Muscular Personalities, Big Church Politics, and the Attraction of Hyper Fundamentalism

I’m back now, and it will take a while to post some follow up posts that are overdue around here. But I came across something interesting that I had to blog about first.

Bread & Circuses posted a link to an eye-opening video promoting First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN’s 2006 Youth Conference. You have got to go see the video, it is very intriguing to say the least. (You might find it easier to download the video by right clicking on this link and selecting “save target as”.) The last few minutes of it really give you an insider’s view into the extremist sectors of IFBx-dom. And what you see should alarm you.

Sharper Iron has an interesting discussion going on about this video, which you can view here. But I found the insights of professor Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (PCA) to be very enlightening. You can read his comments here, but I will provide excerpts while commenting on them below.

Specifically, Professor Lucas explored the strange attraction that fundamentalists (specifically hyper fundamentalists) have to “muscular” personalities.

Even more, I was struck by the way that Protestant fundamentalism has always seemed to be attracted to these muscular personalities–real manly men battling against the forces of wickedness and evil in our culture. The result is a cult of personality in which these “gladiators for truth” are set on a pedestal and create independent fifedoms [sic] that spin off colleges and publishing ventures, as well as very comfortable lifestyles. (For an academic historian’s treatment of some of these issues, see William V. Trollinger, Jr., God’s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism [Wisconsin, 1990].)

The question that I’ve always wondered is why? Why do these men attract such attention, such adulation, such support?…

This question is very intriguing. Why do people gravitate to the extremes of Hylesism, for instance? Many who are branded as cultural fundamentalists/hyper fundamentalists/IFBx, stay clear of the Hyles group too. But there are plenty of macho leaders, whose word is treated as law, who yet remain aloof from Hyles.  

Cultural fundamentalism (indeed many sectors of mainstream fundamentalism, also, to some extent) stands divided into multiple personality groups. Each camp gives extreme devotion to its leaders. Indeed, such unswerving loyalty is expected of them. In turn the leaders squabble among themselves over trifling issues, sometimes. My dad always called this “big church politics”. And indeed the tactics employed by various fundamentalist “big shots” at one  time or another would make  the worst politicians look like angels.  

Professor Lucas’ description of “independent fiefdoms”  is right on the money. And the pedestals such leaders are placed on are often  dangerously high. The word of the leader becomes law to the follower. I’m sure there are many others reading this who’d be rich if they had a nickel for  every time  they heard a variation of “well, preacher  says…”.

Having described the phenomena and having asked the question “why”, Professor Lucas does a great job of presenting some valid reasons for the attraction of hyper-fundamentalist, macho personalities. He then follows up with an argument against being swept up into hyper fundamentalism.  

I, for one, think he is on to something here. Perhaps we can discuss it more in the comments section below this, but let me close this post by quoting the remainder of his post.

Well, one reason has to be that they provide very simple, black and white, answers to the challenges that face most American families–your teenager is rebelling? Cut his hair short, burn his rock music, involve him in youth group, send him to Bible college. Your marriage is on the rocks? Get involved in church more. Your job not working out? Do Bible studies on your work break; develop a work ethic.

Not only in personal life, but especially in their analysis of the world, these muscular fundamentalists are able to divide the world into heroes and devils in ways that make sense for their adherents: the media, academic elites, bureaucrats (especially Democrats), and pluralists are evil; preachers, missionaries, and evangelists “resolved” to stand for truth, justice, and the American way are good.

Most of all, I believe that these fiery leaders attract others based on their sheer charisma–as men who know what they believe and who know what they are about, they are attractive even when their harshness would otherwise repulse. In that regard, this quality stands true across cultures, religions, or regions–the hypnotic powers of harsh, believable rhetoric can motivate people and create cult-like adherence.

One of the many reasons that I moved away from American fundamentalism (though I continue to be endlessly fascinated by it) was how different this all is from Jesus as presented in the NT. Especially in places such as Mark 10, Jesus presents a different approach to leadership–not lording it over as the Gentiles do, with angry words and strong charisma, but with service that may lead all the way to the death of our reputations, plans, and dreams. Such a humble willingness to serve Christ was missing in my more muscular heroes of my college days; and eventually, while their personalities continue to draw my attention and study, they cannot claim my adherence.

[Read the Professor Lucas’ whole post here.]

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7