How to read a book like an evangelical
Aug 12th, 2008 by Butter
I buy used books a lot, and I’m usually a fussy buyer, trying to find copies that are in as pristine a condition as possible. I may have to rethink that policy, though, since I found out it can also be fun to browse through the annotations and scribblings left by previous owners. This weekend at a garage sale one of the old books I picked up for a quarter was The American Far Right, by poli-sci prof John H. Redekop.* It’s from ‘68, and it’s an analysis of Billy James Hargis and his Christian Crusade organization. Hargis was a far-right preacher who spent a good deal of the ’50s and ’60s harping about Commies, Catholics, and sex ed, and trying to get the Bible placed firmly in public schools. Apparently he helped start the modern evangelical conservative movement, before the backlash against Vietnam War dissent helped solidify it.
Anyway, I picked it up because a look at the foundations of a movement from a dated perspective—one preceding the thing’s coming to fruition—sounded like a good read. The copy I got was at some point housed in a Baptist church library in Terre Haute, according to the label on the card pocket (strangely located in the back flap) and a stamp on the inside. I discovered that one of the previous readers has gone through some of the middle chapters and annotated his or her† little God-fearing heart out. It’s an interesting excursion into the alternate reality of the fundie worldview, where Christianity and the United States have a common destiny and any attempt at objective academic scrutiny of its foundations is to be greeted with hostility and derision. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mind of a Baptist:
| Redekop | Reader’s Marginal Notes |
|---|---|
| A further weakness in Hargis’s analysis of America is his fusion of Americanism with Christianity. (90) | Wrong! Hargis’ strength! |
| Hargis’s claim that the United States is God’s greatest nation, chosen by Him to lead the world, must surely be an affront to many Christians. (91) | Why? Is it because the author hates the United States and individual freedom? |
| Democracy rests on heterogeneity; the individual needs to play many roles, and no single role should be permitted to dominate the others. (120) | Nonsense |
| Their [orthodox Christians'] moral ideal lies in the past, not in the future. (121) | A Christian’s moral ideal lies always in the future or the now |
| In their view the only type of dynamism present in an “unsaved” society is an increased craving for worldly goods, a greater pursuit of sensual indulgences, and a generally more sophisticated sinfulness. (121) | This is becoming evident |
| [Professor Paul] Tillich states: “I want to ask the question whether religion may endanger a free society. . .” (125) | Distinguish between religion as used here, and true Jesus Christ faith. |
| In contrast to the mature political mind . . . the fundamentalist mind begins with a revealed definition of an absolute right and employs those methods which are believed to facilitate its realization. (131) | Delete the adjectives to arrive at facts. [revealed and an absolute are boxed.—B] |
| He [Hargis] is constantly clamoring for full “constitutional freedoms,” but what he means by this term is not altogether clear. (80) | It is not clear to one who does not read and apply the constitution |
| Should a pro-Christian bias be required in political offices as well? Indeed it should, says Hargis. “We can and should deny the right of any individual to hold office who does not believe in God.” Having quoted this view from another source, Hargis adds the unequivocal judgment, “Truer words could not be spoken.” (81) | Name the source, author! [Irrelevant in this context, and anyway, a footnote pointing to Hargis's citation appears at the bottom of the page.—B] |
Yeah, take that, Author! My favorite is “Is it cuz you HATE AMERICA AND FREEDOM??!!!!” You can almost hear the arrogant, willfully ignorant, tone-deaf condescension.
Beyond the lack of reading comprehension ability evidenced by the poor correlation between the annotations and the main idea of the quoted material, there’s a particular lesson here about the fundamentalist inability to introspect and analyze one’s own premises—or even to recognize that your own belief system even has premises that it’s built on. The blindness, for example, toward the contradiction between “America = Jesusland” and “I totally understand the Constitution! How come you don’t??!!!!” is entertaining, if typical for the American fundie worldview. But more revealing, I think, is the attempt to deny that “true Jesus Christ faith” is a subordinate category of “religion.” I’d like to speculate that the Venn diagram of religion-space that’s in their heads is remarkably distinct from the one that’s in Redekop’s, or any non-deluded person’s, head. Lovin’ Jesus isn’t religion in the same way that worshipping Allah or Zeus is religion. It’s not even that Christian doctrine is the one among many culturally distinct sets of truth claims—with each set being in the same general category of thing—that happens to be true. Rather, Jesus-belief, Bible studying, simple good-vs.-evil Manicheanism, praying, feeling guilt, worrying about the hereafter, and gettin’ saved are integral parts of your identity and worldview. Christianity is part of your consciousness and part of your day, not something you picked off a menu from among other options because it had some merit that the others lacked. It’s just how you think.
Again, just speculation, but it’s speculation that’s not unique to me. See this Pharyngula comment about a recent Point of Inquiry podcast, for example. And buy used books! They’re fun, and they usually smell nice.
────────────────────
* Redekop, John H. The American Far Right. Grand Rapids: Edermans, 1968.
† Her, I think, based on the handwriting.
This is extremely funny. You have to wonder for whose purpose those footnotes were created. His own? Or was he going to pass it on to someone he might’ve thought needed saving?
PS. Look at YOU, Butter, with all the HTML. Pretty soon you’ll be moving on to CSS Stylesheets, and you can custom build us a blog!
Not only do I like the content of the post, but going to the extent of using tables is fantastic. Thank you for the detail!
qzrodix sclg mtdjxzucy itdnx rgybxqicj kphtyvsf acqmty