Conservatives and Liberals, Unite!

I do not remember the title of Lloyd’s address, but I do remember his reference to The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow by Kirsopp Lake (1925)¹. In that book, Lake predicted the Christian Church would slowly become dominated by the fundamentalists. Lake’s thinking was that while Christian “experimentalists” wanted the church to address justice issues in society, Christian “institutionalists” were most interested in protecting the church and its traditions. The concern of the institutionalist was to accommodate the disruptive fundamentalists and their dogmatic agendas. The institutionalist approach, in other words, was peace at all costs, but this appeasement would alienate the experimentalists, forcing them to leave the church.[1]

With the experimentalist element of the church taking leave, Lake pictured fundamentalism slowly but progressively dominating the church. Then, eventually, even the institutionalists would leave the church and the dominant face of Christianity would be fundamentalism.

To a large extent, Lake was right. There are still “institutional” churches that persist in protecting the building and the tradition, but most people today are not looking for a building when they consider questions of human spirituality. Meanwhile, the face of Christianity has indeed largely become fundamentalism. Young people who are not attracted to fundamentalism rarely set foot in the church anymore. The very word Christian, for many young people, is associated with extremism, creationism, and other assorted fictional beliefs.

Yet, despite appearances to the contrary, Christian fundamentalism is in decline, and it is in decline because it is unbelievable. In a New York Times opinion piece, July of 2021, Michelle Goldberg reported on the decline of fundamentalism, but she did so with a warning: the decline is accompanied with anger among fundamentalists, and their anger is taking the rest of us along for a dangerous ride into culture wars, misinformation, violence, and xenophobic behaviours.

Lake’s insight from 1925 identifies a pattern of fundamentalist takeovers that evolve into Goldberg’s concerns. Movements, once established, tend to hold the priority of self-preservation. Inevitably survival is more important than mission. Great leaders are people who understand this dynamic, but do not as a consequence let the priority of the mission die. When the mission loses its nerve, the extremists take over and anger, as Goldberg noted, displaces, and then defines, the mission.

I have often considered the Republican Party as a perfect example of anger displacing mission. In the 1956 campaign, the Republican Party was certainly fiscally conservative, but it did have a “social” mission. Its platform held the principles of improving unemployment benefits, strengthening labour laws, providing asylum for refugees, and ensuring equal pay for equal work. Its mission was not to make America White again but “Peace and Prosperity” for all.

Nevertheless, in the Republican Party, just like in the church, for the sake of peace, the quiet moderates allowed the noisy libertarians to take over. The moderates consequently left the party, and today the face of the Republican Party is Christian fundamentalism mixed with neoliberal economic ideology. The new Republican Party is inching toward fascism, and that terrifying journey is what the rest of us, Goldberg fears, may have to endure. Meanwhile, to find old Republican moderates, you have to go outside the party just as to find old Christian moderates, you have to leave the church.

Years ago, when we held the SnowStar conference “Where is Fundamentalism Leading Us?” I never imagined that the answer to that question was “to fascism.” I thought, at the time, that the answer was “to the end of Christianity” (something I happened to think was good news). Now I think fundamentalism is leading us to democratic, economic, and environmental destruction. Armageddon is where fundamentalism is going, but are the rest of us helpless to stop this journey of madness?

Over the course of my career as a writer, teacher, thinker, and administrator, I have invested a lot of energy and time in supplying people with what I judge to be academically sound information. My hope has always been that people are capable of thinking for themselves provided the tools of thought are made available. However, I must admit, now more than ever, that “thinking for ourselves” cannot exclude “thinking with other people.” It is clear that we can only survive on this planet, both economically and spiritually, by ensuring one and other’s integrity exists together without leaving anyone behind (contrary to the fundamentalist vision of people being left behind).

The word that describes thinking “for yourself” while simultaneously thinking “with others” is compassion. Compassion is not just feeling for someone else. It is standing with someone else, and that is a mutual act because we are always stronger personally when we are with another socially. It might be time for people of progressive minds to put down the old conservative and liberal labels. Of course, on the progressive side, some will be fiscally conservative and others fiscally liberal, but maybe we need to forget about this division, at least for the time being. We need a new body of people who genuinely care first and foremost about democracy, about the earth, and about the citizens of this world.

This planet is our home; we have no other place to be. Traditional liberals and conservatives can stand together here, on earth, against the threat of its destruction. This might mean that liberals or conservatives will have to hold their noses and vote for someone they never imagined they could vote for, but countering the alternative of fascism and destruction is surely worth acts of bridge building. © David Galston