The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism

[Clara T]

The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism

By WALTER A. DAVIS

"I know you're a Christian, but who are you a Christian against."

Kenneth Burke

In Apocalypse, a patient study of Christian fundamentalism based on extensive interviews over a five year period with members of apocalyptic communities Charles Strozier identifies four basic beliefs as fundamental to Christian fundamentalism. (1) Inerrancy or biblical literalism, the belief that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally as the word of God; (2) conversion or the experience of being reborn in Christ; (3) evangelicalism or the duty of the saved to spread the gospel; and (4) Apocalypticism or Endism, the belief that The Book of Revelations describes the events that must come to pass for God's plan to be fulfilled. <1> Revelations thus becomes an object of longing as well as the key to understanding contemporary history, to reading the news of the day and keeping a handle on an otherwise overwhelming world. Each of these categories, Strozier adds, must be understood not doctrinally but psychologically. What follows attempts to constitute such an understanding by analyzing each category as the progression of a disorder that finds the end it seeks in Apocalyptic destructiveness.

Before undertaking that examination a note on method. My goal is not to number the streaks of the tulip with respect to Christian fundamentalism but to get to the essence of the thing by offering a psychoanalytic version of the method Hegel formulated in the Phenomenology of Mind. My effort will be to describe the inner structure of the psyche implied by fundamentalist beliefs by examining those beliefs in terms of the psychological needs they fulfill. The examination of each belief will reveal its function in an evolving "logic" that traces the sequence of internal operations required for the fundamentalist psyche to achieve the form required to resolve the conflicts that define its inner world. The difference between my method and Hegel's is this: Hegel's effort was to describe the sequence of rational self-mediations required for the attainment of absolute knowledge. Mine is to record the sequence of psychological transformations that must take place for another kind of certainty to be achieved: one in which, as we'll see, thanatos and not reason attains an absolute status, freed of anything within that would oppose it. In effect, my goal is to offer fundamentalists a self-knowledge they cannot have since it is precisely the function of the belief structure we shall examine to render it unconscious and all the more powerful and certain of itself by virtue of that fact. What after all is religion but a desire displacing itself into dogmas all the better to assure the flock that what they desire is writ into the nature of things?

Who does the structure we'll examine describe? George W. Bush and some of those closest to him? The 42% or 51% of those Americans who now call themselves fundamentalists? The 80 or 90% of practicing Christians, the over 1 billion viewers worldwide, who found Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ a singularly compelling expression of their faith and who are thus already far more fundamentalist in their hearts than they realize? The power of any religious belief system derives from how deeply it taps into collective needs and discontents. In this regard we may already be living in a fundamentalist Zeitgeist with the collective Amerikan psyche now defined, even among those who have never (or seldom) seen the inside of a church, by the emotional needs and principles of operation that find their most seductive realization in fundamentalism. We may in fact find the same "faith" informing a project that initially appears to have nothing to do with fundamentalism--global capitalism.

Though he does not share their beliefs Strozier often comments on the charity and gentleness of his interviewees seeing in that a sign that we should always temper any criticism of fundamentalism by acknowledging the good things it does for people, many of whom would be lost or miserable without it. Be that as it may, in terms of the psyche a far different condition might maintain with a pronounced dissonance between the sincerity of the surface and the depths where something quite different has taken hold of the psyche. Moreover, in the psychoanalysis of a belief system the primary concern must be not with the sheep but with the Grand Inquisitors. Or, to put it in psychoanalytic terms, with those who fashion the Super-ego which is the agency essential to the hold that any religion assumes over its followers. Our concern, in short, must be with fundamentalism not as a pathetic phenomena, a halfway house for drug addicts and a panacea for those who find in it the infantalization they seek, but for those who have fashioned in it what Nietzsche would call (though with horror) a strong valuation, an attempt to take up the fundamental problems of the psyche and fashion a will to power out of one's resentment by developing a faith that will make one strong and righteous in that resentment, like Falwell, smug in its smug certitudes like Dubya, confident in the right to rule over those it reduces to the status of sheep, dumb and blissful in their blind obedience to the will that is collectively imposed on them.

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html

[sasha031]

1. have you ever seen this

http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html


i hate these bastards, I wish they would get raptured so that to leave the rest of us alone.

[ixion]

11. 32 Mark of the Beast

:wtf:

32 Mark of the Beast:
The U.S. Patriot Act has failed to get enough votes for extension.

:puke: dominionist fascist bastards all. :grr:

[Gman]

2. A lot to read

but from what I read it seems like a very good analysis. In essence it says we'll never get these people to vote Democrat as long as they're being told its a sin to do so.

[longship]

3. This is a *must* read.

Recommended and kicked.

[depakid]

4. I think the analysis may be flawed (or incomplete)

If one of his findings is the belief that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally as the word of God, then how does he explain that most fundamentalists don't appear to have either read- or understood the relatively uncomplicated teachings of Jesus in the Gospels?

These people act like- and vote for- the very antithesis (to go Hegelian) of what they supposedly believe without question.

His statement that these people can't or won't look at the bible progressively (as in temporally) may well be true- but in defining what he calls binaries: "good" and "evil," it seems all too simple and logical to look to what Jesus said and did. After all, he's the savior- yet they reject him?

Only to accept all of the nastiest statements in the Old Testiment?

Sounds to me like there's a deeper seated and much more twisted pathology going on here than his psychoanalysis reveals.

[Clara T]

5. This analysis is very effective and important

but only a piece in understanding the psychological machinations of the fundamentalist mindset. I cannot help but take issue with the widespread belief amongst "progressives" that "Bush and those around him" are merely Christian ideologues. I believe there is much much more at work here -and some of it will not be understood unless one unravels some more details as to what kind of philosophy "Bush" and "those around him" really are holding onto. It is not as simple as "Christian fundamentalism." For one, let's not forget the Straussian neo-con philosophy of deceit to use nationalism and religion as means to an end. Secondly lets not forget the Machiavellian political play book, "The Prince" and the gnostic interpretation of Christ as the fulfillment of God in man - the strength and triumph of the will - which in the highest echelons of power can and IS very much translated into a megalomaniacs God complex which is very different from the kind of "Christian fundamentalism" that characterizes the typical American meat and potatoes voter for Bush.

"...then how does he explain that most fundamentalists don't appear to have either read- or understood the relatively uncomplicated teachings of Jesus in the Gospels?"

What we must keep in mind is that most of these fundies are sermonized by the raging Male preachers who toss in the occasional biblical quote from the Old Testament only to keep up the facade of 'holy man' and only as it suits their ideological needs and their lust for complete control. Most of the flock do not read bible, or at least not nearly as much as they refer to the passages they learn are important from said televangelists and as with the pastors use only the parts that buttress their own ideologies the very same ones which are shaped by the hell, fire, brimstone madmen. A vicious unthinking, unfeeling feedback loop.

[depakid]

7. Of course it's important to understand

I'm just not persuaded by some of the findings and reasoning here. Doesn't make sense to me, even viewed through cultural relativistic eyes.

"Most of the flock do not read bible, or at least not nearly as much as they refer to the passages they learn are important from said televangelists and as with the pasrtors use only the parts that buttress thier own ideologies the very same ones which are shaped by the hell, fire, brimstone madmen. A vicious unthinking, unfeeling feedback loop."

This, unfortunately, is probably true of some (maybe most) but hey, I'm not asking that people read the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas here.

Just 4 relatively short books containing the central teachings of their religion.

Interesting point though. The fact that they won't read the contents (much less seek to understand the concepts) suggests yet another pathology, possibly related to something like "learned helplessness."

<on edit- I'd also like to know why fundamentalist protestants differ from other literalists, like Jehovah's Witnesses, who do actually try to "walk the walk")>

[applegrove]

6. Isn't it just focussing on the strict father of the old testament instead

of the loving mother in Christ? Jewish religion has progressed long after the old testament. Don't know much but that is what I hear. Just like Christianity did after the New Testament. And then there is the Catholic church and reproductive rights.

[WePurrsevere]

8. As one who walked amongst them this seems to be exc & fairly accurate...

but I really need a cup of coffee and to take some cold meds before I re-read it and comment further.

Mostly I'm posting as a bump for the morning DU crowd. :-)

[Judi Lynn]

9. Morning kick.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Demeter]

10. Misery Is A Very Important Growth Medium

Using Fundamentalism to take the edge off misery is to defeat the whole purpose of misery: to get the sufferer off his ass and out of his rut and into dealing with life and the larger issues. Fundamentalism short-circuits every single one of these projects. It stops Evolution (mental, spiritual or otherwise) in its tracks.

[sasha031]

12. Oh but look where they believe they are heading

and can't get there soon enough
http://www.raptureready.com/photo/mansions/mansions.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. The notion of fundamentalism as institutionalized resentment makes

a lot of sense.

When I heard Karen Armstrong speak in Portland a few years ago, she spoke of fundamentalism as appealing to people who have been harmed or left behind by modernity.

Ever since the 1960s, there have been a lot of people suffering from future shock. Fundamentalism tells them that there's nothing wrong with them--it's the rest of the world that is on the wrong path. That can be very affirming to someone who is bewildered by the contemporary world.