we are faced. The 2004 elections, regardless of outcome, will not change that.
Never heard of Dominionism?
Reconstructionalism got you baffled? These quick primers may help.
Christian journalism?
There is an article in Christianity Today that stunned me a bit. I confess I’m ashamed to admit that, but it’s true. I’ve not thought much about training christian journalists before. Most of the believers I know in my profession either work as religious writers for inhouse publications or go about their day to day in their secular jobs. I’m naive perhaps, and maybe too sheltered in Canada. I thought being a believer meant living in the relationship of Love that found me, not the hard core war mentality outlined in World Journalism Institute Changes Its Focus.
Published 4 years, 5 months agoA large part of the criticism stems from World magazine’s directed reporting philosophy, which calls on Christian journalists to “report biblically,” not objectively. Directed reporting was part of WJI’s original mission “to form a new cadre of tough-minded, warm-hearted, expertly trained Christian journalists for a new generation.”
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Joe Bageant’s article is the reason I find so much of political writing (and especially that coming out of Christian circles) hard to swallow. Pundits tend to do one of two things: they demonize their opposition or they make dissenters out to be morons. Joe happens to kill both birds with one stone on this one. And it’s not because he’s liberal - conservative pundits are just as tiresome.
I think his point is an intriguing one, that Reconstructionism is the source of the church’s political woes - but it took nearly all my strength to even make it to the point where he starts talking about why he thinks this. I think he’s slightly mistaken, but its an interesting point nonetheless. Really, the strength with which the modern church is enamored comes less from the interpretation of Scripture honed by the likes of Rushdoony and more from simple church tradition. For centuries, ever since Constantine institutionalized Christianity as a political entity, believers have been drawing their eyes off of the heavenly and focusing insteading upon the temporary earthly realm. Ever since having been given a taste of a life where render unto heaven that which belongs to heaven WHILE rendering unto heaven that which belongs to Caesar as well - ever since, Christians have traditionally believed that they need to hold stake in the matters of the nations. This is a far more subconscious perspective than that of the Reconstructionists, who actively seek establishment of theocracy, or even Christocracy, on earth, in order that Christ’s rule over all the world maybe be secured in sight as well as in faith. I happen to think both perspectives are askew.
Just as both conservative and liberal perspectives seem to me to be only mediocre political theories.
It’s amusing to watch liberals froth over how Bush is destroying America just as it was amusing to watch conservatives froth over how Clinton was destroying America. Both groups enjoy portraying their opposition as evil. The fact is, so far as policy is concerned, there really isn’t that much difference between the two groups. In word, they are as different as night and day, but in deed, to the outsider it just seems like more of the same.
And a side note on “Christian” journalism:
I don’t think we should be surprised by journalists reporting with a lack of objectivity since any sort of realistic objectivity has never been a part of journalism. We’re all too human for that. Our likes, dislikes, values, and beliefs will always succeed in shaping the words by which we describe the object upon which we subject our pen. To report “biblically” is no different than to report liberally or to report conservatively - which is how pretty much every paper in the world must, by its nature, act.
I’ve never bought into objectivity.
How could I?
I bring me, my beliefs, my experiences, my bias into any interview or coverage.
Anyones story or event isn’t two-sided, it’s multi-faceted, like a cut diamond.
If I write for an inhouse journal, I know the parameters and the language. There is an obvious agenda and slant, it is what you are paid for.
To teach “Christian” journalism honestly baffles me. Journalism is a job.
I agree that the current Reconstructionism etc, is old heresy in new clothes.
Hey Bene,
To teach “Christian” journalism honestly baffles me. Journalism is a job.
Two questions for ya:
1) Should being a Christian cause a person to perform their job in a different manner than would someone withou a completly secular worldview?
2) If you would answer yes to #1, would you agree or disagree that such an approach could be taught to others?
Great questions.
I am a believer first. All I do is for the glory of God, whether it is helping with housework, playing, or performing a job. I take on responsibilities aware of my dependence on that relationship and take joy in His presence with me in those tasks and my days.
Journalism may be the fourth and fifth estates, but we esteem ourselves far too highly. By the nature of the craft, we encourage others to hold us in esteem at times.We have christian celebrities, it is no different. There are ethical, moral, responsible, hardworking and loving people that lay no claim to faith that perform their jobs better than many who call themselves christian.
I learn how to be a disciple in fellowship, in prayer, in service, in living, in the Word, and sometimes in being deliberately taught.(ie: a sermon or study led by someone)
But ultimately I carry responsibilty for my response to His covenent of love. I am completely dependent and because of who He is I desire to please and honour him.
I honestly don’t understand how someone could specifically teach to me be to be a christian journalist. My sense of bafflement is real.
Help me out. What would they teach me Joe?
God is invested in conforming us into the image and likeness of His Son. He would be just as committed if we were plumbers.
I worked about six months in ‘christian broadcasting.’ It was really unpleasant. I was a christian then, and a christian when I returned to secular media.
I don’t think I can answer your second question because I have no idea what ‘Christian journalism students’ are taught. I guess people think agree this approach can be used because there are places like World Institute saying that’s what they are doing.:^(
***Help me out. What would they teach me Joe?***
As you pointed out, we become disciples by “fellowship, in prayer, in service, in living, in the Word, and sometimes in being deliberately taught.” I think journalism is definitely one of the professions where young Christians can learn from having mature believers as mentors. Too often, though, the Church holds the naïve belief that the teachings on Sunday are all that’s needed to help a person carry out their task throughout the workweek. That might be enough for some people but not everyone has the ability to understand how being a “disciple of Christ” will affect the way they carry out their occupation.
Also, I completely missed the first part of the post when I first read it. I went back and read the article by Joe Bageant and was stunned by what I read. I was raised in the culture of “Texas fundmentalism” and have a fairly solid grasp on its strengths and its weaknesses (which are legion). The idea that Reconstructionism or Dominionism has a major influence on Southern U.S. fundamentalism is laughably absurd.
For starters, most Texas fundies are generally either Baptist or Pentecostal. If there is one denomination on earth that is opposed to theocratic government it is Southern Baptist (heck, they don’t even want centralized *church* government). That is why trying to draw a connection between the Reconstructionist and Southern fundies is just silly. Reconstructionism is rooted in the Western states (such as CA) and has never had much influence in the South. And dominionism? That’s a liberal mainstream ideal, not a fundie one. The majority of the fundies I have known are premillineal dispensationlists. Their theology is antithetical to dominionism.
I’m not sure what point Bageant is trying to make but he’s playing a bait and switch game by using an example that doesn’t correspond with reality.
“If there is one denomination on earth that is opposed to theocratic government it is Southern Baptist (heck, they don’t even want centralized *church* government)”
Joe, that may have been true at one time, but are you absolutely sure it’s still the case? Everything I’ve seen from this group in the last five years or so seems to point in the opposite direction: tightly controlled beliefs and a draconian rule on the part of the leaders of the SBC. I find your description hard to square with what (admittedly, somewhat little) I know about the SBC since the fundamentalists took over a few years back…
Oh, and I know exactly what he’s describing with the “liberal who grew up fundamentalist bit.” He’s not making that up, I swear. Been there, done that, have the emotional scars to prove it…
I agree that being taught by mature and experienced people is extremely valuable.
Working side by side with them is far more so.
My mentors were just really damn good at their job - Catholic, protestant, Bah’hi, Jewish, agnostic and athesist et al. They passed on their experience and skill sets and I was the richer.
Seeing the things you do in this profession tends to drive you to your knees or to a bottle.
I know some former journalists or broadcast people that are now ministers, and some that are alcholics.
As for Bageant’s geography and theology, I’ll leave wiser people to debate his article.
The only reference point I would have is the Toronto Blessing.
From the outside looking in, I honestly can’t say that these heresies haven’t influenced the Southern US. I don’t think they’ve stopped at state lines or denominations.
Blog on!
Heh, the Toronto Blessing. That definitely spun of some similar movements in the U.S., especially in the South (Pensacola, Florida was one hot spot for such things for a while).
The iron, of course, is that groups like the Southern Baptists denounce stuff like the Toronto Blessing as heresy of the worse sort. News at eleven: Pot Calls Kettle Black!
Jonathan,
***Joe, that may have been true at one time, but are you absolutely sure it’s still the case? Everything I’ve seen from this group in the last five years or so seems to point in the opposite direction: tightly controlled beliefs and a draconian rule on the part of the leaders of the SBC. I find your description hard to square with what (admittedly, somewhat little) I know about the SBC since the fundamentalists took over a few years back…***
First, let me point out that “fundamentalist” means different things to different people. The main difference between the “fundies” and the “moderates” in the SBC is that the fundies (*gasp*) take the Bible seriously. You may not agree with all their conclusions (I don’t) but they are certainly in the mainstream of orthodox Christianity.
Their actual policies often differ from the press reports. Take, for example, their views on church and state:
*** We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses. We do, of course, acknowledge the legitimate interplay of these two spheres. For example, it is appropriate for the state to enact and enforce fire codes for the church nurseries. It is also appropriate for ministers to offer prayer at civic functions. Neither the Constitution nor Baptist tradition would build a wall of separation against such practices as these. (http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pschurch.asp)***
That isn’t exactly a reconstructionist view there.
Since they have all their views posted on their website (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#xv) , I’d be interested in hearing what people find so objectionable about the denomination’s views.
Hey Joe, cool discussion points re: the teaching of Christian perspectives on journalism. Here’s my take:
We are Christians. Therefore, everything we do is more or less influenced by both our worldview and the radical change upon our souls. Therefore further, everything we do is more or less Christian depending upon the degree to which we live our lives in accordance with both our Christian beliefs and the renewed spirit within us.
And how do we learn to bring our Christianity into daily action? By the work of God’s Spirit upon our lives through the preaching of the word and the enjoyment of the sacraments as that Spirit conforms us more and more into the image of Christ. I don’t think we should categorize this as something to be taught in schools - since Scripture seems happy to ordain far simpler means as sufficient. Faith, the lynchpin of our human access to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, is conferred by grace alone and this has been ordained to be generated from the hearing of the word, through prayer, and through the other means of grace - all of which should be sufficiently provided as we gather together as one body in fellowship and worship every Sunday.
Therefore, since the needs of believing journalists should be met in the gathering of the church, a school devoted especially to promoting a Christianization of the occupation seems gratuitous. A Christian journalist will, after all, be performing Christian journalism - it’s in his nature to do so. Just like when I made pizzas way back when, I poured my faith and ethics into my occupation, offering customers the best Christian pizza I could. It’s the same with believers in any occupation.
Dane,
***And how do we learn to bring our Christianity into daily action? …Faith, the lynchpin of our human access to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, is conferred by grace alone and this has been ordained to be generated from the hearing of the word, through prayer, and through the other means of grace - all of which should be sufficiently provided as we gather together as one body in fellowship and worship every Sunday.***
But isn’t this just a watered-down, Westernized version of the church? There is nothing in Scripture that says the church only gathered for fellowship on Sundays. The early church was a complete community, constantly living, teaching, and worshipping together. Shouldn’t we do the same now? Why should we discard the 1st century church model in favor of an “only on Sunday” format?
Joe and The Dane:
Seems to me you are both on the same page, just saying so in your own unique ways.:^)
The more I look at the former World Journalism Institute mission statement the stranger it sounds. It’s inferring journalists who are Christians may not have been doing a very good job out there.
At the same time they speak about the excellence of their professors. It seems to me to be about luring in a set of students willing to fork out the money for an education that will help them believe they are ‘reporting biblically.’
Crumb. Thousands of them will never make it into the business. And it is a business, let’s not kid ourselves.
I think Jonathan tapped into some of what I did in Bageant’s article. The writer has been there, done that. The struggle, hurt and the search for understanding is very evident. His article will reach people we certainly won’t in this thread.:^)
I really don’t see how today’s American fundamentalism can be considered a part of mainstream orthodox tradition, Joe. And there is a very good argument to be made that they DON’T take the Bible very seriously. Ripping verses out of context and forcing them to mean things they don’t is not taking the Bible seriously. Ignoring the differences and nuances between writers and cultures represented in the Bible is not taking it seriously. Treating the Bible, including all its beautiful literature and inspiring myths, and forcing it to become a factual science text is not taking the Bible seriously, it is abusing a great, inspiring and inspired work of literature. Sorry, but I don’t see very much orthodoxy or serious reading of the Scripture in the contemporary American fundamentalist movement. It’s just not there.
I can’t speak to fundamentalism or pentecostalism, though some of my best friends are on those pages. What I want to point out is that the majority of the splintering multiple branches of Christianity have something very important in common, something that I have pondered repeatedly since the Waco TX fiasco (Branch Davidians, David Koresh etc.) To do that, I need to tell a brief story.
I was sitting around with a bunch of friends while this situation was developing, and a friend asked me a haunting question. “What if,” she said, “what if he is right about his interpretation of the Book of Revelation? How can we know for sure how to rightly interpret the Bible? How can I know?” She had been raised Catholic but was not then practicing, I was a convert to Catholic Christianity of some years at that time (from the Anglican tradition) and another friend at that table is a non-denominational Christian of the pentecostal/fundamentalist stripe (also a convert from Anglican).
I later learned that the Catholic answer to that question is that we are not to interpet Scripture solely on our own authority but rather in light of oral and written tradition handed down from the apostles. I learned that the commonest Protestant answer is that Scripture is best interpreted on one’s own authority with (one hopes) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What I have observed is that, in reality, most persons interpet scripture partially on their own authority with more or less guidance from some kind of tradition guided by the founder of that particular section of Christianity. So we have the millenialists, pre-,post-, and a-; the dispensationalists, and all the various factions that call themselves Christian.
Now, the big question in light of Bageant’s article, is how do these differing worldviews play out politically?
Well, we see some of the conflict when we look at GW Bush and his campaign’s attempt to curry favor with what they perceive as the Catholic bloc. Most Catholics who are observant of their faith and trying to vote that way find that GW Bush is too lenient on life issues and too harsh on social justice issues. Based on my meanderings around St Blog’s, I would say that the Iraq war issue and the Middle East chaos are also dividing factors. We look at what we see as impending social/moral chaos in Canada (same sex ‘marriage’, various conservative moral positions being considered ‘hate speech’ instead of free speech) and we shudder. However, as troubled as many of us are by some of Mr. Bush’s attributes, I would say that more of us are horrified by Mr. Kerry’s outright hypocrisy and borderline heresy. A man who claims to be Catholic and yet represents in his views on personal morality the antithesis of 2000 years of Church teaching and tradition should have the honesty to state that he has elected to interpret Scripture on his own authority and declare himself Protestant.
There are only two groups that give Christian Reconstruction the kind of power and influence Bargean does: liberals and leftists so paranoid that they have lost touch with reality, and Christian Reconstructionists so deluded by their own pretensions that they have lost touch with reality. The majority of fundamentalists and charismatics haven’t even heard of it, and most of the minority that has rejects it. There’s a long history to the relationship between religion and politis in the United States, and the influence of the “Christian Right” today pales in comparison to the influence Christian progressives had earlier in the 20th century.
You might also be interested in Get Religion’s take on this.
you can find it at
http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/2004/06/and_this_just_i.html
sorry, I forgot the HTML had been disabled!
Joe, I found your use of “Westernized” to be cute. Since when has the New Covenant change of the premiere day of worship from the seventh day to the first day been an exclusively Western tradition? Sounds to me like some of that groundless postmodern revisionism that’s become ever-so popular these days. In reality, we see all historical traditions of the Christian church embrace Sunday as their sabbath day. I suppose you could consider the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Russian, Greek, and Romanian churches to be Western if you want, but I think we traditionally hold them to be Eastern - and they all dedicate Sundays specifically to worship. We even have evidence as early as the 2nd century (i.e., Justin Martyr) of Christians worshipping on Sundays. You can call it a watered-down Western bastardization of Christian belief if you want, but you really won’t make much sense if you do - not without good evidence (especially on the silly “Westernized” rap).
I’ll re-enable the HTML when I get things stabilized at this end and the ISP is functioning better.
It isn’t fair to commenters and those of us who would like to follow the link.
Russ:
I don’t know the percentage of charismatics and fundamentalists in the US.
I think there is ‘creep’ going on, and as Alicia said it isn’t necessarily limited to protestantism.
If you introduced someone to reconstructionalism head on, they’d say what you said.
But the thinking and the language isn’t limited to extremists when it is introduced gradually.
In an ideal world we’d encourage pew sitters and their leaders to be Bereans - listen carefully and check statements and ideas and not park our brains at the door. Learn balance. But it isn’t an ideal world.
Greetings:
I was overjoyed to bump into your site, though I am still not quite sure exactly what it is…due to the way google made the link.
I thoroughly agree with about everything said here. But I would like to point out that the word limit on the Covert Kingdom story did not allow me to go into the kind of finer points being discussed here.
It is clear to me that folks such as youselves understand the phenomenon far better than I do, given that I write one story on a topic such as this one, then move along to quite a different one.
But I just wanted to point out that my intention was to illustrate one radical end of the Christian spectrum using the recons, then look at the way the Christian right has become embedded in the Republican Party in an unhealthy way with regard to separation of church and state, in my opinion. Sort of two snapshots juxtaposed. In the longer version which will probably appear as a selection in a book of essays later, that picture will be more complete.
By the way, I am not from Texas, but from Virginia, a state very much politically dominated by hard fundamentalists. I see it every day…I have watched people be put out of business by cultish pentacostals, teachers pushed out of their jobs, libraries censored, and even local politicians threatened and blackmailed in a couple of cases. The Shenandoah Valley is moreover a tough, uneducated place and though all of you are modern enlightened people, here we still have vestigal religious cultures whose severity goes back to roots in Europe. Given this is where I live and my vantage point, this certainly colored my story to at least some degree. But then, reality and colr is desirable in writing and that is part of my job as an essayist, to stand on the ground here in America and write from that point in our culture…bringing in not only what I see, but what it feels like and ask what it possibly means.
In any case, I would be the first to say my story is an oversimplification of sorts, especially compared to your thorough knowledge of the subject. Yet, that is my job…to present an abbreviated, graspable (and yes, entertaining and moving) picture to my 5 million readers, then let the reader go on to learn more if he or she cares to do so. And many do. I received 3000 emails regarding the Covert Kingdom. Those with further questions were referred to a variey of sources ranging from the works of Fred Clarkson and Theocracy Watch, to George Manbiot. Perhaps this would strike you as a rather liberal source slant, but then, I am that way, just as you all seem to be Christian focused.
In the end however, the more we as Americans discuss these things, the better off we are as a nation. I worry a lot about the segmentation of information and the balkanization of information constituencies in my business. The fundamentalists I was discussing are not engaging society outside their own church community…just as too many liberals are not engaging their more conservative brothers. They do not even know they exist. (You would not believe the number of liberals who have asked me what Armageddon and the rapture are!)
The bottom line is of course, separation of church and state, which I believe is being deeply threatened. And if that is the message my admittedly liberal readership takes away, then the essay was a success.
Warmest regards to you all….feel free to email me at bageantjb@netscape.net. I answer as many as I can between my regular 9 to 5 editorial job, the radio talk shows and writing.
Joe Bageant