On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I think perhaps you're unintentionally confusing Fundamentalism and
> Evangelicalism, Michael.
No, I'm not, but that's precisely what the text I was reacting to was doing.
What is fascinating to me is how all the core beliefs of fundamentalism have remained completely unchanged from their very beginning in the nineteen-teens -- and so has its political agenda. The latter is not an accidental part of their faith added in reaction to the 60s. What makes fundamentalism fundamentalist is that it's apocalpytic. And from this millenarianism flows:
- their extreme hawkishness: they are in principle against paths
that lead to peace, because the bible says end times will be full of war
- their extreme zionism: what makes it extreme is that it is not simply
divorced from the peace process, but desires policies with
apocalyptic outcomes
- their hatred of world organizations, which they identify
with the "new rome" ruled over by the antichrist, and of peacekeeping,
because the antichrist is a peacemaker (and a "plausible liar" i.e., a
smooth diplomat) Preaching peace is in principle the sign of evil.
Good preaches peace through war.
- their xenophobia, because in end times there has to be a "power" which
is "at war with Israel." Originally it was communism. The literally
religious anti-communism of fundamentalism was born the same year as
the Soviet Union. That required a bit of interpretation -- Russia
was interpreted as the "power from the north," and it has to be seen as
more committedly atheistic than it actually was. Eventually repetition
made it common sense. But now fundamentalists see the same apocalyptic
conspiracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where it fits more perfectly
with people who are constantly chanting Death to Israel. That's why
it's become a stronger element since the fall of Soviet Union.
- their dedication to some form of militarily produced "rollback." They
see us as already in end times, with themselves on the side of good,
fighting against evil, with their only goal being "to win back territory
from the antichrist."
All were there from its origins during WWI. And all have remained exactly the same.
Of course today, and for that matter during the cold war, you can find people who hold all the pillars of this world view who are not are not Christian fundamentalists. But they all make more sense when held together by their apocalyptic foundation. The world view reinforces the religion and the religion reinforces the world view.
The same is true of Jewish fundamentalism. It has a similar reinforcing relation. And both produce secular types who find in the hawkish worldview a secular substitute for such faith -- "a faith in fundamental values."
Michael