Balkinization: A Conservatism for the Age of Fundamentalism?

A Conservatism for the Age of Fundamentalism?

Scott Horton

Our major newsweeklies regularly feature religiously themed pieces exploiting pop phenomena. But this week's Time magazine offers something quite different. In "Why Not Seeing Is Believing," Andrew Sullivan presents us with an extended essay derived from his new book, The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How To Get It Back. Those who expected the usual screed along the lines of "this is not my conservatism" are in for a surprise, because the core of Sullivan's work is a struggle between religious conviction and an Oakeshottian conservatism of doubt. The path is rather long, but fascinating, and filled with vivid vignettes, of which the portrait of President Ahmadinejad and Sullivan's accounts of church-going experiences with his own grandmother are particularly powerful.

Sullivan argues that the rise of materialism and secularism around the world has unleashed a powerful countercurrent of religious thought. It is multifaceted to be sure, but Sullivan looks with particular care at the rise of fundamentalist thinking – among the Religious Right in the United States, the Wahhabis of Sunni Islam, the millenarian thinking of Shiia leaders like Iran's new president and or ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups in Israel. Relying on sources as diverse as his own first-hand experiences, the writings of William James and the Pew Charitable Trusts fundamentalism project, he discerns essential similarities of these fundamentalist movements. Sullivan's account is strengthened by the fact that it is presented by a believer – a person who readily accepts the redemptive power of religious experience, and who therefore rejects the satirical approach of many who write about fundamentalism today. Which is not to say that his attitude is uncritical. Indeed, Sullivan unleashes sharp attacks on groups he calls "Christianists" who present a partisan political agenda which is tarted up in religious guise. And he is far more devastating in his critique of Salafi Islamists, as well as the millenarian Shiia thinking of figures like Ahmadinejad, both of which embrace overt racism and terrorist tactics.

Sullivan offers a compelling case for the proposition that the dichotomy between secularism and fundamentalism is radically false. And he bases this case in principles of conservatism – citing Montaigne, Burke and Oakeshott in the process. The claim to full and absolute knowledge implicit in all forms of fundamentalism rests on arrogant assumptions about the capacity of man to know and to understand God. In a sense it forgets the essential role of humility in religious experience.

The essay ends with famous lines of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, found in his Anti-Goetze – a retort against a famous fundamentalist pastor in Hamburg. Lessing, himself a preacher's son who devoted a lifetime to the reconciliation of faith and reason, wrote: "If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand, and say, Father, I will take this--the pure Truth is for You alone."

Lessing was the librarian to the Duke of Brunswick and he lived at the other end of the great Hanoverian Empire from the provinces which would soon become the United States. But we know that, even as he was penning these lines, he followed the American Revolution with a passionate attachment. His thinking is very close to that of America's Founding Fathers. In the end, it seems to me, Sullivan is telling us to take heart in the values on which this country was founded and which have served it so well for over two centuries – values which command respect for religion even while insisting that it be disentangled from the state. This legacy leaves America well placed to deal with fundamentalism as Sullivan does – with respect for the good that religious faith can bring, while holding its excesses in check for the peace and happiness of all humanity.

Posted 10:18 PM by Scott Horton [link]

Comments:

Sounds promising if a tad bit too esoteric for me personally. The overall idea is not too surprising really.

Thus, an Air America host supplies the "left" leaning commentary in the documentary "Jesus Camp," but he too is a believer .. just not a fundamentalist. And, he has similar fears/concern about "humility" and so forth.

Life is more complex than stereotypes, including in this sphere, right and left. In fact, around 1 in 4 evangelicals are Democrats.

# posted by

Joe : 1:31 AM

Sullivan's new perspective, based on what Mr. Horton writes, comports with Giles Kepel, The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in the Modern World. According to Kepel, a virulent form of fundamentalism has arisen virtually simultaneously in all three religions. Sullivan's view also seems to comport with the distinction between deliberative constructs and dedicated constructs (reasons, attitudes, judgments, cultures, and so forth). The former seeks consensus through deliberation, argument, and compromise. The latter brooks consensus, if at all, only when in a weakened condition. Indeed, the dichotomy between secularism and fundamentalism or secularism and religion is not the critical distinction. Rather it is between deliberativism (whether secular or religious) and dedicatedness (whether secular or religious).

# posted by

Robert Justin Lipkin : 8:23 AM

"the dichotomy between secularism and fundamentalism is radically false" (from the post)

"the dichotomy between ... secularism and religion is not the critical distinction" (from a comment)

these are curious statements. the first is a misrepresentation of the article: "secular" appears exactly twice in the article, in neither case as part of a substantive discussion, nevermind as described in the quote, which (in the context of the whole paragraph) sounds like nothing more than a gussied-up version of the tired old "atheism is just another religion" ploy. the second is rather meaningless: my webster defines secularism as "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion ...", a pretty "critical" distinction, I'd say.

although I certainly agree with the essential point in the article and the comment, viz, that one should be modest in assigning "truth" to one's own beliefs and be open to contrary opinions ("deliberative"), I dispute any implication that being a secularist means not doing that. in my experience, secularists are best described by the first part of the definition above: we are mostly indifferent to religion. (and to god as well - many of us don't even refer to ourselves as atheists because we don't deny god, we simply ignore him/her/it).

when I first became aware of mr sullivan and his blog, he seemed such a mindless bush apologist that I couldn't stomach reading him despite his popularity throughout the political spectrum. I undertand he has since "converted" on many issues but apparently nonetheless wants to retain his old label (as a face-saving device?). however, as katherine notes, the current label for those positions is alive and well, though a bit the worse for wear having been severely abused by the likes of mr sullivan. unfortunately, the current R party has tarnished the other label to an even greater degree. that mr sullivan thinks it salvagable seems an instance of, shall we say, blind faith.

# posted by

Charles T. Wolverton : 12:57 PM