>[Apropos the encomiums for Karen Armstrong]
>
>A couple of months ago, someone quoted a text saying that Protestant
>fundamentalism wasn't always on the right, that it had been on the left up
>until the Scopes trial. This struck me as an interesting idea and I
>decided to check it out. It turns not out in the end to be not exactly
>true. Fundamentalism wasn't really born until WWI, and it was politically
>conservative from the beginning. But I did stumble on a couple of things
>I found fascinating.
IIRC, _The New Christian Right_ similarly traces the history of the rel. between Christianity and political movements in the US. What the fundamentalist rejection led to, though, was the growth of "just christians" --some of whom refer to themselves as "slaves to the dead guy on a stick".
I did not understand any of this when I moved here.
"I'm a christian?" // "Oh? So... Methodist? Baptist? Catholic?" // "Nope, just christian."
at the time, I thought it extraordinarily conceited, as if they were saying they were the One, True Xtians. And they are, but they argue otherwise. One of my students called herself a slave to christ (!) so I wanted to learn more and she edjuamacated me. This is her church, here, http://www.polkchurch.com/cpage1.htm , and their explanation of what some have called "post-denominationalism."
These are folks and churches that want to revert to a first century xtianity where there were no churches, no denominations, no doctrine. Just xtians, doing things the bible way because the bible is the word of the dead guy on a stick. It isn't the interpreted word. It is THE word and you understand it in and through your _personal_ relationship to the dead guy on the stick, you sinner you. (which, if I were Weber, I'd point out would be exactly what drives them to be even more directed toward authorities to tell them what to think!!)
I bring it up because, the way these folks have approached things is, in some ways, not unlike anarchist principles -- organizationally. And yet, they've become increasingly powerful and are a rather important force in US politics. A lot of this has to do with the importance of witnessing as a way to show the "good works" crowd that it's not enough to do good in the world, you have to accept the dead guy on a stick as your saviour. (from the article, the notion that Eliot advanced, "building a faith that relied more upon practice" is coyly rejected as the "good works" crowd.
Some of them make a recuperative move by talking about how testifying is a "work of the spirit" (as opposed to "works of the flesh". You, your life, your birth again to christ, is evidence of the Truth, of the "living faith".
Testifying or witnessing becomes the way to deal with any non-christian or denominationalist friend, co-worker, whomever to get them on the path to salvation. Your job is to share with them how you faced your own life crisis, like the one they're facing.
It's one of the ways they are becoming increasingly so. The fish on cars and in newspaper advertising is a way of testifying, however small. Buying at Christian businesses is also becoming very important. So, as I've noted before, when you try to have a discussion about anything (the war, death in the family, job loss, social problems, politics, whatever) you get a pail full about how surrendering to the dead guy on a stick was what changed their life and what allowed them to deal with these problems: job loss, divorce, single parenting, war, addiction, etc.
In many ways, the way they think about how to go about being Christians reminds me of Carrol's arguments about how the left will or should work: by groups of 3-4 influencing people directly in their lives, and not through political tracts, polemics, books, education, etc. (Hope I've got that right, Carrol).
Anyhoo!
Kelley
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love." (NOT!) http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html