ESSAYS,  ARTICLES,  REVIEWS  AND  DISCUSSION  GROUPS

An essay by Bob Burnett

EarthLight Magazine #48, Summer 2002 -- Vol, 13, No. 3

URL: www.earthlight.org/2003/essay48_burnett_pff.htm 

Quaker John Woolman provides a marvelous example of effective nonviolent action. When still a young man, Woolman, who lived in eighteenth century Pennsylvania, had an epiphany about slavery. He was led to speak with Friends about the evils of slavery and, as a result of his steadfast conviction, American Quakers gave up slaveholding by the end of the century. What distinguished Woolman were not only his personal determination, and the fact that he engaged in a systemic analysis of slavery linking it to the general economic system, but also the way he engaged in his campaign. Rather than rail against slavery from afar, Woolman chose to talk to slaveholders face to face.

As we move into a period of seemingly endless war, I believe that we need to both conduct a systemic analysis of the roots of this situation and reach out to those who disagree with us and engage in real dialogue with them.

Within American society there are three groups actively supporting the new U.S. unilateralism: militarists—those practitioners of realpolitik that believe that war is an inevitable consequence of competition between states and therefore see our current bellicose conduct as the natural assertion of our military supremacy; global-market capitalists—those who see the present conflict as part of the inexorable construction of the global marketplace; and fundamentalists —those who see the role of American power as tied to the spread of Christianity, conversion of the heathen and in some cases, preparation for the rapture—the coming of the final judgement. While those of us who oppose the war need to talk to all three groups, I am particularly interested in the challenge of how to engage in deep dialogue with Christian fundamentalists.

When we talk about Christian fundamentalism, we typically mean those that see the primary source of spiritual truth as coming from the Bible. This is in contrast with the practice of other Christians who, while they see the Bible as an important document, look to the church as the primary spiritual authority or who see God speaking directly to believers through continuing revelation. (Quakers are in the latter category.) Fundamentalists typically believe that the Bible is literally true; for example, they believe that God created the world in seven days, and that Jesus was the product of a "virgin birth."

Recently, fundamentalism has become an issue in American politics. Over the past twenty years Christian fundamentalists have demonstrated increasing power within the Republican Party—the "religious right." In 2000 this power helped ensure the election of George W. Bush as president. Bush appears to actually be a Christian fundamentalist: He talks openly of having been "saved" by Christianity, proclaims the Bible as the greatest book ever written, conducts daily prayer meetings in the White House, and so forth. Thus, the war in Iraq and the philosophy of "Imperial America" has been fueled by Christian Fundamentalists, both those inside the Bush administration and those who constitute its most ardent supporters.

Fundamentalism is best explained as a system of coping with the complexity of modern life, a system with distinct values and processes, a particular worldview. UC Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff distinguishes between the fundamentalist worldview, which I will term the pessimistic view, and the non-fundamentalist, which I will term the positive view, on the basis of the role of the father. The moral outlook of pessimism uses a "Strict Father" model. This envisions a traditional, patriarchal family where the father is the primary authority. Emphasis is placed on survival skills, rather than relationships. The world is seen as a very dangerous place, a jungle where we are engaged in a fierce, competitive struggle for existence. The outcome of this struggle is not determined by our moral character but instead by our ability to compete successfully. Thus, the family operates in an environment of "tough love," where the father is the unquestioned power and, to quote Lakoff, "the exercise of authority is itself moral." In the dangerous world envisioned by pessimism, the competence of the leader of the state—the symbolic father—is essential for the survival of the citizenry. (In contrast, within the optimistic perspective, Lakoff describes the dominant parenting style as that of the "Nurturant Parent." Here, emphasis is placed on relationships and development of the child’s self-esteem and empathy for others. The world is described in positive terms.)

The pessimistic worldview teaches a particular perspective on masculinity—the culture of machismo. The male role is conceived in terms of competition, winning in a world governed by the law of survival of the fittest. Generally speaking, the pessimistic worldview is goal-oriented rather than process-oriented. It holds that the ends justify the means, specifically that the pursuit of moral objectives can justify immoral methods. State leaders who adhere to a pessimistic perspective typically do not believe that there is a law higher than the law of the state. Leaders in this tradition view the taking of life as an operational necessity; they are not governed by the moral perspective that all life is sacred and that humans, as a consequence, have a responsibility to care for each other and the planet. Thus, the pessimistic philosophy takes a short-term rather than a long-term perspective; what matters most is the here and now—future generations will have to take care of themselves. Finally, the pessimistic worldview is not a psychological perspective; it tends to view human behavior as either good or bad—"You are either with us, or against us."

Within fundamentalist Christianity we see a clear demonstration of all of these elements. The fundamentalist church is rigidly patriarchal and hierarchical. The image conveyed is that of God the father, God the judge. This God has a decidedly martial air, and, in fact, most fundamentalists do not believe that a world of peace and justice is achievable in this realm of existence. They envision the world as a jungle where only the strong survive; in this atmosphere men are the protectors of the family and the rules of conduct are "survival of the fittest." The fundamentalist moral code is typically that of the Old Testament, the Mosaic code of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" rather than that from the New Testament where Jesus talks of reaching out with love, not responding to violence with violence.

From the fundamentalist perspective the nation requires a strong leader, who must of necessity take whatever steps are required to protect citizens even if these steps include unpleasant tactics such as peremptory attacks or the use of nuclear weapons. For those whom God has chosen to lead America, the ends must of necessity justify the means. Citizens must give this leader their unwavering support for it is he that has the ultimate responsibility to protect them from evildoers.

This is the environment that the Bush administration has created, an environment in many ways enabled by the catastrophic attacks on 9/11. From that point on the president’s communications have been heavily laced with the imagery of Christian fundamentalism. Our enemies are evildoers. Because our very existence is threatened, extreme measures are needed for our defense: restrictions of civil rights, gigantic defense budgets, unilateral military action, etc. The world of the twenty-first century is a jungle where only the strong will survive—might must make right.

Of course, fundamentalism is a contemporary social phenomenon. Islamic fundamentalism, Wahhabism, fueled the pathology of Osama bin Laden and the development of Al Qaeda. In Israel, Jewish fundamentalism motivated the movement to create settlements in the West Bank. Even in the secular society it is arguable that those who are proponents of global-market capitalism are, themselves, preaching a form of fundamentalism, one guided by imagery of "an invisible hand" that rectifies all social problems through the miracle of open markets.

Given this universality, we should ask what is the appeal of fundamentalism that has made it a global phenomenon? Two aspects stand out as answers. The first is that fundamentalism offers, in effect, a set of simple answers to the bewildering diversity of contemporary life. A society where many of the supports of traditional culture are rapidly disappearing. A society where many participants suffer from information overload. A society where the wonderful and the horrible seem to coexist in a bewildering embrace.

The second attraction of fundamentalism is that it offers instant community. As human beings seek simultaneously to define themselves and to be in relationship, fundamentalism offers a direct formula: define your identity according to our strict criteria and you will become part of a community of believers.

While we all can empathize with the attractions of fundamentalism, we must also be aware that it carries significant dangers. Foremost among these is the fact that it is a closed system. By its very nature fundamentalism only accepts information from certain sources and therefore places a heavy filter in the way of new information. So, for example, we see the fundamentalist wing of the Christian church resisting a host of scientific discoveries: that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, that human beings were the result of an evolutionary process, that life on the planet is interconnected—that we are an integral part of a planetary ecology, etc. This filtering process, this rigidity, has a host of consequences. Many relevant examples lie in the arena of human rights: Christian fundamentalists have long maintained that men, particularly white men, are those placed in ascendant positions. This thesis has led to the so-called "dominator" model of relationships, which argues that some of us, by divine plan, are placed in positions where we dominate others. Recently this notion has been expanded to advocate the domination of the natural world by humans, that we are entitled to take what we want from the planet, as we are the dominant species.

The second major problem with fundamentalism is that it is profoundly undemocratic. The fundamentalist church is typically autocratic, ruled by one, or a small number of white men. It views the world through a hierarchical, patriarchal filter.

On a personal level fundamentalism breeds rigidity. It supports the "true believer" syndrome, wherein fundamentalists steadfastly maintain a position, even in the face of contrary evidence, because they believe that they, as believers, have unique access to the truth.

This characteristic of fundamentalists has been in clear evidence in the political career of George W. Bush and, since the presidential election, in the conduct of his administration. Bush ran for governor of Texas on a "tough on crime" platform. He differentiated himself from the previous governor, Ann Richards, by promising that, if elected, he would oversee more executions of those convicted of capital offenses. He was true to his word. During his term as governor more than 152 executions took place. What is notable about this is not merely that so many executions took place, but that he refused all requests for clemency. Scrutiny of the convictions of those executed reveals that a substantial number had cause for their executions to be stayed or commuted. Yet George W. Bush never intervened. This shows a pattern of rigidity that is a telling characteristic of a "true believer."

The Bush administration has featured similar policy rigidity. Since taking office the administration has regularly preached the mantra of "more tax cuts." When the economy seemed healthy, the optimal policy was tax cuts. As the economy declined, the suggested policy was more tax cuts. Now that the economy hovers near depression, the suggested solution is still more tax cuts. Again, this shows the kind of rigidity associated with fundamentalists.

Nowhere is this inflexibility more apparent than in the Bush Administration foreign policy. Since day one this has been a policy of unilateralism. The United States trashed the Kyoto accords, backed out of support for the International Criminal Court, denigrated treaties on land mines and chemical weapons, etc. After 9/11 the United States had the sympathy of the world and could have leveraged this to form a multilateral task force to weed out the terrorists. Instead it proceeded along the path of unilateralism, and in the course of the past eighteen months has managed to alienate the rest of the world. Again, this rigidity is an unsavory, unfortunate characteristic of religious fundamentalism.

The problem with this level of rigidity is that it blocks leaders from accepting new information. So, for example, the Bush Administration, caught up as it is in the Christian Fundamentalist dominator model with regards to the environment, as well as business relationships in the oil industry, cannot take in new information about global warning, cannot see that if we continue our present level of fossil fuel consumption the world is headed for a series of environmental calamities of unprecedented proportions. Now the Bush Administration does not understand the adverse consequences of pursuing an unnecessary war with Iraq; they are so locked into their view of an era of an Imperial America that they cannot see the adverse consequences that will occur with the rapid spread of virulent anti-American sentiment. So too, the Bush administration is so locked into their notion of unilateralism that they cannot recognize a reality that is all too obvious to most economists and business people, that in a world where the dominant social phenomenon is globalization, it is not possible for any nation—even the richest and most powerful nation—to be unilateralist in military affairs and social policy without this very unilateralism affecting its ability to trade with the rest of the world. If America continues on its unilateral course, the economy will suffer, as the rest of the world will restrict trade with the United States.

The key question remains what do we do about fundamentalism? And, what do we do here in the United States about the increasing power of Christian fundamentalists? There are several possible answers: One is to publicly acknowledge this as a problem and to pursue it in intellectual circles. In this vein, the work of Jean Hardisty and her Boston-based group, Public Research Associates, deserves special mention as they have led the analysis of the rise of power of the religious right. Hardisty’s latest book is Mobilizing Resentment (Beacon Press: Boston, 1999); this is mostly about the resurgence of the right in America, but a fair amount is about Christian fundamentalists. To get a good picture of the scope of Public Research Associates log on to their website at www.publiceye.org; note that they have an entire section on "Apocalypticism."

Another approach is for non-fundamentalist Christians to publicly question the ethics, the underlying morality of the Bush administration and the religious right, in the realm of social-political commentary. A fair amount of this already takes place in the secular press (for example, see Matthew Rothschild, "Bush’s Messiah Complex," the Progressive, February 2003). But, for me, the most interesting source is Sojourners magazine published by the Sojourners community in Washington, D.C., who are evangelical Christians dedicated to peace and social change. Their magazine, email service, and web site at www.sojo.net are replete with criticisms of the religious right and the Bush administration. The most prominent spokesperson for Sojourners is Jim Wallis, whose latest book is Faith Works (Random House: New York, 2000).

Finally those of us who are Christians, in the optimistic tradition, need to find a way to engage Christian fundamentalists in real, substantial dialogue. While some of us may have the opportunity to do this one on one (for example, I have several fundamentalists as members of my extended family), what needs to take place are extended dialogues in a safe environment, ones in which participants from all facets of the spectrum of Christian beliefs feel respected and listened to. The "Process Work" community in Oregon has developed a format for such encounters, the open forum. (Their website is www.processwork.org.) The founder of process work is Arnold Mindell, whose latest book is The Deep Democracy of Open Forums (Hampton Roads: Charlottesville, VA, 2002), which provides detailed instructions on the open forum technique. (Mindell has his own web site www.aamindell.net.) This open-forum format relies upon trained facilitators who are, in effect, trusted neutral third parties. (In this sense it is like the mediator techniques discussed in William Ury’s book, The Third Side [Penguin: New York, 2000], however Mindell’s facilitators are trained in process work.) The open-forum format can be used for meetings where Christians of all persuasions engage in real dialogue: How do we best follow the teachings of Jesus? How do we build a world of peace and justice? How do we save the planet?

From Jesus to John Woolman to Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, the heroic figures of nonviolence have found a way to talk to their adversaries. In these troubled times we need to learn from their example.

Bob Burnett is a writer living in Berkeley. A Quaker, he is presently clerk of the Strawberry Creek Monthly Meeting.