Fundamentalism

@inproceedings{pierson1895the15,
    author = "Pierson, A. T",
    title = "The Coming of the Lord. Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord",
    year = "1895",
    booktitle = "Delivered at the Prophetic Conference, Allegheny, Pa. December 3-6, 1895.; Pittsburgh, Pa. 1895",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Pierson, A. T., 1895, The Coming of the Lord. Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord: Delivered at the Prophetic Conference, Allegheny, Pa. December 3-6, 1895.; Pittsburgh, Pa. 1895.}"
}

@misc{orr1910191514,
    author = "Orr, J",
    title = "-1915, Science and the Christian Faith, in The Fundamentals",
    year = "1910",
    howpublished = "A Testimony to the Truth: Chicago, Ill., p. 91-104",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Orr, J., 1910-1915, Science and the Christian Faith, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth: Chicago, Ill., p. 91-104.}"
}

@misc{bryan1922the3,
    author = "Bryan, W. J",
    title = "The World's Most Famous Court Trial, in Bryan, W. J., ed., In His Image",
    year = "1922",
    howpublished = "New York, p. 86-135",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bryan, W. J., 1922, The World's Most Famous Court Trial, in Bryan, W. J., ed., In His Image: New York, p. 86-135.}"
}

@misc{bryan1923the4,
    author = "Bryan, W. J",
    title = "The Fundamentals",
    year = "1923",
    howpublished = "The Forum, v. LXX, p. 1675-1680",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bryan, W. J., 1923, The Fundamentals: The Forum, v. LXX, p. 1675-1680.}"
}

@misc{mencken1926prejudices10,
    author = "Mencken, H. L",
    title = "Prejudices",
    year = "1926",
    howpublished = "Fifth Series, in May, H., ed., The Discontent of the Intellectuals: Chicago, 1963, p. 29",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Mencken, H. L., 1926, Prejudices: Fifth Series, in May, H., ed., The Discontent of the Intellectuals: Chicago, 1963, p. 29.}"
}

@misc{shipley1927the18,
    author = "Shipley, M",
    title = "The War on Modern Science",
    year = "1927",
    howpublished = "A Short History of Fundamentalist Attacks on Evolution and Modernism: New York",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Shipley, M., 1927, The War on Modern Science: A Short History of Fundamentalist Attacks on Evolution and Modernism: New York.}"
}

@misc{abrams1933preachers1,
    author = "Abrams, R. H",
    title = "Preachers Present Arms",
    year = "1933",
    howpublished = "New York",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Abrams, R. H., 1933, Preachers Present Arms: New York.}"
}

@misc{dewey1934a5,
    author = "Dewey, J",
    title = "A Common Faith",
    year = "1934",
    howpublished = "New Haven, Connecticut",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dewey, J., 1934, A Common Faith: New Haven, Connecticut.}"
}

Foreword by Richard J. Mouw Originally published in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism has since served as the manifesto of evangelical Christians serious about bringing the fundamentals of the Christian faith to bear in contemporary culture. In this classic book Carl F. H. Henry, the father of modern fundamentalism, pioneered a path for active Christian engagement with the world - a path as relevant today as when it was first staked out. Now available again and featuring a new foreword by Richard J. Mouw, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism offers a bracing world-and-life view that calls for boldness on the part of the evangelical community. Henry argues that a reformation is imperative within the ranks of conservative Christianity, one that will result in an ecumenical passion for souls and in the power to meaningfully address the social and intellectual needs of the world.

@book{openalexw591404461,
    author = "Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard",
    title = "The uneasy conscience of modern fundamentalism",
    year = "1947",
    journal = "Medical Entomology and Zoology",
    abstract = "Foreword by Richard J. Mouw Originally published in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism has since served as the manifesto of evangelical Christians serious about bringing the fundamentals of the Christian faith to bear in contemporary culture. In this classic book Carl F. H. Henry, the father of modern fundamentalism, pioneered a path for active Christian engagement with the world - a path as relevant today as when it was first staked out. Now available again and featuring a new foreword by Richard J. Mouw, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism offers a bracing world-and-life view that calls for boldness on the part of the evangelical community. Henry argues that a reformation is imperative within the ranks of conservative Christianity, one that will result in an ecumenical passion for souls and in the power to meaningfully address the social and intellectual needs of the world.",
    openalex = "W591404461"
}

@misc{irvine1955apes7,
    author = "Irvine, W",
    title = "Apes, Angels, and Victorians",
    year = "1955",
    howpublished = "New York, McGraw-Hill",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Irvine, W., 1955, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: New York, McGraw-Hill.}"
}

@misc{morris1967evolution12,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Evolution and the Modern Christian",
    year = "1967",
    howpublished = "Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1967, Evolution and the Modern Christian: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House.}"
}

@article{vandefliert1969fundamentalism19,
    author = "Van de Fliert, J. R",
    title = "Fundamentalism and the fundamentals of geology",
    year = "1969",
    journal = "Journal of American Scientific Affiliations, v. 21, p. 69-81",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Van de Fliert, J. R., 1969, Fundamentalism and the fundamentals of geology: Journal of American Scientific Affiliations, v. 21, p. 69-81.}"
}

@book{morris1970biblical13,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science",
    year = "1970",
    publisher = "Nutley, New Jersey, Craig Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1970, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science: Nutley, New Jersey, Craig Press.}"
}

@misc{sandeen1970fundamentalism17,
    author = "Sandeen, E. R",
    title = "Fundamentalism and the American Identity",
    year = "1970",
    howpublished = "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 387, p. 56-65",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Sandeen, E. R., 1970, Fundamentalism and the American Identity: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v. 387, p. 56-65.}"
}

@misc{sandeen1970the16,
    author = "Sandeen, E. R",
    title = "The Roots of Fundamentalism",
    year = "1970",
    howpublished = "British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 [1st ed.]: Chicago, Ill",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Sandeen, E. R., 1970, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 [1st ed.]: Chicago, Ill.}"
}

Ernest R. Sandeen's The Roots of remains a landmark work in the history of religion. A National Book Award finalist, it the first full-length study to present an intellectual historical critique of the Fundamentalist movement in America. Sandeen argues that our understanding of this movement has been grievously distorted by the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate of the 1920s, as symbolized by William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Rather than viewing Fundamentalism as a chiefly sociological phenomenon of the 1920s, Sandeen argues from a transatlantic perspective that the Fundamentalist movement was a self-conscious, structured, long-lived dynamic entity that had its origins in Anglo-American millenarian thought and movements of the nineteenth century.

@article{doi1023072711817,
    author = "Bouman, Walter R. and Sandeen, Ernest R.",
    title = "The Roots of Fundamentalism. British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930",
    year = "1971",
    journal = "American Quarterly",
    abstract = "Ernest R. Sandeen's The Roots of remains a landmark work in the history of religion. A National Book Award finalist, it the first full-length study to present an intellectual historical critique of the Fundamentalist movement in America. Sandeen argues that our understanding of this movement has been grievously distorted by the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate of the 1920s, as symbolized by William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial. Rather than viewing Fundamentalism as a chiefly sociological phenomenon of the 1920s, Sandeen argues from a transatlantic perspective that the Fundamentalist movement was a self-conscious, structured, long-lived dynamic entity that had its origins in Anglo-American millenarian thought and movements of the nineteenth century.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/2711817",
    doi = "10.2307/2711817",
    openalex = "W2011545253"
}

@phdthesis{morison1971george11,
    author = "Morison, W. J",
    title = "George Fredrick Wright",
    year = "1971",
    publisher = "in Defense of Darwinism and Fundamentalism, 1838-1921 [PhD dissert.]: Vanderbilt",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morison, W. J., 1971, George Fredrick Wright: in Defense of Darwinism and Fundamentalism, 1838-1921 [PhD dissert.]: Vanderbilt.}"
}

@misc{bozeman1977protestants2,
    author = "Bozeman, T. D",
    title = "Protestants in an Age of Science",
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "The Baconian Ideal and Antebellum American Religious Thought: Chapel Hill",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bozeman, T. D., 1977, Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Antebellum American Religious Thought: Chapel Hill.}"
}

The nomination acceptance addresses of recent presidential candidates constitute a significant aspect of an American political ritual. These addresses might be termed a “modern jeremiad”; because they conform to the jeremiad tradition in American rhetoric. Like the Puritan jeremiad which was central to a religious ritual, the modern jeremiad continues to function rhetorically as a means for interpreting the meaning of America's past and unifying the audience around a shared vision of America's future.

@article{doi10108010510978009368054,
    author = "Ritter, Kurt W.",
    title = "American political rhetoric and the jeremiad tradition: Presidential nomination acceptance addresses, 1960–1976",
    year = "1980",
    journal = "Central States Speech Journal",
    abstract = "The nomination acceptance addresses of recent presidential candidates constitute a significant aspect of an American political ritual. These addresses might be termed a “modern jeremiad”; because they conform to the jeremiad tradition in American rhetoric. Like the Puritan jeremiad which was central to a religious ritual, the modern jeremiad continues to function rhetorically as a means for interpreting the meaning of America's past and unifying the audience around a shared vision of America's future.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978009368054",
    doi = "10.1080/10510978009368054",
    openalex = "W2013199422",
    references = "doi1023071853860"
}

@article{doi1023071860337,
    author = "Findlay, James and Marsden, George M.",
    title = "Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "The American Historical Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1860337",
    doi = "10.2307/1860337",
    openalex = "W2327550796"
}

@book{marsden1981fundamentalism9,
    author = "Marsden, G. W",
    title = "Fundamentalism and American Culture",
    year = "1981",
    publisher = "The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicism 1870-1925: New York, Oxford University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Marsden, G. W., 1981, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicism 1870-1925: New York, Oxford University Press.}"
}

@article{arnold1982christian,
    author = "Arnold, W.",
    title = "Christian Faith within Modern Society",
    year = "1982",
    journal = "Philosophy and History",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5840/philhist19821519",
    doi = "10.5840/philhist19821519",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2320391161",
    pages = "28-28",
    volume = "15"
}

@book{marsden1984understanding8,
    author = "Marsden, G. M",
    title = "Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 95-116",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Marsden, G. M., 1984, Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 95-116.}"
}

@misc{hechinger1986fundamentalists6,
    author = "Hechinger, F. M",
    title = "Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Gainesville (Fla) Sun",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hechinger, F. M., 1986, Fundamentalists Turn to Courts, Ballot Box for Control of Schools: Gainesville (Fla) Sun.}"
}

Born‐again Christian belief follows conversion, an inner transformation that quickens the supernatural imagination. Among fundamental Baptists, rhetoric, not ritual, is the primary vehicle of conversion. Witnesses “speak the gospel,” the ramifying discourse and narrative of Christ. Listeners “come under conviction” as they appropriate the gospel in their inner speech. At “the moment of salvation,” listeners become public speakers of the gospel. They “believe” in the sense of embracing a narrative tradition that rewords their experience in terms of a personal, triune Cod who intervenes in daily life and in history.

@article{doi101525ae198714102a00100,
    author = "Harding, Susan",
    title = "convicted by the holy spirit: the rhetoric of fundamental Baptist conversion",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "American Ethnologist",
    abstract = "Born‐again Christian belief follows conversion, an inner transformation that quickens the supernatural imagination. Among fundamental Baptists, rhetoric, not ritual, is the primary vehicle of conversion. Witnesses “speak the gospel,” the ramifying discourse and narrative of Christ. Listeners “come under conviction” as they appropriate the gospel in their inner speech. At “the moment of salvation,” listeners become public speakers of the gospel. They “believe” in the sense of embracing a narrative tradition that rewords their experience in terms of a personal, triune Cod who intervenes in daily life and in history.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1987.14.1.02a00100",
    doi = "10.1525/ae.1987.14.1.02a00100",
    openalex = "W2108088842",
    references = "doi101086226598, doi1015159781474471312022, doi101525aa197577202a00030, doi1023071387393, doi1023072801733, doi1023072905994, doi102307307132, doi1023073711485, doi10432497813512198601, openalexw1500043667"
}

(also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority. In normal usage, Bible believer means an individual or organisation that believes the Christian is true in some significant way. However, this combination of words is given a unique meaning in fundamentalist Protestant circles, where it is equated with the belief that the Christian contains no theological contradictions, historical discrepancies, or other such 'errors', otherwise known as biblical inerrancy.

@article{doi1023072579546,
    author = "Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Ammerman, Nancy T.",
    title = "Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World.",
    year = "1989",
    journal = "Social Forces",
    abstract = "(also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority. In normal usage, Bible believer means an individual or organisation that believes the Christian is true in some significant way. However, this combination of words is given a unique meaning in fundamentalist Protestant circles, where it is equated with the belief that the Christian contains no theological contradictions, historical discrepancies, or other such 'errors', otherwise known as biblical inerrancy.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/2579546",
    doi = "10.2307/2579546",
    openalex = "W2086885370"
}

The literature on Christian fundamentalism' has grown dramatically in recent years. [We define Christian as Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy, would consider themselves reborn, may or may not speak in tongues, and in their belief systems probably ascribe to a fairly modern reading of biblical prophecies, especially the book of Revelation. We believe this definition is historically and sociologically accurate and avoids parochial, denominational, or racist categories. Many of those whom we have studied would object to being called fundamentalists and might instead describe their biblical literalism as historical Christianity to avoid association with what may appear to be rigid or low-class. Strictly speaking, Christian are those, and only those, descendants of a movement beginning in the late 19th century, whose ideas were codified by a group of Princeton theologicans between 1912 and 1920 in a series of books entitled The Fundamentals. Perhaps something like fundamentalist/conservative evangelical would be more accurate to describe what we are studying, but such a name is both awkward and itself raises many questions. Basically, there is no single, accurate term to describe the group of Americans we are here calling fundamentalists. And yet in their biblical literalism and end-time thinking they share a common spiritual orientation and a world view that differentiates them from the rest of the population. Lacking a better term, we continue to use fundamentalism, though we use it, so to speak, with a small f.] Important studies include those of Martin Marty (1988), Nancy Ammerman (1987), Randy Balmer (1989), and James Davison Hunter (1983, 1987). Pollsters have been fascinated with the sudden rise of faith in America, and have attempted to document the extent of such beliefs (Gallup and Poling, 1980; Yankelovich and Doble, 1984). Historian George

@article{doi1023073791347,
    author = "Strozier, Charles B. and Simich, Laura",
    title = "Christian Fundamentalism and Nuclear Threat",
    year = "1991",
    journal = "Political Psychology",
    abstract = "The literature on Christian fundamentalism' has grown dramatically in recent years. [We define Christian as Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy, would consider themselves reborn, may or may not speak in tongues, and in their belief systems probably ascribe to a fairly modern reading of biblical prophecies, especially the book of Revelation. We believe this definition is historically and sociologically accurate and avoids parochial, denominational, or racist categories. Many of those whom we have studied would object to being called fundamentalists and might instead describe their biblical literalism as historical Christianity to avoid association with what may appear to be rigid or low-class. Strictly speaking, Christian are those, and only those, descendants of a movement beginning in the late 19th century, whose ideas were codified by a group of Princeton theologicans between 1912 and 1920 in a series of books entitled The Fundamentals. Perhaps something like fundamentalist/conservative evangelical would be more accurate to describe what we are studying, but such a name is both awkward and itself raises many questions. Basically, there is no single, accurate term to describe the group of Americans we are here calling fundamentalists. And yet in their biblical literalism and end-time thinking they share a common spiritual orientation and a world view that differentiates them from the rest of the population. Lacking a better term, we continue to use fundamentalism, though we use it, so to speak, with a small f.] Important studies include those of Martin Marty (1988), Nancy Ammerman (1987), Randy Balmer (1989), and James Davison Hunter (1983, 1987). Pollsters have been fascinated with the sudden rise of faith in America, and have attempted to document the extent of such beliefs (Gallup and Poling, 1980; Yankelovich and Doble, 1984). Historian George",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/3791347",
    doi = "10.2307/3791347",
    openalex = "W2323716702",
    references = "doi101525ae198714102a00100, doi1023071386611, doi1023071853860, doi1023071860337, doi1023072089264, doi1023072151532, doi1023072579076, doi1023072579546, openalexw1717283089, openalexw2060623020"
}

Abstract Five studies of university students and their parents were carried out to investigate the relationships among right-wing authoritarianism, various indices of religious orientation, and prejudice. Measures of religious fundamentalism, and religious quest, developed for this research, proved to be psychometrically sound, and were good discriminators between prejudiced and unprejudiced persons, across a variety of different measures of prejudice and authoritarian aggression. Scores on both Religious Fundamentalism and Religious Quest scales also were correlated strongly with right-wing authoritarianism and the Christian Orthodoxy scale, although orthodoxy itself tended not to be correlated with prejudice. Apparently, religious fundamentalism and nonquesting are linked with authoritarianism and prejudice toward a wide variety of minority groups. Possible explanations for these relationships are discussed.

@article{doi101207s15327582ijpr02025,
    author = "Altemeyer, Bob and Hunsberger, Bruce",
    title = "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice",
    year = "1992",
    journal = "International Journal for the Psychology of Religion",
    abstract = "Abstract Five studies of university students and their parents were carried out to investigate the relationships among right-wing authoritarianism, various indices of religious orientation, and prejudice. Measures of religious fundamentalism, and religious quest, developed for this research, proved to be psychometrically sound, and were good discriminators between prejudiced and unprejudiced persons, across a variety of different measures of prejudice and authoritarian aggression. Scores on both Religious Fundamentalism and Religious Quest scales also were correlated strongly with right-wing authoritarianism and the Christian Orthodoxy scale, although orthodoxy itself tended not to be correlated with prejudice. Apparently, religious fundamentalism and nonquesting are linked with authoritarianism and prejudice toward a wide variety of minority groups. Possible explanations for these relationships are discussed.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202\_5",
    doi = "10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202\_5",
    openalex = "W1995938991"
}

"In a sweeping reconsideration of the relation between religion and modernity, Jose Casanova surveys the roles that religions may play in the public sphere of modern societies. During the 1980s, religious traditions around the world, from Islamic fundamentalism to Catholic liberation theology, began making their way, often forcefully, out of the private sphere and into public life, causing the "deprivatization" of religion in contemporary life. No longer content merely to administer pastoral care to individual souls, religious institutions are challenging dominant political and social forces, raising questions about the claims of entities such as nations and markets to be "value neutral", and straining the traditional connections of private and public morality. Casanova looks at five cases from two religious traditions (Catholicism and Protestantism) in four countries (Spain, Poland, Brazil, and the United States). These cases challenge postwar--and indeed post-Enlightenment--assumptions about the role of modernity and secularization in religious movements throughout the world. This book expands our understanding of the increasingly significant role religion plays in the ongoing construction of the modern world." http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/uchi052/93037485.html.

@book{doi107208chicago97802261902040010001,
    author = "Casanova, José",
    title = "Public Religions in the Modern World",
    year = "1994",
    abstract = {"In a sweeping reconsideration of the relation between religion and modernity, Jose Casanova surveys the roles that religions may play in the public sphere of modern societies. During the 1980s, religious traditions around the world, from Islamic fundamentalism to Catholic liberation theology, began making their way, often forcefully, out of the private sphere and into public life, causing the "deprivatization" of religion in contemporary life. No longer content merely to administer pastoral care to individual souls, religious institutions are challenging dominant political and social forces, raising questions about the claims of entities such as nations and markets to be "value neutral", and straining the traditional connections of private and public morality. Casanova looks at five cases from two religious traditions (Catholicism and Protestantism) in four countries (Spain, Poland, Brazil, and the United States). These cases challenge postwar--and indeed post-Enlightenment--assumptions about the role of modernity and secularization in religious movements throughout the world. This book expands our understanding of the increasingly significant role religion plays in the ongoing construction of the modern world." http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/uchi052/93037485.html.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226190204.001.0001",
    doi = "10.7208/chicago/9780226190204.001.0001",
    openalex = "W4229554142"
}

The Antichrist, though mentioned a mere four times in Bible, and then only obscurely, has exercised a tight hold on popular imagination throughout history. This has been particularly true in U.S., says author Robert C. Fuller, where Americans have tended to view our nation as uniquely blessed by God--a belief that leaves us especially prone to demonizing our enemies. In Naming Antichrist, Fuller takes us on a fascinating journey through dark side of American religious psyche, from earliest American colonists right up to contemporary fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey. Fuller begins by offering a brief history of idea of Antichrist and its origins in apocalyptic thought in Judeo-Christian tradition, and traces eventual 71Gws how colonists saw Antichrist personified in native Americans and French Catholics, in Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and witches of Salem, in Church of England and King. He looks at Second Great Awakening in early nineteenth century, showing how such prominent Americans as Yale president Timothy Dwight and Reverend Jedidiah Morse (father of Samuel Morse) saw work of Antichrist in phenomena ranging from French Revolution to Masonry. In twentieth century, he finds a startling array of hate-mongers--from Gerald Winrod (who vilified Roosevelt as a pawn of Antichrist) to Ku Klux Klan--who drew on apocalyptic imagery in their attacks on Jews, Catholics, blacks, socialists, and others. Finally, Fuller considers contemporary fundamentalist writers such as Hal Lindsey (author of The Late Great Planet Earth, with some 19 million copies sold), Mary Stewart Relfe (whose candidates for Antichrist have included such figures as Henry Kissinger, Pope John Paul II, and Anwar Sadat), and a host of others who have found Antichrist in sinister guise of European Economic Community, National Council of Churches, feminism, New Age religions, and even supermarket barcodes and fibre optics (the latter functioning as the eye of Antichrist). Throughout, Fuller reveals in vivid detail how our unique American obsession with Antichrist reflects struggle to understand ourselves--and our enemies--within mythic context of battle of absolute good versus absolute evil. From Scofield Reference Bible (no other book had greater impact on American Antichrist tradition) to Scopes Monkey Trial, Fuller provides an informative and often startling look at a thread that weaves persistently throughout American religious and cultural life.

@article{doi1023071387356,
    author = "Robbins, Thomas and Fuller, Robert C.",
    title = "Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession",
    year = "1995",
    journal = "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion",
    abstract = "The Antichrist, though mentioned a mere four times in Bible, and then only obscurely, has exercised a tight hold on popular imagination throughout history. This has been particularly true in U.S., says author Robert C. Fuller, where Americans have tended to view our nation as uniquely blessed by God--a belief that leaves us especially prone to demonizing our enemies. In Naming Antichrist, Fuller takes us on a fascinating journey through dark side of American religious psyche, from earliest American colonists right up to contemporary fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey. Fuller begins by offering a brief history of idea of Antichrist and its origins in apocalyptic thought in Judeo-Christian tradition, and traces eventual 71Gws how colonists saw Antichrist personified in native Americans and French Catholics, in Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and witches of Salem, in Church of England and King. He looks at Second Great Awakening in early nineteenth century, showing how such prominent Americans as Yale president Timothy Dwight and Reverend Jedidiah Morse (father of Samuel Morse) saw work of Antichrist in phenomena ranging from French Revolution to Masonry. In twentieth century, he finds a startling array of hate-mongers--from Gerald Winrod (who vilified Roosevelt as a pawn of Antichrist) to Ku Klux Klan--who drew on apocalyptic imagery in their attacks on Jews, Catholics, blacks, socialists, and others. Finally, Fuller considers contemporary fundamentalist writers such as Hal Lindsey (author of The Late Great Planet Earth, with some 19 million copies sold), Mary Stewart Relfe (whose candidates for Antichrist have included such figures as Henry Kissinger, Pope John Paul II, and Anwar Sadat), and a host of others who have found Antichrist in sinister guise of European Economic Community, National Council of Churches, feminism, New Age religions, and even supermarket barcodes and fibre optics (the latter functioning as the eye of Antichrist). Throughout, Fuller reveals in vivid detail how our unique American obsession with Antichrist reflects struggle to understand ourselves--and our enemies--within mythic context of battle of absolute good versus absolute evil. From Scofield Reference Bible (no other book had greater impact on American Antichrist tradition) to Scopes Monkey Trial, Fuller provides an informative and often startling look at a thread that weaves persistently throughout American religious and cultural life.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1387356",
    doi = "10.2307/1387356",
    openalex = "W2323262872"
}

@article{isaacson1997exporting,
    author = "Isaacson, Lynne and Brouwer, Steve and Gifford, Paul and Rose, Susan D.",
    title = "Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism",
    year = "1997",
    journal = "Sociology of Religion",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/3711926",
    doi = "10.2307/3711926",
    number = "4",
    openalex = "W2901539229",
    pages = "395",
    volume = "58"
}

Mark D. Regnerus, Christian Smith, David Sikkink, Who Gives to the Poor? The Influence of Religious Tradition and Political Location on the Personal Generosity of Americans toward the Poor, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 481-493

@article{doi1023071388055,
    author = "Regnerus, Mark and Smith, Christian and Sikkink, David",
    title = "Who Gives to the Poor? The Influence of Religious Tradition and Political Location on the Personal Generosity of Americans toward the Poor",
    year = "1998",
    journal = "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion",
    abstract = "Mark D. Regnerus, Christian Smith, David Sikkink, Who Gives to the Poor? The Influence of Religious Tradition and Political Location on the Personal Generosity of Americans toward the Poor, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 481-493",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1388055",
    doi = "10.2307/1388055",
    openalex = "W2061182128",
    references = "doi1023071860337"
}

National polls show that approximately 50 million adult Americans are born-again Christians. Yet most Americans see their culture as secular, and the United States is viewed around the world as a secular nation. Further, intellectuals and journalists often portray born-again Christians, despite their numbers, as outsiders who endanger public life. But is American culture really so neatly split between the religious and the secular? Is America as and is born-again Christian religious belief as pre-modern as many think?In the 1980s, born-again Christians burst into the political arena with stunning force. Gone was the image of old-fashioned fundamentalism and its anti-worldly, separatist philosophy. Under the leadership of the Reverend Jerry and allied preachers, millions broke taboos in place since the Scopes trial constraining their interaction with the public world. They claimed new cultural territory and refashioned themselves in the public arena. Here was a dynamic body of activists with an evangelical vision of social justice, organized under the rubric of the Moral Majority. Susan Harding, a cultural anthropologist, set out in the 1980s to understand the significance of this new cultural movement. result, this long-awaited book, presents the most original and thorough examination of Christian fundamentalism to date. and his co-pastors were the pivotal figures in the movement. It is on them that Harding focuses, and, in particular, their use of the Bible's language. She argues that this language is the medium through which born-again Christians, individual and collective, come to understand themselves as Christians. And it is inside this language that much of the born-again movement took place. Preachers like command a Bible-based poetics of great complexity, variety, creativity, and force, and, with it, attempt to mold their churches into living testaments of the Bible. Harding focuses on the words--sermons, speeches, books, audiotapes, and television broadcasts--of individual preachers, particularly Falwell, as they rewrote their Bible-based tradition to include, rather than exclude, intense worldly engagement. As a result of these efforts, born-again Christians recast themselves as a people not separated from but engaged in making history. The Book of Jerry Falwell is a fascinating work of cultural analysis, a rare account that takes fundamentalist Christianity on its own terms and deepens our understanding of both religion and the modern world.

@article{doi105860choice381505,
    title = "The book of Jerry Falwell: fundamentalist language and politics",
    year = "2000",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "National polls show that approximately 50 million adult Americans are born-again Christians. Yet most Americans see their culture as secular, and the United States is viewed around the world as a secular nation. Further, intellectuals and journalists often portray born-again Christians, despite their numbers, as outsiders who endanger public life. But is American culture really so neatly split between the religious and the secular? Is America as and is born-again Christian religious belief as pre-modern as many think?In the 1980s, born-again Christians burst into the political arena with stunning force. Gone was the image of old-fashioned fundamentalism and its anti-worldly, separatist philosophy. Under the leadership of the Reverend Jerry and allied preachers, millions broke taboos in place since the Scopes trial constraining their interaction with the public world. They claimed new cultural territory and refashioned themselves in the public arena. Here was a dynamic body of activists with an evangelical vision of social justice, organized under the rubric of the Moral Majority. Susan Harding, a cultural anthropologist, set out in the 1980s to understand the significance of this new cultural movement. result, this long-awaited book, presents the most original and thorough examination of Christian fundamentalism to date. and his co-pastors were the pivotal figures in the movement. It is on them that Harding focuses, and, in particular, their use of the Bible's language. She argues that this language is the medium through which born-again Christians, individual and collective, come to understand themselves as Christians. And it is inside this language that much of the born-again movement took place. Preachers like command a Bible-based poetics of great complexity, variety, creativity, and force, and, with it, attempt to mold their churches into living testaments of the Bible. Harding focuses on the words--sermons, speeches, books, audiotapes, and television broadcasts--of individual preachers, particularly Falwell, as they rewrote their Bible-based tradition to include, rather than exclude, intense worldly engagement. As a result of these efforts, born-again Christians recast themselves as a people not separated from but engaged in making history. The Book of Jerry Falwell is a fascinating work of cultural analysis, a rare account that takes fundamentalist Christianity on its own terms and deepens our understanding of both religion and the modern world.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-1505",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.38-1505",
    openalex = "W2059436110"
}

@misc{kraynak2001christian,
    author = "Kraynak, Robert P.",
    title = "Christian Faith and Modern Democracy",
    year = "2001",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.21996150",
    doi = "10.2307/jj.21996150",
    openalex = "W4405227452"
}

Since the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, religious fundamentalism has dominated public debate as never before. Policymakers, educators and the general public all want to know: Why do fundamentalist movements turn violent? Are fundamentalisms a global threat to human rights, security and democratic forms of government? What is the future of fundamentalism? To answer questions like these, Strong Religion draws on the results of the Fundamentalism Project, a decade-long interdisciplinary study of antimodernist, antisecular militant religious movements on five continents and within seven religious traditions. The authors of this study analyze the various social structures, cultural contexts and political environments in which fundamentalist movements have emerged around the world, from the Islamic Hamas and Hizbullah to the Catholic and Protestant paramilitaries of Northern Ireland, and from the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition of the United states to the Sikh radicals and Hindu nationalists of India. Offering a vividly detailed portrait of the cultures that nourish such movements, Strong Religion describes different modes of fundamentalism and identifies the kinds of historical events that can trigger them. For anyone who wants to understand why fundamentalist movements arise and what makes them turn violent, Strong Religion should be essential reading.

@article{doi105860choice411173,
    title = "Strong religion: the rise of fundamentalisms around the world",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Since the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, religious fundamentalism has dominated public debate as never before. Policymakers, educators and the general public all want to know: Why do fundamentalist movements turn violent? Are fundamentalisms a global threat to human rights, security and democratic forms of government? What is the future of fundamentalism? To answer questions like these, Strong Religion draws on the results of the Fundamentalism Project, a decade-long interdisciplinary study of antimodernist, antisecular militant religious movements on five continents and within seven religious traditions. The authors of this study analyze the various social structures, cultural contexts and political environments in which fundamentalist movements have emerged around the world, from the Islamic Hamas and Hizbullah to the Catholic and Protestant paramilitaries of Northern Ireland, and from the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition of the United states to the Sikh radicals and Hindu nationalists of India. Offering a vividly detailed portrait of the cultures that nourish such movements, Strong Religion describes different modes of fundamentalism and identifies the kinds of historical events that can trigger them. For anyone who wants to understand why fundamentalist movements arise and what makes them turn violent, Strong Religion should be essential reading.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-1173",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.41-1173",
    openalex = "W307699197"
}

Many Americans today are taking note of the surprisingly strong political force that is the religious right. Controversial decisions by the government are met with hundreds of lobbyists, millions of dollars of advertising spending, and powerful grassroots response. How has the movement managed to resist the pressures of the scientific community and the draw of modern popular culture to hold on to their ultra-conservative Christian views? Understanding the movement's history is key to answering this question. Fundamentalism and American Culture has long been considered classic in religious history, and to this day remains unsurpassed. Now available in new edition, this highly regarded analysis takes us through the full history of the origin and direction of one of America's most influential religious movements. For Marsden, fundamentalists are not just religious conservatives; they are conservatives who are willing to take stand and to fight. In Marsden's words (borrowed by Jerry Falwell), a is an evangelical who is angry about something. In the late nineteenth century American Protestantism was gradually dividing between liberals who were accepting new scientific and higher critical views that contradicted the Bible and defenders of the more traditional evangelicalism. By the 1920s full-fledged fundamentalist movement had developed in protest against theological changes in the churches and changing mores in the culture. Building on networks of evangelists, Bible conferences, Bible institutes, and missions agencies, fundamentalists coalesced into major protest movement that proved to have remarkable staying power. For this new edition, major new chapter compares fundamentalism since the 1970s to the fundamentalism of the 1920s, looking particularly at the extraordinary growth in political emphasis and power of the more recent movement. Never has it been more important to understand the history of fundamentalism in our rapidly polarizing nation. Marsden's carefully researched and engrossing work remains the best way to do just that.

@article{doi105860choice436470,
    title = "Fundamentalism and American culture",
    year = "2006",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Many Americans today are taking note of the surprisingly strong political force that is the religious right. Controversial decisions by the government are met with hundreds of lobbyists, millions of dollars of advertising spending, and powerful grassroots response. How has the movement managed to resist the pressures of the scientific community and the draw of modern popular culture to hold on to their ultra-conservative Christian views? Understanding the movement's history is key to answering this question. Fundamentalism and American Culture has long been considered classic in religious history, and to this day remains unsurpassed. Now available in new edition, this highly regarded analysis takes us through the full history of the origin and direction of one of America's most influential religious movements. For Marsden, fundamentalists are not just religious conservatives; they are conservatives who are willing to take stand and to fight. In Marsden's words (borrowed by Jerry Falwell), a is an evangelical who is angry about something. In the late nineteenth century American Protestantism was gradually dividing between liberals who were accepting new scientific and higher critical views that contradicted the Bible and defenders of the more traditional evangelicalism. By the 1920s full-fledged fundamentalist movement had developed in protest against theological changes in the churches and changing mores in the culture. Building on networks of evangelists, Bible conferences, Bible institutes, and missions agencies, fundamentalists coalesced into major protest movement that proved to have remarkable staying power. For this new edition, major new chapter compares fundamentalism since the 1970s to the fundamentalism of the 1920s, looking particularly at the extraordinary growth in political emphasis and power of the more recent movement. Never has it been more important to understand the history of fundamentalism in our rapidly polarizing nation. Marsden's carefully researched and engrossing work remains the best way to do just that.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-6470",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.43-6470",
    openalex = "W600918016"
}

Evangelical Christians are an enduring and growing presence in the field of English language teaching worldwide and in the TESOL organization in particular. Yet to date, hardly any empirical research has been done on this population of teachers or on the links between English teaching, religious beliefs, and missionary work. This article reports on a qualitative study of ten English language teachers‐in‐training at two evangelical Christian colleges in the United States. Using interview data, the study explores the religious beliefs of the participants and the complex, varied, and often still developing ways in which these beliefs relate to their perspectives on missionary work and on the relationship between religious faith and English language teaching (ELT). We conclude by identifying a key moral dilemma raised by the participants' values as related to several of the dominant discourses present in ELT.

@article{doi101002j154572492007tb00038x,
    author = "Varghese, Manka M. and Johnston, Bill",
    title = "Evangelical Christians and English Language Teaching",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "TESOL Quarterly",
    abstract = "Evangelical Christians are an enduring and growing presence in the field of English language teaching worldwide and in the TESOL organization in particular. Yet to date, hardly any empirical research has been done on this population of teachers or on the links between English teaching, religious beliefs, and missionary work. This article reports on a qualitative study of ten English language teachers‐in‐training at two evangelical Christian colleges in the United States. Using interview data, the study explores the religious beliefs of the participants and the complex, varied, and often still developing ways in which these beliefs relate to their perspectives on missionary work and on the relationship between religious faith and English language teaching (ELT). We conclude by identifying a key moral dilemma raised by the participants' values as related to several of the dominant discourses present in ELT.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00038.x",
    doi = "10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00038.x",
    openalex = "W1898506976",
    references = "doi1023071386611, openalexw1519029408"
}

I. Fundamentalisms Here I will draw upon the insights of the massive Fundamentalism Project, conducted under the auspices of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences by Martin Marty, R. Scott Appleby, and host of other religion scholars. The origin of the term can be traced back to the early 1900's the self-designation of group of conservative American Protestants who profiled themselves as militants willing to do 'battle royal' to preserve the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith from the evolutionists and biblical critics infecting mainline seminaries and colleges. (2) The term has since been applied to groups and movements across religions, including classic or cases in Christianity, Islam (for example, the Khomeini-inspired Shi'ite revolutionaries of Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and extreme revivalist groups in the Arab world and Pakistan), Judaism (for example, ultra-Orthodox groups in the West and Israel), and the Sikh Faith (radical Sikh groups in the Punjab), plus what I would label semi- or quasi-fundamentalist cases in various religions (for example, Hindu nationalist groups and extremist Sinhala Buddhists in Sri Lanka, where ethnicity overshadows identity). (3) Hence, the plural in my title, for there are many pure and partial fundamentalisms beyond the original locus of the term in one corner of conservative American Protestantism. I offer here definition of taken from the book Strong Religion, the title an apt shorthand phrase for the phenomenon. I recognize that scholars disagree over usage of the term, (4) but I find this definition immensely helpful in clarifying the heart of the fundamentalist worldview and agenda: Fundamentalism is a discernible pattern of militance by which self-styled 'true believers' attempt to arrest the erosion of identity, fortify the borders of the community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors. (5) This definition confines the notion of to contexts. Political or other kinds of nonreligious groups may be militant, but fundamentalist militance stems from motivations, seeks goals, and battles secular (that is, nonreligious, even anti-religious) enemy. (6) Definitionally, the term religious fundamentalism is thus redundant-fundamentalism per se is worldview and pattern of behavior. Fundamentalists are distinguished from other conservatives by their militance. They are fighters, observe Marty and Appleby: (7) They fight back in the face of secular inroads; they fight for traditional values and institutions; they fight with selected arsenal of symbolic and ideological weapons; they fight against enemies both within and outside of their religion; and they fight under divine or transcendent authority. Fundamentalists do not necessarily resort to violence, but they are characteristically fighters. (8) They engage in [militant] resistance to modern forms of secularization. (9) The major threats are secular states, secular societies (and the ideologies undergirding them, including pluralism), and weak or compromising establishments. (10) The battle is typically portrayed in starkly dualistic terms--between good and evil, elect and damned, faithful and secular. (11) We must take care to differentiate from other conservative forms of religion, especially in American Protestantism. Although they all share some common beliefs, evangelicals and charismatics often draw the ire of fundamentalists--evangelicals because they have shown themselves too willing to compromise with the secular enemy, charismatics because they are too unpredictable in their reliance on contemporary guidance by the Holy Spirit. (12) The boundaries between conservative Protestant groups may sometimes blur, but it is analytically unhelpful to lump them all together. …

@article{openalexw324892210,
    author = "Numrich, Paul D.",
    title = "Fundamentalisms and American pluralism",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Journal of ecumenical studies",
    abstract = "I. Fundamentalisms Here I will draw upon the insights of the massive Fundamentalism Project, conducted under the auspices of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences by Martin Marty, R. Scott Appleby, and host of other religion scholars. The origin of the term can be traced back to the early 1900's the self-designation of group of conservative American Protestants who profiled themselves as militants willing to do 'battle royal' to preserve the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith from the evolutionists and biblical critics infecting mainline seminaries and colleges. (2) The term has since been applied to groups and movements across religions, including classic or cases in Christianity, Islam (for example, the Khomeini-inspired Shi'ite revolutionaries of Iran, Hamas in Palestine, and extreme revivalist groups in the Arab world and Pakistan), Judaism (for example, ultra-Orthodox groups in the West and Israel), and the Sikh Faith (radical Sikh groups in the Punjab), plus what I would label semi- or quasi-fundamentalist cases in various religions (for example, Hindu nationalist groups and extremist Sinhala Buddhists in Sri Lanka, where ethnicity overshadows identity). (3) Hence, the plural in my title, for there are many pure and partial fundamentalisms beyond the original locus of the term in one corner of conservative American Protestantism. I offer here definition of taken from the book Strong Religion, the title an apt shorthand phrase for the phenomenon. I recognize that scholars disagree over usage of the term, (4) but I find this definition immensely helpful in clarifying the heart of the fundamentalist worldview and agenda: Fundamentalism is a discernible pattern of militance by which self-styled 'true believers' attempt to arrest the erosion of identity, fortify the borders of the community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors. (5) This definition confines the notion of to contexts. Political or other kinds of nonreligious groups may be militant, but fundamentalist militance stems from motivations, seeks goals, and battles secular (that is, nonreligious, even anti-religious) enemy. (6) Definitionally, the term religious fundamentalism is thus redundant-fundamentalism per se is worldview and pattern of behavior. Fundamentalists are distinguished from other conservatives by their militance. They are fighters, observe Marty and Appleby: (7) They fight back in the face of secular inroads; they fight for traditional values and institutions; they fight with selected arsenal of symbolic and ideological weapons; they fight against enemies both within and outside of their religion; and they fight under divine or transcendent authority. Fundamentalists do not necessarily resort to violence, but they are characteristically fighters. (8) They engage in [militant] resistance to modern forms of secularization. (9) The major threats are secular states, secular societies (and the ideologies undergirding them, including pluralism), and weak or compromising establishments. (10) The battle is typically portrayed in starkly dualistic terms--between good and evil, elect and damned, faithful and secular. (11) We must take care to differentiate from other conservative forms of religion, especially in American Protestantism. Although they all share some common beliefs, evangelicals and charismatics often draw the ire of fundamentalists--evangelicals because they have shown themselves too willing to compromise with the secular enemy, charismatics because they are too unpredictable in their reliance on contemporary guidance by the Holy Spirit. (12) The boundaries between conservative Protestant groups may sometimes blur, but it is analytically unhelpful to lump them all together. …",
    url = "https://openalex.org/W324892210",
    openalex = "W324892210"
}

Based on fieldwork in Knoxville, Tennessee, I analyze the ethical dilemmas of conservative evangelical Protestants engaged in faith-based activism and social outreach, especially dilemmas stemming from the theological paradox of compassion and accountability. Evangelicals who minister to the poor and distressed must reconcile romanticized notions of pure sacrificial giving with an ideology of personal responsibility inherent in their concept of accountability. Socially engaged evangelicals struggle with competing moral ambitions and religious imperatives that derive meaning from an overarching rubric of Christian evangelism, in which gifts of divine grace are seen as creating reciprocal obligations as well as insurmountable debt on the part of recipients. The outreach efforts of suburban churchgoers are further complicated by unequal power dynamics between charitable givers and charity recipients. While exploring the complexities of a vernacular theology through which socially engaged evangelicals wrestle with these issues, I discuss theoretical and political implications of the case study, including the role of activism in shaping religious identities and the resurgence of religious conservatism in U.S. civil society and public culture.

@article{doi101111j15481360200800006x,
    author = "Elisha, Omri",
    title = "MORAL AMBITIONS OF GRACE: The Paradox of Compassion and Accountability in Evangelical Faith-Based Activism",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Cultural Anthropology",
    abstract = "Based on fieldwork in Knoxville, Tennessee, I analyze the ethical dilemmas of conservative evangelical Protestants engaged in faith-based activism and social outreach, especially dilemmas stemming from the theological paradox of compassion and accountability. Evangelicals who minister to the poor and distressed must reconcile romanticized notions of pure sacrificial giving with an ideology of personal responsibility inherent in their concept of accountability. Socially engaged evangelicals struggle with competing moral ambitions and religious imperatives that derive meaning from an overarching rubric of Christian evangelism, in which gifts of divine grace are seen as creating reciprocal obligations as well as insurmountable debt on the part of recipients. The outreach efforts of suburban churchgoers are further complicated by unequal power dynamics between charitable givers and charity recipients. While exploring the complexities of a vernacular theology through which socially engaged evangelicals wrestle with these issues, I discuss theoretical and political implications of the case study, including the role of activism in shaping religious identities and the resurgence of religious conservatism in U.S. civil society and public culture.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00006.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00006.x",
    openalex = "W2045352773",
    references = "doi101111j14679655200400196x"
}

Abstract This article offers a normative evaluation of the Christian Right's impact on American democracy. It argues that our response to the question of whether this movement enhances or diminishes democracy turns on our understanding of the ideal of democracy. When viewed as a participatory ideal, the Christian Right's mobilizing practices enhance democracy. When viewed as a deliberative ideal, the Christian Right's practices diminish the deliberative virtues of toleration and free and open debate. These conflicting assessments point to an important democratic paradox. They show that the very same practices that inspire the participatory virtues of active political engagement also incite the deliberative vices of intolerance and polarization. To address this paradox, I argue that we ought to strive for a balance between pure participation and pure deliberation. The primary problem with Christian Right organizations like Focus on the Family, I will argue, is that they tend to disrupt this balance. They inspire active participation at the expense of deliberation.

@article{doi101017s1755048309990411,
    author = "Klemp, Nathaniel J.",
    title = "The Christian Right: Engaged Citizens or Theocratic Crusaders?",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Politics and Religion",
    abstract = "Abstract This article offers a normative evaluation of the Christian Right's impact on American democracy. It argues that our response to the question of whether this movement enhances or diminishes democracy turns on our understanding of the ideal of democracy. When viewed as a participatory ideal, the Christian Right's mobilizing practices enhance democracy. When viewed as a deliberative ideal, the Christian Right's practices diminish the deliberative virtues of toleration and free and open debate. These conflicting assessments point to an important democratic paradox. They show that the very same practices that inspire the participatory virtues of active political engagement also incite the deliberative vices of intolerance and polarization. To address this paradox, I argue that we ought to strive for a balance between pure participation and pure deliberation. The primary problem with Christian Right organizations like Focus on the Family, I will argue, is that they tend to disrupt this balance. They inspire active participation at the expense of deliberation.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048309990411",
    doi = "10.1017/s1755048309990411",
    openalex = "W2037988506",
    references = "doi101017s1537592708080596"
}

This study presents an insider’s view concerning the significant influence of American fundamentalism at Prairie Bible Institute (Three Hills, Alberta, Canada) during the tenure of the school’s co-founder and primary leader, Leslie Earl Maxwell. During much of the period covering 1922-1980, PBI rivaled well-known American schools such as Moody Bible Institute, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) and Columbia Bible College in Columbia, South Carolina, in size. These schools were also highly efficient in producing hundreds of missionaries and Christian workers to serve the fundamentalist cause in North America and around the world. \nAs a belated response to Dr. John Stackhouse, Jr.’s portrayal of PBI in his 1993 book, Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century: An Introduction to Its Character, this thesis offers clarification and modification to Stackhouse’s work regarding how PBI during the Maxwell era should be viewed by students of church history. It is argued here that the ubiquitous influence of the United States of America on Canadian life is clearly visible in the nature of the Christian fundamentalism that prevailed at PBI under Maxwell’s leadership. The work thereby lends a certain amount of credibility to the suggestions made by some scholars that PBI during Maxwell’s career might legitimately be considered an outpost of American fundamentalism. \nEmploying primarily a quantitative assessment of the evidence in combination with personal anecdotes and a few basic statistics, the thesis reveals that Maxwell’s personality and rhetoric were consistently more militant \nthan Stackhouse allows. PBI’s affinity for many of the distinctives of American fundamentalist theology and culture are also documented. \nSuch an approach serves the additional purpose of enabling the writer to call into question the utility of considering militancy the defining characteristic of twentieth-century evangelicalism when considered from a post-9/11 perspective. It also enables a challenge of Stackhouse’s assumption that what he identifies as “sectish” Canadian evangelicalism is ultimately as substantially different from American fundamentalism as the Canadian scholar infers.

@phdthesis{openalexw1877197620,
    author = "Callaway, Timothy Wray",
    title = "Training disciplined soldiers for Christ: the influence of American fundamentalism on Prairie Bible Institute during the L.E. Maxwell Era (1922-1980)",
    year = "2010",
    booktitle = "Unisa Institutional Repository (University of South Africa)",
    abstract = "This study presents an insider’s view concerning the significant influence of American fundamentalism at Prairie Bible Institute (Three Hills, Alberta, Canada) during the tenure of the school’s co-founder and primary leader, Leslie Earl Maxwell. During much of the period covering 1922-1980, PBI rivaled well-known American schools such as Moody Bible Institute, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) and Columbia Bible College in Columbia, South Carolina, in size. These schools were also highly efficient in producing hundreds of missionaries and Christian workers to serve the fundamentalist cause in North America and around the world. \nAs a belated response to Dr. John Stackhouse, Jr.’s portrayal of PBI in his 1993 book, Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century: An Introduction to Its Character, this thesis offers clarification and modification to Stackhouse’s work regarding how PBI during the Maxwell era should be viewed by students of church history. It is argued here that the ubiquitous influence of the United States of America on Canadian life is clearly visible in the nature of the Christian fundamentalism that prevailed at PBI under Maxwell’s leadership. The work thereby lends a certain amount of credibility to the suggestions made by some scholars that PBI during Maxwell’s career might legitimately be considered an outpost of American fundamentalism. \nEmploying primarily a quantitative assessment of the evidence in combination with personal anecdotes and a few basic statistics, the thesis reveals that Maxwell’s personality and rhetoric were consistently more militant \nthan Stackhouse allows. PBI’s affinity for many of the distinctives of American fundamentalist theology and culture are also documented. \nSuch an approach serves the additional purpose of enabling the writer to call into question the utility of considering militancy the defining characteristic of twentieth-century evangelicalism when considered from a post-9/11 perspective. It also enables a challenge of Stackhouse’s assumption that what he identifies as “sectish” Canadian evangelicalism is ultimately as substantially different from American fundamentalism as the Canadian scholar infers.",
    openalex = "W1877197620",
    references = "doi1023071384646, doi1023072067207, doi1023072092923, doi1023072164078, doi1023072263921, doi1023072579875, doi1023073550977, doi105860choice432751, doi105860choice436470, openalexw1597335334, openalexw324892210"
}

American Grace is the next pivotal work within the social scientific study of religion that LDS readers should find interesting on many levels, including the extensive attention it gives to Mormonism. In this work, Robert Putnam (author of the national bestseller Bowling Alone) teams up with David Campbell (editor of A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election) and field researcher Shayln Romney Garrett to examine the many facets of contemporary American religious pluralism. The authors use data from the nationally representative 2006 and 2007 waves of the Faith Matters survey, in addition to other surveys, alongside several in-depth observations of specific congregations. Throughout the work, the authors manage to blend reports of macro-level trends of religious behaviors and attitudes with examples from "congregational vignettes"--richly described and detailed cases of Catholic, Jewish, African-American, Protestant, and Mormon congregations that act as a backdrop to the authors' analyses. These descriptions offer a face and sense of immediacy to the study of American religion, which has been at times lacking in other such scholarly undertakings. In a sense, American Grace is both a reflection and a scrutiny of the many undercurrents involved with religion in American life, and, although the book is somewhat daunting in scope, the authors offer a mostly satisfactory analysis of both within-religion issues (religious switching, intermarriage, religious innovation, gender roles) and issues of how religion as an institution intertwines with other areas of society such as politics and ethnicity. Thus, American Grace offers a current treatment of several issues directly relevant both to LDS readers and to a general audience.

@article{doi105860choice485765,
    author = "Phillips, James W and Putnam, Robert D. and Campbell, David E. and Garrett, Shaylyn Romney",
    title = "American grace: how religion divides and unites us",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = {American Grace is the next pivotal work within the social scientific study of religion that LDS readers should find interesting on many levels, including the extensive attention it gives to Mormonism. In this work, Robert Putnam (author of the national bestseller Bowling Alone) teams up with David Campbell (editor of A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election) and field researcher Shayln Romney Garrett to examine the many facets of contemporary American religious pluralism. The authors use data from the nationally representative 2006 and 2007 waves of the Faith Matters survey, in addition to other surveys, alongside several in-depth observations of specific congregations. Throughout the work, the authors manage to blend reports of macro-level trends of religious behaviors and attitudes with examples from "congregational vignettes"--richly described and detailed cases of Catholic, Jewish, African-American, Protestant, and Mormon congregations that act as a backdrop to the authors' analyses. These descriptions offer a face and sense of immediacy to the study of American religion, which has been at times lacking in other such scholarly undertakings. In a sense, American Grace is both a reflection and a scrutiny of the many undercurrents involved with religion in American life, and, although the book is somewhat daunting in scope, the authors offer a mostly satisfactory analysis of both within-religion issues (religious switching, intermarriage, religious innovation, gender roles) and issues of how religion as an institution intertwines with other areas of society such as politics and ethnicity. Thus, American Grace offers a current treatment of several issues directly relevant both to LDS readers and to a general audience.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-5765",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.48-5765",
    openalex = "W1600242367"
}

The present study explores the dramatic projection of one's own views onto those of Jesus among conservative and liberal American Christians. In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "fellowship" issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "morality" issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues. Further reducing potential dissonance, liberal and conservative Christians differed markedly in the types of issues they claimed to be more central to their faith. A concluding discussion considers the relationship between individual motivational processes and more social processes that may underlie the present findings, as well as implications for contemporary social and political conflict.

@article{doi101073pnas1117557109,
    author = "Ross, Lee and Lelkes, Yphtach and Russell, Alexandra G.",
    title = "How Christians reconcile their personal political views and the teachings of their faith: Projection as a means of dissonance reduction",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences",
    abstract = {The present study explores the dramatic projection of one's own views onto those of Jesus among conservative and liberal American Christians. In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "fellowship" issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to "morality" issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues. Further reducing potential dissonance, liberal and conservative Christians differed markedly in the types of issues they claimed to be more central to their faith. A concluding discussion considers the relationship between individual motivational processes and more social processes that may underlie the present findings, as well as implications for contemporary social and political conflict.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117557109",
    doi = "10.1073/pnas.1117557109",
    openalex = "W2144417476",
    references = "doi1023071386611"
}

The term ‘fundamentalism’ is often used to ridicule any strong religious conviction and greater conceptual clarity must be achieved to do justice to conservative and evangelical approaches that are decidedly not fundamentalist. This contribution attempts to distinguish between conservative and fundamentalist modes of theological reflection and how this distinction is important within a South African context. Special attention will be given to the different interpretations of the Bible and history in response to Modernism. One of the main arguments is that conservative and evangelical theology become fundamentalist when it refuses to listen to or engage in dialogue with alternative points of view (the need for larger ears). This lack of tolerance becomes dangerous when it triggers the increase of the vehemence with which the own point of view is defended as ‘the only’ truth (the need for smaller horns).

@article{doi107833990680,
    author = "Bosman, Hendrik",
    title = "LARGER EARS AND SMALLER HORNS: TOWARDS DISTINGUISHING CONSERVATIVE FROM FUNDAMENTALIST THEOLOGY",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Scriptura",
    abstract = "The term ‘fundamentalism’ is often used to ridicule any strong religious conviction and greater conceptual clarity must be achieved to do justice to conservative and evangelical approaches that are decidedly not fundamentalist. This contribution attempts to distinguish between conservative and fundamentalist modes of theological reflection and how this distinction is important within a South African context. Special attention will be given to the different interpretations of the Bible and history in response to Modernism. One of the main arguments is that conservative and evangelical theology become fundamentalist when it refuses to listen to or engage in dialogue with alternative points of view (the need for larger ears). This lack of tolerance becomes dangerous when it triggers the increase of the vehemence with which the own point of view is defended as ‘the only’ truth (the need for smaller horns).",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7833/99-0-680",
    doi = "10.7833/99-0-680",
    openalex = "W2138534856",
    references = "doi101093acprofoso97801995325370010001, doi101093owc97801995390240010001, doi101525aa20011033867, doi1023072711817, doi102307jctv19fvzzk29, doi105860choice335046, doi105860choice381505, doi105860choice411173, doi105860choice425813, openalexw324892210, openalexw591404461"
}

This article examines the limits of welcome that Christian communities of faith in the U.S. South extend to recent immigrants. We argue that churches are political spaces in which pastors and lay members weigh faith-based conceptions of hospitality against law-and-order discourses and in which notions of universal membership confront racialized immigration politics. Drawing on sixty interviews with pastors and lay ministers in thirty-five churches in Greenville–Spartanburg, South Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Charlotte, North Carolina, we show how hospitality within individual churches often operates quietly, "under the radar," producing a politics of invisibility. This invisibility, although providing some shelter from harsh law enforcement practices, does little to fundamentally alter the precarious situation of immigrants. We show that as Christian ethics of hospitality come up against worldly social boundaries of race and legal status, the actual practice of hospitality in these churches falls short of biblical ideals. Our analysis furthers understandings of political and faith-based membership and the dynamic articulations between them.

@article{doi101080000456082013858573,
    author = "Ehrkamp, Patricia and Nagel, Caroline",
    title = "“Under the Radar”: Undocumented Immigrants, Christian Faith Communities, and the Precarious Spaces of Welcome in the U.S. South",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Annals of the Association of American Geographers",
    abstract = {This article examines the limits of welcome that Christian communities of faith in the U.S. South extend to recent immigrants. We argue that churches are political spaces in which pastors and lay members weigh faith-based conceptions of hospitality against law-and-order discourses and in which notions of universal membership confront racialized immigration politics. Drawing on sixty interviews with pastors and lay ministers in thirty-five churches in Greenville–Spartanburg, South Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Charlotte, North Carolina, we show how hospitality within individual churches often operates quietly, "under the radar," producing a politics of invisibility. This invisibility, although providing some shelter from harsh law enforcement practices, does little to fundamentally alter the precarious situation of immigrants. We show that as Christian ethics of hospitality come up against worldly social boundaries of race and legal status, the actual practice of hospitality in these churches falls short of biblical ideals. Our analysis furthers understandings of political and faith-based membership and the dynamic articulations between them.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.858573",
    doi = "10.1080/00045608.2013.858573",
    openalex = "W2010256660",
    references = "doi1011770309132512440208"
}

On the basis of an original survey among native Christians and Muslims of Turkish and Moroccan origin in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, this paper investigates four research questions comparing native Christians to Muslim immigrants: (1) the extent of religious fundamentalism; (2) its socio-economic determinants; (3) whether it can be distinguished from other indicators of religiosity; and (4) its relationship to hostility towards out-groups (homosexuals, Jews, the West, and Muslims). The results indicate that religious fundamentalist attitudes are much more widespread among Sunnite Muslims than among native Christians, even after controlling for the different demographic and socio-economic compositions of these groups. Alevite Muslims from Turkey, by contrast, show low levels of fundamentalism, comparable to Christians. Among both Christians and Muslims, strong religiosity as such is not (among Christians) or only mildly (among Muslims) related to hostility towards out-groups. Fundamentalist believers, however, show very high levels of out-group hostility, especially among Muslims.

@article{doi1010801369183x2014935307,
    author = "Koopmans, Ruud",
    title = "Religious Fundamentalism and Hostility against Out-groups: A Comparison of Muslims and Christians in Western Europe",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies",
    abstract = "On the basis of an original survey among native Christians and Muslims of Turkish and Moroccan origin in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, this paper investigates four research questions comparing native Christians to Muslim immigrants: (1) the extent of religious fundamentalism; (2) its socio-economic determinants; (3) whether it can be distinguished from other indicators of religiosity; and (4) its relationship to hostility towards out-groups (homosexuals, Jews, the West, and Muslims). The results indicate that religious fundamentalist attitudes are much more widespread among Sunnite Muslims than among native Christians, even after controlling for the different demographic and socio-economic compositions of these groups. Alevite Muslims from Turkey, by contrast, show low levels of fundamentalism, comparable to Christians. Among both Christians and Muslims, strong religiosity as such is not (among Christians) or only mildly (among Muslims) related to hostility towards out-groups. Fundamentalist believers, however, show very high levels of out-group hostility, especially among Muslims.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2014.935307",
    doi = "10.1080/1369183x.2014.935307",
    openalex = "W2034447013",
    references = "doi1023071860337"
}

@incollection{dunn2015the,
    author = "Dunn, James DG",
    title = "The Roots of Christian Fundamentalism in American Protestantism",
    year = "2015",
    booktitle = "Fundamentalisms",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755624171.ch-001",
    doi = "10.5040/9780755624171.ch-001",
    openalex = "W3043955387"
}

This article examines articulations of merit and deservingness in relation to immigrants in the US South. In a context of pronounced anti-immigrant sentiment, scholars have rightfully focused on state practices that marginalize immigrants. Yet xenophobia and exclusion are but one set of responses to immigrants. Societies also construct immigrants as meritorious figures: hard workers, entrepreneurs, and upholders of family values. The figure of the “good immigrant”, like that of the “bad immigrant”, is routinely produced and reproduced in social settings that are not obviously political, including churches. Christian faith communities in the US South, we show, offer the potential for a politics built around inclusive understandings of belonging. But Christian universalism is in constant tension with nationalist ways of thinking and acting. Whether they praise immigrants for their virtues or criticize them for their shortcomings, congregants and pastors tend to cast immigrants in the role of foreign Other. Dieser Aufsatz erörtert wie Einwanderern im Süden der USA gesellschaftlicher Wert und Verdienst zugeschrieben oder abgesprochen werden. Im Rahmen der stark ausgeprägten Anti-Einwandererstimmung in der Region haben Wissenschaftler zu Recht zunächst staatliche Praktiken, die zur Ausgrenzung von Einwanderern beitragen, untersucht. Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Ausgrenzung sind aber lediglich zwei der möglichen Reaktionen auf Einwanderer. Die Gesellschaft betrachtet Zuwanderer oft auch als verdienstvoll: sie werden als harte Arbeiter, Unternehmer, und Träger von Familienwerten aufgefasst. Das Symbol des “guten Einwanderers” ensteht dabei ebenso wie das des “schlechten Einwanderers” gewöhnlich in sozialen Situationen, die, wie wir beispielhaft für christliche Gemeinden zeigen, bei oberflächlicher Betrachtung nicht offensichtlich als politisch motiviert erscheinen. Jedoch schaffen diese christlichen Glaubensgemeinschaften im Süden der USA Raum für eine integrationsfreundliche Politik der Zugehörigkeit. Dabei stehen allerdings christlicher Universalismus und nationalistisches Denken und Handeln in ständiger Spannung zueinander. Es macht dabei kaum einen Unterschied, ob Gemeindemitglieder und Pastoren Einwanderer für ihre Tugenden loben oder sie für ihre Mängel kritisieren. In der Regel finden sich Einwanderer in der Rolle des fremden „Anderen“ wieder.

@article{doi101111anti12233,
    author = "Nagel, Caroline and Ehrkamp, Patricia",
    title = "Deserving Welcome? Immigrants, Christian Faith Communities, and the Contentious Politics of Belonging in the US South",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Antipode",
    abstract = "This article examines articulations of merit and deservingness in relation to immigrants in the US South. In a context of pronounced anti-immigrant sentiment, scholars have rightfully focused on state practices that marginalize immigrants. Yet xenophobia and exclusion are but one set of responses to immigrants. Societies also construct immigrants as meritorious figures: hard workers, entrepreneurs, and upholders of family values. The figure of the “good immigrant”, like that of the “bad immigrant”, is routinely produced and reproduced in social settings that are not obviously political, including churches. Christian faith communities in the US South, we show, offer the potential for a politics built around inclusive understandings of belonging. But Christian universalism is in constant tension with nationalist ways of thinking and acting. Whether they praise immigrants for their virtues or criticize them for their shortcomings, congregants and pastors tend to cast immigrants in the role of foreign Other. Dieser Aufsatz erörtert wie Einwanderern im Süden der USA gesellschaftlicher Wert und Verdienst zugeschrieben oder abgesprochen werden. Im Rahmen der stark ausgeprägten Anti-Einwandererstimmung in der Region haben Wissenschaftler zu Recht zunächst staatliche Praktiken, die zur Ausgrenzung von Einwanderern beitragen, untersucht. Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Ausgrenzung sind aber lediglich zwei der möglichen Reaktionen auf Einwanderer. Die Gesellschaft betrachtet Zuwanderer oft auch als verdienstvoll: sie werden als harte Arbeiter, Unternehmer, und Träger von Familienwerten aufgefasst. Das Symbol des “guten Einwanderers” ensteht dabei ebenso wie das des “schlechten Einwanderers” gewöhnlich in sozialen Situationen, die, wie wir beispielhaft für christliche Gemeinden zeigen, bei oberflächlicher Betrachtung nicht offensichtlich als politisch motiviert erscheinen. Jedoch schaffen diese christlichen Glaubensgemeinschaften im Süden der USA Raum für eine integrationsfreundliche Politik der Zugehörigkeit. Dabei stehen allerdings christlicher Universalismus und nationalistisches Denken und Handeln in ständiger Spannung zueinander. Es macht dabei kaum einen Unterschied, ob Gemeindemitglieder und Pastoren Einwanderer für ihre Tugenden loben oder sie für ihre Mängel kritisieren. In der Regel finden sich Einwanderer in der Rolle des fremden „Anderen“ wieder.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12233",
    doi = "10.1111/anti.12233",
    openalex = "W2300235688",
    references = "doi1011770309132512440208"
}

Abstract This article argues that the case of religious authority within Orthodox Judaism is an important counterexample to the broader and understudied developments in American religion during the final decades of the twentieth century. Using an array of untapped primary sources and drawing on themes addressed by scholars of American religious history and modern Jewish history, this article demonstrates how Orthodox Jewish elites used “approximational heresies” to police their faith community. In so doing, Orthodox leaders furnished “indicators” of apostasy that were unknown in previous epochs and served to stand in for traditional types that proved otherwise insufficient to counteract new trends in modern life and culture. Orthodox Jewish “antimodernism” was animated by a need to demonstrate what was “in” and what was “out” of bounds as well as by the emergence of a triumphalism that was unique among American faiths. Likewise, the rank-and-file abided because they either agreed with these measures or feared becoming “outsiders.” This outlook contrasts with the attitudes of other religious groups—on the “left” and the “right”—that absorbed a spirit of “inclusiveness” and, therefore, eschewed heresy hunting and the boldness evinced by Orthodox elites during this period. The article concludes that the pervasiveness of this counterculture among the Orthodox Jewish community was so powerful that it, counterintuitively, introduced the strategies of the antimodernists to the American-acculturated, so-called Modern Orthodox community.

@article{doi101017rac20208,
    author = "Eleff, Zev and Farber, Seth",
    title = "Antimodernism and Orthodox Judaism's Heretical Imperative: An American Religious Counterpoint",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Religion and American Culture A Journal of Interpretation",
    abstract = "Abstract This article argues that the case of religious authority within Orthodox Judaism is an important counterexample to the broader and understudied developments in American religion during the final decades of the twentieth century. Using an array of untapped primary sources and drawing on themes addressed by scholars of American religious history and modern Jewish history, this article demonstrates how Orthodox Jewish elites used “approximational heresies” to police their faith community. In so doing, Orthodox leaders furnished “indicators” of apostasy that were unknown in previous epochs and served to stand in for traditional types that proved otherwise insufficient to counteract new trends in modern life and culture. Orthodox Jewish “antimodernism” was animated by a need to demonstrate what was “in” and what was “out” of bounds as well as by the emergence of a triumphalism that was unique among American faiths. Likewise, the rank-and-file abided because they either agreed with these measures or feared becoming “outsiders.” This outlook contrasts with the attitudes of other religious groups—on the “left” and the “right”—that absorbed a spirit of “inclusiveness” and, therefore, eschewed heresy hunting and the boldness evinced by Orthodox elites during this period. The article concludes that the pervasiveness of this counterculture among the Orthodox Jewish community was so powerful that it, counterintuitively, introduced the strategies of the antimodernists to the American-acculturated, so-called Modern Orthodox community.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/rac.2020.8",
    doi = "10.1017/rac.2020.8",
    openalex = "W3045970891",
    references = "doi101017s0017816014000285"
}

Abstract Recent studies demonstrate that white Americans who adhere to “Christian nationalism”―an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity and American civic life―tend to hold authoritarian, exclusionary, and overtly prejudicial attitudes, particularly regarding ethno-racial minorities. We use data from the 1996 and 2014 General Social Surveys and consider relative political tolerance toward old-fashioned racists (i.e., persons who believe black Americans are genetically inferior) compared to other historically stigmatized groups, including anti-religionists, communists, militarists, and homosexuals. Viewing Christian identity as essential to American civic belonging is among the strongest predictors of whites’ being politically intolerant of all stigmatized groups, racists included. However, when we examine relative tolerance toward racists compared to other stigmatized groups, white Christian nationalists show greater tolerance than other whites. This effect is distinct from personal religiosity which is associated with lower relative tolerance toward racists. Additionally, we find both time and gender moderate the association between white Christian nationalism and relative tolerance toward racists. Findings ultimately demonstrate that white Americans who adhere to Christian nationalism exhibit authoritarian tendencies―expressing lower tolerance for all groups considered―while making greater relative allowance for old-fashioned racists, who may be allies in the task of social control and coercion.

@article{doi101093socprospaa002,
    author = "Davis, Joshua T. and Perry, Samuel L.",
    title = "White Christian Nationalism and Relative Political Tolerance for Racists",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Social Problems",
    abstract = "Abstract Recent studies demonstrate that white Americans who adhere to “Christian nationalism”―an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity and American civic life―tend to hold authoritarian, exclusionary, and overtly prejudicial attitudes, particularly regarding ethno-racial minorities. We use data from the 1996 and 2014 General Social Surveys and consider relative political tolerance toward old-fashioned racists (i.e., persons who believe black Americans are genetically inferior) compared to other historically stigmatized groups, including anti-religionists, communists, militarists, and homosexuals. Viewing Christian identity as essential to American civic belonging is among the strongest predictors of whites’ being politically intolerant of all stigmatized groups, racists included. However, when we examine relative tolerance toward racists compared to other stigmatized groups, white Christian nationalists show greater tolerance than other whites. This effect is distinct from personal religiosity which is associated with lower relative tolerance toward racists. Additionally, we find both time and gender moderate the association between white Christian nationalism and relative tolerance toward racists. Findings ultimately demonstrate that white Americans who adhere to Christian nationalism exhibit authoritarian tendencies―expressing lower tolerance for all groups considered―while making greater relative allowance for old-fashioned racists, who may be allies in the task of social control and coercion.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa002",
    doi = "10.1093/socpro/spaa002",
    openalex = "W3010693142",
    references = "doi101007s1110900690145"
}

@incollection{dever2023christian,
    author = "Dever, William G.",
    title = "Christian Fundamentalism, Faith, and Archaeology",
    year = "2023",
    booktitle = "Misusing Scripture",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003126416-7",
    doi = "10.4324/9781003126416-7",
    openalex = "W4322494236",
    pages = "131-152"
}

@incollection{hiebert2023modern,
    author = "Hiebert, Erwin N.",
    title = "Modern Physics and Christian Faith",
    year = "2023",
    booktitle = "God and Nature",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.8501274.21",
    doi = "10.2307/jj.8501274.21",
    openalex = "W4388719376",
    pages = "424-447"
}

Abstract This scoping review of conceptualizations of fundamentalism scrutinizes the concept's domain of application, defining characteristics, and liability to bias. We find fundamentalism in four domains of application: Christianity, other Abrahamic religions, non-Abrahamic religions, and non-religious phenomena. The defining characteristics which we identify are organized into five categories: belief, behavior, emotion, goal, and structure. We find that different kinds of fundamentalisms are defined by different characteristics, with violent and oppressive behaviors, and political beliefs and goals being emphasized for non-Christian fundamentalisms. Additionally, we find that the locus of fundamentalism studies is the Global North. Based on these findings, we conclude that the concept is prone to bias. When conceptualizing fundamentalism, three considerations deserve attention: the mutual dependency between the domain of application and the specification of defining characteristics; the question of usefulness of scientific concepts; and the connection between conceptual ambiguity and the risk of bias in the study of fundamentalism.

@article{doi101017s1755048324000385,
    author = "Kindermann, Nora and Peels, Rik and Liefbroer, Anke I. and Schoonmade, Linda",
    title = "Mapping the concept of fundamentalism: a scoping review",
    year = "2024",
    journal = "Politics and Religion",
    abstract = "Abstract This scoping review of conceptualizations of fundamentalism scrutinizes the concept's domain of application, defining characteristics, and liability to bias. We find fundamentalism in four domains of application: Christianity, other Abrahamic religions, non-Abrahamic religions, and non-religious phenomena. The defining characteristics which we identify are organized into five categories: belief, behavior, emotion, goal, and structure. We find that different kinds of fundamentalisms are defined by different characteristics, with violent and oppressive behaviors, and political beliefs and goals being emphasized for non-Christian fundamentalisms. Additionally, we find that the locus of fundamentalism studies is the Global North. Based on these findings, we conclude that the concept is prone to bias. When conceptualizing fundamentalism, three considerations deserve attention: the mutual dependency between the domain of application and the specification of defining characteristics; the question of usefulness of scientific concepts; and the connection between conceptual ambiguity and the risk of bias in the study of fundamentalism.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048324000385",
    doi = "10.1017/s1755048324000385",
    openalex = "W4406773402",
    references = "doi107833990680"
}