The End of Evangelicalism? No, but if that damn Inerrant word would go away, I could talk to Fundies again.

David Fitch has done something that about 50 people are going to thank him for, me included. In fact, millions of American Christians, especially church leaders should thank him, but I'm betting about 1% of them would actually be able to understand what the hell he's doing. This is no knock on Christianity; the numbers would extend into other tribes or communities of reference as well. For example, I can think of four people off the top of my head whom I call friends who could read this book and follow the argument: Leighton, Cheek, Jay, and JJ. (The Reverend already read it, and he's one of the pastors who actually understood it. What can I say? I have smart friends.) Fitch has written a book of theo-political philosophy. And, I just lost half of you.

Yeah, that's the book, and this is part one of a two- or three-part review for Viral Bloggers. In keeping with church, state, and federal laws, the copy was provided for free for review purposes. Nothing personal, Mr. Fitch, because I like your book, but it ain't like they're selling the shit outta this thing at Cascade Books, the publisher.

That has nothing to do with the quality of the book, the thinking, or the writing; although, I did find some egregious copy editing errors, so feel free to send me the galleys next time, and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Damned Oregonians are too high to proofread, or woozy from lack of dead animal flesh. The reason it's not going to sell all that well outside of grad school classes is because Fitch has brilliantly called upon the work of Slovenian political philosopher Slavoj Zizek to "read" the current state of the Evangelical Church in America. And there went another third of you. I'll try to interject more profanity to keep you reading.

Here's the shortest explanation you're likely to read about Fitch's method. Zizek's Master Signifiers, key concepts around which people rally or assert their loyalty, are being misused by the Church inasmuch as key phrases (inerrant Bible, decision for Christ) that ought to be deeply steeped in meaning are in fact empty signifiers, thereby causing Evangelicaldom to shape itself around empty ideals that contain the verbal simulacra of Christianity but none of the genuine practice. How's that?

If you're still with me, you're going to love this. I'd like to say a hearty fuck yeah at this point, because Fitch articulates clearly and Christianly what I've been saying for about a decade now: the idea of an inerrant Bible is an empty signifier. It gives the Church something to rally around, but in fact means nothing. I've used the term slippery to describe the language. I think Fitch's is much more accurate. No Evangelical truly believes the ideal of inerrant Bible is slippery, but as with many key phrases, Evangelicals live their lives never defining them. Fitch insists they can't define them. The very act of defining them reveals their absurdity and the contradictions which lie at the heart of them. This, of course, should be the task of seekers after truth, and it is what, thanks to Wittgenstein, I started doing with those signifiers; it created my exit from the faith. (Fitch either knowingly or unknowingly draws on Wittgenstein on a regular basis, and I confess to being ignorant of Fitch's academic pedigree to know if he read Wittgenstein.)

Fitch believes the Evangelical Church should exchange those empty signifiers for robust, life-giving ones. We'll part company here. I think his method is wonderful deconstructively. (Zizek is a Continental philosopher, after all. Those motherfuckers only speak deconstructively.) I think it is non-functional constructively. You can't replace an empty signifier with another empty signifier. For example, he speaks of the fullness of Christ. Great. What does that mean? To his credit, Fitch is aware of the precarious ground on which he theologizes, and he makes an effort at constructing a political theology in the final chapter (more on that later), but differences aside, his critique is brilliant. For example:

The belief in "the inerrant Bible" dares to promise certainty regarding truth about God independently of God. In other words, it dares to say we can know this truth objectively, through modern science and historiography, and we can prove it by these means! In its excess, it puts the true believer in the false position of making God and object of our own control—a truth we can know without knowing Him. pg. 63

No one in any church other than a few Anabaptist, Holiness and (real) Baptist congregations is going to thank him for that bit of wisdom, but he's painfully goddamn right. Fundamentalists and by extension their evangelical offspring have spent decades vacillating between faith and reason, calling upon one at the expense of the other when convenient, and insisting on one over against the questions of skeptics when convenient. They create an inerrant Bible (in the original autographs. Ha!), but they must know that no such thing exists if they believe in the methodology used by "liberals," and you simply have to read Fitch's explanation of how that group is "othered" (my word, not his; he uses a Zizekian term), but they borrow the methodology only to justify their persistent belief in an empty signifier. It leads to staggering moments of arrogance, and credit again to Fitch for calling them on it, including George W. Bush asserting that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is where Fitch shines like an Anabaptist beacon. Yoder would be proud. If the signifiers are shaping a community to justify the creation of enemies, to behave arrogantly, to exchange faith in God for faith in an inerrant Bible, and to claim to have truth while steadfastly refusing to live into it, then the signifiers are empty and should be discarded. The measure of a community is how they love (crazy fuckin' idea. that silly Jesus), which is to say, how comfortably they hold to belief in the truth (love your enemies) and allow that truth to shape their praxis. The revelation that they have missed it is that they use the "absolute truth" as a master signifier for the purposes of assuaging their own uncertainty and deciding who the enemy is.

This is good stuff, folks. I sincerely hope seminaries are handing out copies of this book in theology, theological method, and ethics classes. I know it won't be happening in most, but a few, just a few, would give me hope for my Christian friends. A postscript here: Evangelicalism isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and Fitch knows that, but this inability to identify what is empty and what is robust has the potential to destroy the Evangelical Church. More than once I've asserted that it already has, inasmuch as fundamentalism seems to have won the battle already.

Comments

[Leighton]

Just ordered a copy. From a forensic perspective, I'm curious whether this situation came about in evangelical churches because of influence from the business world, where I suspect the master signifiers are intentionally empty to prevent middle management from perceiving and interfering with upper management's objectives. Regardless of intent, it seems pretty clear that language use in churches is often more optimized for political mobilization than for community-building.

[Greg Horton]

Fitch covers that. He attributes it to the Liberal/Fundamentalist schism of the early 20th century when much of the "inerrant" nonsense was formulated. That's not to say business language didn't affect it later.

[Darrell]

If Fitch references Zizek as much as you say he does, I can't imagine he doesn't know from Wittgenstein.

Oooooh, boy. I unplugged from the Viral Bloggers scene after my first go-round with it. The book I read was a waste of my time, and I felt badly for the slagging I had to give the poor author in exchange for a free book. This title caught my eye, but I imagined another serving of earnest hand-wringing over a subject I couldn't be arsed with. I might have to re-visit this VB thing....

[Michael Laprarie]

"...key phrases (inerrant Bible, decision for Christ) that ought to be deeply steeped in meaning are in fact empty signifiers, thereby causing Evangelicaldom to shape itself around empty ideals that contain the verbal simulacra of Christianity but none of the genuine practice."

Makes perfect sense to me.

I see American Fundagelicalism suffering from two serious flaws. First, it is an ideology of fear ("if you question any of these truths you could 'lose your way' and your soul will burn in Hell for eternity) and second, it works well enough to keep the 7 to 9-figure budgets of super mega churches and television ministries funded.

How ironic is it that money and power (instilled by fear) -- two of the basic evils that a relationship with God and the community of believers should purge from our lives -- are the things that most deeply control the 'true remnant' fundagelicals?

I must say though I am a little disappointed in the author's use of the Bush "quote" as a proof. The original quote has Bush telling a Palestinian leader that God commanded him to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, and then to go after Saddam ... and then to give the Palestinians their own state! Not surprisingly, this final part of the quote is always omitted, because it pretty much erases its credibility.

A good discussion here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801094.html

Otherwise this book looks very good, I am putting it on my Amazon wish list today.

[Greg Horton]

Not sure what isn't credible about it, Mike. It was on tape. BBC, wasn't it? Ended up in a documentary. The White House wanted it removed. Fitch covers the issue thoroughly. I do think he oversteps a bit; Bush's decisions were likely caused by hubris unrelated to the Bible. It's the weakest part of his Bible section, but he is right that the arrogance related to "having absolute truth on our side" is a negative and inevitable consequence of this particular empty signifier.

[Amanda]

I want to read this.

[Trevor Palen]

Don't remember where I first saw this book reviewed, but it was also a positive review. I may just have to get this book.

Good stuff, Greg.

[Jay Kelly]

I'm writing this because I really want to understand, not because I want to be right. So I'd love feedback and/or a pointer to someone who can give feedback . . .

Here's my understanding:

1. For Zizek, words have meaning only insofar as they stand in a referential relationship to other words.

2. A master signifier just is self-referential.

3. Therefore, a master signifier is necessarily devoid of meaning. (from 1 and 2)

4. A master signifier is the only thing around which a community can form shared identity. (That's the big one I'm not sure about . . . Zizek may make space for shared identity around something other than a master signifier.)

5. Therefore, the shared identity of a community is necessarily founded upon something that is devoid of meaning. (from 3 and 4) (That's not to say that the shared identity is devoid of meaning--only that the shared identity is founded on something that is devoid of meaning.)

But if those things are true, then Fitch can't just replace certain master signifiers with another master signifier. He's still stuck with a self-referential term that's necessarily devoid of meaning.

The linchpin in the argument above is (4). If it turns out it's possible for a community to organize around something other than a master signifier, then Fitch isn't forced to conclude (5). But I suspect he may get himself into trouble if the above argument is in the ballpark of accurate.

If the argument is passably accurate, Fitch can deconstruct all he wants, but he won't able to build a positive case for a Christian community built around something of substance.

Feedback? Thoughts?

[Greg Horton]

Zizek is a materialist, so he assumes all master signifiers are empty. He's willing to make peace with "the void." Fitch's assertion is that Christians can't do that. I agree that he's theologically consistent on that point, but I said in the review I think Zizek and Fitch's application of the read are wonderful deconstructively, primarily because construction requires the replacement of these terms with other terms. You may be right that he will find something for the community to organize around, and I'll let you know when I finish the last chapter. I suspect though that given the nature of religious language, you only have master signifiers to deal with. Theists would say they deal with the Risen Christ, and they would mean it with all the sincerity they can muster, but for the skeptics among us, it's just another master signifier.

[Jay Kelly]

That's what I thought. I hope he can do more than say Christians 'can't do that' and can instead argue that Christians don't have to. But I share your suspicion that the nature of religious language will make that argument close to impossible.

Make sure you read all the way to the end to see if there are closing comments that say 'You should loan Jay this book the next time you share a bottle of The Transcendentalist.'

[cheek]

I'll be getting to this book soon, but until then, I want to say I find all statements of the sort "Christians can't do that," to rest on pretty shaky justificatory grounds. Even if it were the case (which I don't think it actually is) that no interpretation of Christian texts, history, or tradition allowed for finality in the mortal universe, I don't think that would bar present Christians from accepting the void as the most likely fate of our consciousness. Two important points in support of that:

First, it just does not seem to be right to say that because something will ultimately cease to exist that it's existence is made meaningless by that fact. As such, my present decisions to follow a roughly Christian ethic in my mortal life need not be meaningless just because I will not eventually be resurrected or even because the universe will ultimately become so cold and matter so sparse as to make all life finally impossible.

Secondly, concerning authority within traditions, if we see Christianity (or any other religion) as a MacIntyrean practice or something like it, then we should expect the practice's traditions and rules to change as our broader understanding of the world changes. Christians need not be only Christians, and in fact it would be impossible for them to be. They are also members of a civilization far different from the one in which the practice of Christianity was born. As such, that practice will be shaped by more modern practices and by more modern understandings of the world. Why then could a present Christian not, while continuing to engage in a present iteration of the practice of Christianity, not also recognize that new understandings make certain aspects of the tradition (e.g. belief in literal resurrection) obsolete?