INHERITING THE WHIRLWIND
I have just screened the 1960 Stanley Kramer film, Inherit the Wind. I have viewed it many times. In the ways one usually makes a judgement about a movie, this is a very good film.
You will probably recall that this is the motion picture version of the stage play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee that depicts the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, held in Tennessee, circa 1925. Taking much dramatic license, the film portrays that real-life trial which pitted the brilliant lawyer Clarence Darrow, who was defending a young high schoolteacher accused of presenting evolution, against Williams Jennings Bryan, the fundamentalist icon who prosecuted him.
But the film, while good, it is also a sad, brutal affair. It vividly tackles such questions as freedom of thought, freedom of speech and the deplorable mindset of religious bigotry, but it also quite honestly (and surprisingly) presents the angst found in an a-moral modernity through the caustic cynicism of the H.L Mencken character (Gene Kelly’s portrayal of the cynic is astounding).
The point I would emphasize here is that this film is a metaphor for the now historic and blatant challenge to Western Christian fundamentalism not only by Hollywood, but by the ongoing Enlightenment worldview as well. That is, this film cannot be viewed without sensing the stiff challenge to the literalist mindset of post-reformation fundamentalism, for, the question is: In a pluralistic society should a literalistic religious worldview, which is both pre-scientific and pre-modern, have a place at the table?
Clearly, Kramer’s answer is no. He says no to the bigoted, no to the back-water and no to the provincial, and he goes out of his way to make this point by portraying the religious as unwashed, fat, gluttonous, bigoted, deceitful and cowardly.
Is this fair?
Of course, my initial impulse in response to the film is to defend the religious no matter what their stripe, but early on I found my heart was not in it. All too often this caricature is just too accurate. All too often this is the mentality of the religious fundamentalist. Having been stung by their ways, I know whereof I speak.
Digging deeper here, the religious fundamentalist, historically, have feared the blurring changes of modernity -- even as they embraced its benefits -- because those changes leave them surrounded on an ever-shrinking cultural island. They were afraid because they had no social tools for translating the strange world of the Bible (Karl Barth) into the new scientific world of intricate explanations, other than saying the same things more loudly and with more contempt.
Simply put, the fundamentalist instinctively feared what they knew would displace them from the safety-net of the familiar and the biblical.
What were they to do, for instance, with the scientific dating that argued convincingly for the old age of the earth? How was that to be squared with the Bible? Here, as elsewhere, the learning of modern science clearly and openly defied their understanding and interpretation of the Bible’s account of reality.
For them, much was at stake here. If they were to absorb this new scientific account of reality it first meant they had to somehow accommodate the new worldview, but this accommodation required a grave, radical shift away from the literal Bible, and this shift would ultimately drive them toward a new kind of world-navigation and world-building exercise that had never been asked of them. Accommodation did not fit their worldview. It rather felt rather like the glue that held the universe together no longer had the strength to be an adhesive. Accommodation was considered defeat.
So, this confrontation of worldviews left the fundamentalist with few options. They could stay where they were or face acute, cognitive displacement. In the end they decided to ride out this cognitive hurricane and hope for the best. What tipped the scales in this decision, I suggest, was that they finally sensed that what was at stake was actually much more than cognitive displacement. What they sensed is that a turn toward the Enlightenment was a turn toward a profound cognitive upheaval. Should anyone be surprised then, that the response has been one long temper-tantrum of both anger and hate?
The film, probably inadvertently, also hints at what is actually the key question facing American society today, and it’s not a religious question. Instead, it is the idea of class. Kramer looks down his nose at most of the hoi polloi as if he is cleaning their smelly muck off his shoes. This film comes to us from an elitists point of view, and it asks the same question the upper-class continually asks: How do we escape this rabble of rubes? How can we divest ourselves of their plaster-of-paris ashtrays, polyester leisure suits, beer swollen bellies, Craftsman tools, midwestern morals and slaughter-house religion?
This is important because what the religious so often describe as the clash of cultures (the culture wars), and what the politicians so often use as wedge issues, in reality is nothing more than the conflict of class – the haves against the have-nots, the sophisticated against the unsophisticated, the upper-class against the lower middle-class, the purveyors of knowledge against the owners of business. Remember this: it is from class and not so much from Holy Writ that we grow our view of race, gender and politics. (Peter Berger)
I also think it is important to realize that this foregoing description is instructive for an even more important reason. That is, it points directly to a further decisive moment that will eventually face not only the fundamentalist church, but the protestant church in general. Namely, the final death of Christendom. Simply put: How is the post-modern church going to survive in a culture where even its own members no longer comprehend the dialect or vocabulary of Christianity?
To put a fine point on this, Jesus was, after all, from Nazareth of Judea and not Nazareth of Pennsylvania. Or, to put an even finer point on this, since Jesus is unacquainted with our medicine, our technology, our social structures and our institutions – what then does he have to say to us, and how are we supposed to translate what he says into our day, so that we can hear him again? How do his pastoral sermons about farmers and lost sheep translate with density into the happenings of world-wide-web, instant cellular communication, microwaves, global positioning systems, holocausts, freeze-dried mystery meats, Viagra and holograms?
We are now very close to Bonhoeffer’s famous question: Who is Jesus for us today?
But, notice carefully, the question was not how to relate the pre-modern Bible to a post-modern culture outside the walls of the church. This was a difficult question, the one posed in the film, but it is not the most difficult question. No, the most compelling source of resistance to protestant dogma, especially in its fundamentalist form, occurs from within the walls of the church, and it is this new reality that will eventually cut to the very fiber of what it means to in fact be Christian.
In short: How are we going to relate this ancient Bible to the coming crop of post-modern church members, that is to say, our children?
Remember, in the film, it was the high school students who stood by their teacher, not because they necessarily believed in Darwin’s theory, but rather because they believed in their instructor. Likewise, the church’s post-modern young people will be standing by cultural minorities like gays for the same reason, and the church’s worldview be damned! In the post-christian world relationship trumps doctrine.
Put still another way, even though an entire generation of post-modern children are growing-up in the church, they are not growing with the church. The church’s stilted and awkward teachings on science, history, race, divorce, gender, the corporate elite, the environment and sexual orientation means nothing to these young members. They tolerate it while they are at home, but when they discard the nest, as they inevitably will, they will discard these teachings as well because they have been socialized into a radically different view of the world than that of their parents and that of older christendomed church members. So, the question is: Will the Bible mean anything to them, anything but a feeble, vapid memory?
Denominational Un-Fundamentalist Activities Committee
Denominational Un-Fundamentalist Activities
Committee
August
18,
Pete
Seeker, Defendant
A Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-Fundamentalist
Activities met at 10 a.m., in room 1703 of the Joseph
McCarthy Denominational Building, Pre-Tribulation
Square, Atlanta Georgia, the Honorable O’Chuck
O’Sullivan (Chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Representatives
O’Sullivan, Marrick Deadletter, and Michael
Coopenjoke .
Staff members present: W. Wellcris, Jr., Counsel;
Gerald Wellfall and Darby Scholfield, Investigators;
and James King, Sr., Chief Clerk.
[BEGIN
TRANS]
MR.
WELCRIS: When and where were you born, Mr. Seeker?
MR. SEEKER: I was born in New York in 1954.
MR.WELLCRIS: What is your profession or occupation?
MR. SEEKER: Well, I have worked at many things, and
my main profession is a pastor of a small Baptist
church in the heartland. It’s the First Baptist
Church of Walden Pond
MR. WELLCRIS: Has Walden Pond been your headquarters
for a considerable period of time?
MR. SEEGER: Well, I live there.
MR. WELLCRIS: The Committee has information obtained
in part from the Baptist Free Thought Journal (BFTJ)
indicating that, over a period of time, especially
since December, you took part in a number of their
anti-fundamentalist meetings. I have before me a copy
of the June 20, issue of the BFTJ. In a column
entitled "What's Happening," there appears this
advertisement: "Tonight, hear Peter Seeker, at the
Golden Harp Baptist Church housewarming." May I ask
you whether or not the Golden Harp Baptist Church was
a member of the Anti-Fundamentalist Party?
MR. SEEKER: Sir, I refuse to answer that question
whether it was a quote from the Picayune Times or the
Ladies Home Journal.
MR. WELLCRIS: I don't believe there is any more
authoritative document in regard to the
Anti-Fundamentalist Party than its official organ,
the BFTJ.
MR. DEADLETTER: He hasn't answered the question, and
he merely said he wouldn't answer whether the article
appeared in the Picayune Times or some other
magazine. I ask you to direct the witness to answer
the question.
CHAIRMAN O’SULLIVAN: I direct you to answer the
question.
MR. SEEKER: Sir, the whole line of questioning…
CHAIRMAN O’SULLIVAN: You have only been asked one
question, so far.
MR. SEEKER: I will agree to answer questions about
myself, but not about anyone else or any
organizations. I think questions such as these are
very improper questions for any Baptist to be asked,
especially under such compulsion as this
denominational tribunal. I would be very glad to tell
you about my life if you want to hear of it.
MR. WELLCRIS: Has the witness declined to answer this
specific question?
CHAIRMAN O’SULLIVAN: He said that he is not going to
answer any questions about any names or things.
MR. DEADLETTER: He was directed to answer the
question.
MR. WELLCRIS: OK. I’ll move on. Mr. Seeker, are you
now, or have you ever been a member of the
Anti-fundamentalist Party?
MR. SEEKER: Yes.
MR. WELLCRIS: Yes, what, sir?
MR. SEEKER: Yes, I am and have been.
MR. WELLCRIS: And you believe this to be an
acceptable thought form and lifestyle for a
Christian?
MR. SEEKER: What do mean acceptable?
MR. WELLCRIS: It is perfectly evident what I mean. Do
you think, do you believe that Jesus would want you
to live and anti-fundamentalist lifestyle. A liberal
life. A life that condones free-thought, communists
and homosexuals and pedophiles. That’s what I mean.
MR. SEEKER: Because I am an anti-fundamentalist
doesn’t mean any of those things, and I seriously
resent your innuendo…
MR. WELLCRIS: Would you please answer the question?
MR. SEEKER: What is the question?
MR. WELLCRIS: Is this an acceptable lifestyle for a
Christian?
MR. SEEKER: I refuse to answer this kind of question.
MR. O’SULLIVAN: What did the witness say?
MR. WELLCRIS: He refuses to answer…
MR. SEEKER: I said I refuse to be slandered.
MR. O’SULLIVAN: The witness will answer.
MR. SEEKER: No sir, I will not.
MR. COOPENJOKE: Let the record show the witness is
uncooperative.
MR. O’SULLIVAN: Mr. Seeker, is it your intention to
cooperate with this committee or not?
MR. SEEKER: When I can, of course, but I will not put
my name to the committees’ characterization of
anti-fundamentalism. I am not a pedophile. I do not
believe that pedophilia is an acceptable lifestyle.
Neither do I…
MR. O’SULLIVAN: Move on Mr. Wellcris. Let the record
show that the witness is being unresponsive.
MR. WELLCRIS: Alright, Mr Chairman. Mr. Seeker, On
August 15, did you attend a secret meeting of the
anti-fundamentalist party in the home of the editor
of the BFTJ?
MR. SEEKER: It was not a clandestine meeting. It was
merely a dinner party.
MR. WELLCRIS: And who else attended at this secret
meeting?
MR. SEEKER: I was at a dinner party on August 15,
yes, but who else was there is irrelevant. As I
answered earlier, I will respond for my own actions,
and my actions only. But I will not talk about other
people.
MR. WELLCRIS: You say it wasn’t a secret meeting, but
isn’t it a fact that you discussed in a secret way
how you might overthrow the current leadership of the
denomination? Wasn’t that the topic of discussion,
sir? And wasn’t that when you boldly and seditiously
explained how, to quote you, “how to stick it to the
fundamentalists?”
MR. SEEKER: Mr Wellcris, it is not exactly a secret
my feelings about the current denominational
leadership.
MR. WELLCRIS: Then you admit your desire to overthrow
the current leadership, and to secretly meeting with
a group of conspirators to do so?
MR. SEEKER: As I said, my views concerning the
current leadership are a matter of public record.
MR. WELLCRIS: Then I ask you again, who else took
part in this assembly of rebellion?
MR. SEEKER: What rebellion?
MR. WELLCRIS: The rebellion of you who would trash
our way of life. You who would toss out the inerrant
Bible, and the women who would graciously submit to
us, and the interpretation of the holy, King James
Bible by trained, and elite and godly seminarians,
and the lifestyle of abstinence. That rebellion, Mr.
Seeker!
MR. SEEKER: I’ve answered that question already.
MR. WELLCRIS: Mr. Chairman, will you direct the
witness to answer the question?
MR. O’SULLIVAN: Mr. Seeker, you will answer the
question.
MR. COOPENLIAR: Move on Mr. Wellcris to the other
material.
MR. WELLCRIS: Is it true that your daughter, while in
college, one time attended a Unitarian church?
MR. SEEKER: Enough! How dare you bring my daughter
into the charade…
[END
TRANS]
© 2008 Mark Powell