What do you think?
Rate this book
Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church
A thought-provoking exploration of Christian fundamentalism discusses the daily lives of members of a Massachusetts fundamentalist Baptist church, the appeal of the denomination and its use of moral absolutes, the security it provides to its community, and the growing influence of the Christian right on American society. Reprint.
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
5 people are currently reading
206 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 19, 2022
I came across Spirit and Flesh at a used bookstore, but got a copy from the library, and now I wish I’d bought it. It’s a fascinating piece of ethnographic research, and a welcome example of charitable personhood across political divides. Dare I say, nearly twenty years after its publication, it is more relevant than before.
Ault produced a documentary called Born Again , and Spirit and Flesh accounts the story of his relationship with the church he features, before, during, and after filming.
What I found most illuminating and invigorating is Ault’s eagerness to cross divides, listen, and understand. These human values are our hope in a deeply divided society. There is so much humanity in Spirit and Flesh, as its title indicates. I was nourished by Ault’s example of loving his neighbor--and being loved by his neighbors, even (especially) those with whom he had disagreements. I must wonder, however, at what agencies Ault was granted in the church community because of his gender and ethnicity, that another interviewer might not have had. Yet, he deeply considers the role of women in the fundamentalist church, drawing some surprising and sensible conclusions.
Ault faultlessly combines his own personal story with his research, demonstrating without sentimentality how his work affected him. He also combines some light historical research into fundamentalism, which was fine, but not the best effort I've seen. Ault isn't a historian, however, and leans a little too much on other scholars, though he critiques other sociologist and ethnographers in his own field.
Spirit and Flesh is one to chew on. Recommended to those researching fundamentalism. Some content warnings apply for familial verbal/physical abuse, all told in stories to Ault rather than witnessed firsthand.
-----
“The tendency among American intellectuals to prematurely consign fundamentalist conservatism to the dustbin of history until they are shocked into disbelief by its startling resurgence suggested more than the normal process of loss and recovery in historical scholarship….At the root of this recurring problem, I believe, is the difficulty in simply understanding how ordinary, right-minded people would believe what fundamentalists and new-right conservatives avow, itself a result of how far removed intellectuals are from the social worlds in which these beliefs flourish.” (60)
“Normally in film circles, a documentary that treats a matter of public controversy without betraying an evaluative standpoint would simply be praised as such, as some colleagues indeed did. But for others, this evenhandedness toward fundamentalists was cause for alarm and, in this case, talk behind the filmmaker’s back. And this reaction came from people who would in the next breath castigate fundamentalists, above all, for insisting that the world would be viewed in black-and-white terms. Experiences like this have taught me in what ways fundamentalism might be seen as an Achilles’ heel of American liberalism, a point at which its ideals of tolerance often collapse.” (328)
[concerning another film project that did not come to fruition] “...their enemies saw things differently because they started with different assumptions about life and had different assumptions about life because they, in fact, had different lives.” (340)
“...I believe neither side will win, or can win, the so-called culture wars. Each side depends too intimately on its enemies for its thought, sensibility, and practice--for its very identity. What would long hair and beads have meant in the sixties, for example, without the order of gender of the fifties with its models of Ike and Mamie Eisenhower? What sense would fundamentalist uses of Scripture to ‘prove’ God’s plan for the family make without the proliferation of scientific rationalizations of family and gender embodied, say, in psychology, feminism or sociology? Or how would the voluntariness of fundamentalist congregations work, enabling members to pick up and leave when they choose, without commitments to individual freedom and dignity deeply rooted in American culture? Neither side is interested in abolishing human freedoms. The struggle between them has to do with how much such a radical degree of individual freedom, in world-historic terms, is to be reconciled with community life based on ties of a binding nature underwritten by tradition.” (345)
Ault produced a documentary called Born Again , and Spirit and Flesh accounts the story of his relationship with the church he features, before, during, and after filming.
What I found most illuminating and invigorating is Ault’s eagerness to cross divides, listen, and understand. These human values are our hope in a deeply divided society. There is so much humanity in Spirit and Flesh, as its title indicates. I was nourished by Ault’s example of loving his neighbor--and being loved by his neighbors, even (especially) those with whom he had disagreements. I must wonder, however, at what agencies Ault was granted in the church community because of his gender and ethnicity, that another interviewer might not have had. Yet, he deeply considers the role of women in the fundamentalist church, drawing some surprising and sensible conclusions.
Ault faultlessly combines his own personal story with his research, demonstrating without sentimentality how his work affected him. He also combines some light historical research into fundamentalism, which was fine, but not the best effort I've seen. Ault isn't a historian, however, and leans a little too much on other scholars, though he critiques other sociologist and ethnographers in his own field.
Spirit and Flesh is one to chew on. Recommended to those researching fundamentalism. Some content warnings apply for familial verbal/physical abuse, all told in stories to Ault rather than witnessed firsthand.
-----
“The tendency among American intellectuals to prematurely consign fundamentalist conservatism to the dustbin of history until they are shocked into disbelief by its startling resurgence suggested more than the normal process of loss and recovery in historical scholarship….At the root of this recurring problem, I believe, is the difficulty in simply understanding how ordinary, right-minded people would believe what fundamentalists and new-right conservatives avow, itself a result of how far removed intellectuals are from the social worlds in which these beliefs flourish.” (60)
“Normally in film circles, a documentary that treats a matter of public controversy without betraying an evaluative standpoint would simply be praised as such, as some colleagues indeed did. But for others, this evenhandedness toward fundamentalists was cause for alarm and, in this case, talk behind the filmmaker’s back. And this reaction came from people who would in the next breath castigate fundamentalists, above all, for insisting that the world would be viewed in black-and-white terms. Experiences like this have taught me in what ways fundamentalism might be seen as an Achilles’ heel of American liberalism, a point at which its ideals of tolerance often collapse.” (328)
[concerning another film project that did not come to fruition] “...their enemies saw things differently because they started with different assumptions about life and had different assumptions about life because they, in fact, had different lives.” (340)
“...I believe neither side will win, or can win, the so-called culture wars. Each side depends too intimately on its enemies for its thought, sensibility, and practice--for its very identity. What would long hair and beads have meant in the sixties, for example, without the order of gender of the fifties with its models of Ike and Mamie Eisenhower? What sense would fundamentalist uses of Scripture to ‘prove’ God’s plan for the family make without the proliferation of scientific rationalizations of family and gender embodied, say, in psychology, feminism or sociology? Or how would the voluntariness of fundamentalist congregations work, enabling members to pick up and leave when they choose, without commitments to individual freedom and dignity deeply rooted in American culture? Neither side is interested in abolishing human freedoms. The struggle between them has to do with how much such a radical degree of individual freedom, in world-historic terms, is to be reconciled with community life based on ties of a binding nature underwritten by tradition.” (345)
April 11, 2010
After slogging through this long book, I wish I had just found a copy of Ault's documentary from the 80s and watched that instead. The book is a lengthier version of that film, but written some TEN YEARS later - Ault dismisses the time interval, indicating that since he was looking at the life of one small congregation, so there would be no major changes from a sociological standpoint. That's probably true, based on the personalities we see in the book, but it comes off as an attempt at some way-too-late cashing in on ground he has previously trod.
That said, I really enjoyed reading about the people of Shawmut River. I'm a small-town Southern girl and saw many of these same characters and incidents in my own childhood church (a Southern Baptist one, so there was a larger entity involved, unlike what we see here). However, in my opinion for a book like this to truly be successful, you must let the people of the book create your story for you, and the people Ault profiles do just that. However, Ault seems to be using this book as his belated opportunity to tell us (at GREAT length) what it all MEANS, and that really turned me off, as it was unnecessary and, at times, patronizing. Worth the read for the church, and skip the commentary.
That said, I really enjoyed reading about the people of Shawmut River. I'm a small-town Southern girl and saw many of these same characters and incidents in my own childhood church (a Southern Baptist one, so there was a larger entity involved, unlike what we see here). However, in my opinion for a book like this to truly be successful, you must let the people of the book create your story for you, and the people Ault profiles do just that. However, Ault seems to be using this book as his belated opportunity to tell us (at GREAT length) what it all MEANS, and that really turned me off, as it was unnecessary and, at times, patronizing. Worth the read for the church, and skip the commentary.
July 27, 2007
Really interesting look at a fundamentalist congregation.
March 18, 2020
Based on ethnographic fieldwork in the early-to-mid 1980s, Ault stepped up to the plate when Marsden named the local congregation as the crucial site of fundamentalist cultural formation (as opposed to the (in)famous televangelists who make for easier stories and who generate content accessible to outsiders). I'm not sure Ault realized his work was also then filling a gap in the historiography of American fundamentalism when he conducted the study, but he became plenty plugged into that academic discourse by the time he wrote this in 2004.
Ault demonstrates the unsafe subjective possibilities of properly open ethnographic method; the changes in his own life, products of fundamentalist evangelism as much as their deep sacrificial commitment to one another, surfaced in this book are even greater (and more transparently narrated) than is usual for even the most theoretically sophisticated and roundly celebrated ethnographers.
Spirit and Flesh is valuable not only in its correcting of academic myopia with respect to conservative American Christianity (fundamentalism isn't a primitive religious artifact, but a distinctly modern phenomenon and it isn't going to vanish), but in its attempt at shattering the hostility with which people outside fundamentalism (not just scholars and not just left-leaning people) view it. He calls it the Achilles' Heel of liberalism's code of tolerance--the weak spot where scholars and politicians genuinely promoting tolerance are most likely to condemn and seek to uproot those with whom they disagree. I find that compelling, especially since he doesn't totally endorse or even defend controversial aspects of the typical fundamentalist worldview. Rather, he paints them as human. I'll take that away more than anything I might have quibbled with along the way.
Ault demonstrates the unsafe subjective possibilities of properly open ethnographic method; the changes in his own life, products of fundamentalist evangelism as much as their deep sacrificial commitment to one another, surfaced in this book are even greater (and more transparently narrated) than is usual for even the most theoretically sophisticated and roundly celebrated ethnographers.
Spirit and Flesh is valuable not only in its correcting of academic myopia with respect to conservative American Christianity (fundamentalism isn't a primitive religious artifact, but a distinctly modern phenomenon and it isn't going to vanish), but in its attempt at shattering the hostility with which people outside fundamentalism (not just scholars and not just left-leaning people) view it. He calls it the Achilles' Heel of liberalism's code of tolerance--the weak spot where scholars and politicians genuinely promoting tolerance are most likely to condemn and seek to uproot those with whom they disagree. I find that compelling, especially since he doesn't totally endorse or even defend controversial aspects of the typical fundamentalist worldview. Rather, he paints them as human. I'll take that away more than anything I might have quibbled with along the way.
June 25, 2014
James Ault lived as part of a Fundamentalist (IFB) church for two years, later producing a film and a book about the experience. His insights spurred other writers and researchers to lose the contempt they have been taught to feel for Fundamentalism and instead view the religious movement with the necessary prerequisite respect to understand it.
Ault did his study decades before allegations of child molesting in Christian Fundamentalism came to light. The church he selected (while Jerry Falwell was still alive) was pastored by a man who belonged to the Falwell stratum of Fundamentalism in the late 1980's or early 1990's. So Ault never saw either the Hyles or BJU strata of Fundamentalism.
Ault’s most disarming and perceptive insight is that Fundamentalism, though it emphasizes reliance on the sacred Scripture, is primarily a religion in the Oral Tradition. The beliefs, which have a certain flexibility, are disseminated through the sermons and lessons and by person-to-person conversation. People share sermons, pass around tapes, and attend conferences where they hear the leaders of the religion make their pronouncements. Bible reading, rather than being systematic or scholarly, is performed selectively in order to “hide God’s Word in the heart,” which is a euphemism for memorization. At the appropriate time, learned texts are slapped onto a situation. But sermons carry the beliefs and transmit them. Bible reading serves the sermons.
Ault’s next most disarming insight is that Fundamentalism relies upon situation ethics. He expressed surprise that the preacher, a man he came to admire, would thunder that divorce was always wrong, and everybody would shout “Amen!” yet several people in the church were divorced. They felt no incongruity about condemning divorce yet also being divorced. Ault learned that the Fundamentalist mindset believed that it believed in the absolutes that it claimed, yet the culture was one of addressing every situation individually and evaluating it in light of multiple factors. While remaining conservative and morally strict, Fundamentalism, nonetheless, relied upon situation for its moral decisions, not absolutes. Divorce, in the end, was NOT always wrong if a situation was one that was intolerable or “unavoidable”. The people, he noted, saw no contradiction in what they said vs what they actually practiced. They thought they believed in an absolute morality, and they practiced situation ethics.
As Ault himself has no grudge against situation ethics, this double standard struck him more as an amazing irony rather than anything shameful. Indeed, he appears to find some relief in the notion that the bark of Fundamentalism is worse than its bite, at least for people inside a “Fundamentalist community.” And Ault found many admirable qualities within the community, especially their care for each other. Ault’s chosen church, by the way, was not a Jack Hyles type church but one after the model of Jerry Falwell.
Instant History - Ault found that the heavy reliance of the people upon the spoken word rather than written texts created a sort of “instant history” for them. They believed that Fundamentalism had created far more impact in history than it actually has, and their view of history was shaped by their view of Fundamentalism. Names that most people have never heard of, such as J Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, etc., were lynchpins of significance for the church members. They had very little knowledge of more substantive makers of history.
Cosmic Struggle - The Oral Tradition of Fundamentalism created a ready-made culture where one had not existed before, complete with its own history and its outlook of being at the center of a cosmic struggle. This cosmic struggle, by the way, is not the victorious struggle of Christ to overcome Satan and sin, but rather the struggle of Fundamentalism to restore the present culture to godliness.
Ault's analysis had a few gaps because he observed only one church, and yet his insights are compelling and profound. I will also add that Ault became more devout in his own faith in Christ (though certainly not a Fundamentalist) after seeing answers to prayer when the church members insisted that to observe them properly he had to engage in sharing prayer requests. That was probably one of the most charming parts of the book.
Ault did his study decades before allegations of child molesting in Christian Fundamentalism came to light. The church he selected (while Jerry Falwell was still alive) was pastored by a man who belonged to the Falwell stratum of Fundamentalism in the late 1980's or early 1990's. So Ault never saw either the Hyles or BJU strata of Fundamentalism.
Ault’s most disarming and perceptive insight is that Fundamentalism, though it emphasizes reliance on the sacred Scripture, is primarily a religion in the Oral Tradition. The beliefs, which have a certain flexibility, are disseminated through the sermons and lessons and by person-to-person conversation. People share sermons, pass around tapes, and attend conferences where they hear the leaders of the religion make their pronouncements. Bible reading, rather than being systematic or scholarly, is performed selectively in order to “hide God’s Word in the heart,” which is a euphemism for memorization. At the appropriate time, learned texts are slapped onto a situation. But sermons carry the beliefs and transmit them. Bible reading serves the sermons.
Ault’s next most disarming insight is that Fundamentalism relies upon situation ethics. He expressed surprise that the preacher, a man he came to admire, would thunder that divorce was always wrong, and everybody would shout “Amen!” yet several people in the church were divorced. They felt no incongruity about condemning divorce yet also being divorced. Ault learned that the Fundamentalist mindset believed that it believed in the absolutes that it claimed, yet the culture was one of addressing every situation individually and evaluating it in light of multiple factors. While remaining conservative and morally strict, Fundamentalism, nonetheless, relied upon situation for its moral decisions, not absolutes. Divorce, in the end, was NOT always wrong if a situation was one that was intolerable or “unavoidable”. The people, he noted, saw no contradiction in what they said vs what they actually practiced. They thought they believed in an absolute morality, and they practiced situation ethics.
As Ault himself has no grudge against situation ethics, this double standard struck him more as an amazing irony rather than anything shameful. Indeed, he appears to find some relief in the notion that the bark of Fundamentalism is worse than its bite, at least for people inside a “Fundamentalist community.” And Ault found many admirable qualities within the community, especially their care for each other. Ault’s chosen church, by the way, was not a Jack Hyles type church but one after the model of Jerry Falwell.
Instant History - Ault found that the heavy reliance of the people upon the spoken word rather than written texts created a sort of “instant history” for them. They believed that Fundamentalism had created far more impact in history than it actually has, and their view of history was shaped by their view of Fundamentalism. Names that most people have never heard of, such as J Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, etc., were lynchpins of significance for the church members. They had very little knowledge of more substantive makers of history.
Cosmic Struggle - The Oral Tradition of Fundamentalism created a ready-made culture where one had not existed before, complete with its own history and its outlook of being at the center of a cosmic struggle. This cosmic struggle, by the way, is not the victorious struggle of Christ to overcome Satan and sin, but rather the struggle of Fundamentalism to restore the present culture to godliness.
Ault's analysis had a few gaps because he observed only one church, and yet his insights are compelling and profound. I will also add that Ault became more devout in his own faith in Christ (though certainly not a Fundamentalist) after seeing answers to prayer when the church members insisted that to observe them properly he had to engage in sharing prayer requests. That was probably one of the most charming parts of the book.
hiatus
August 12, 2015I was pointed to this book by
Weekly Sift
Doug Muder's essay "Red Family, Blue Family", which invoked a very interesting concept: "obligated relationships vs. negotiated committments": http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics...
It is included in a list from CivilPolitics.org in the list "To help liberals understand (and be civil to) conservatives:"
http://www.civilpolitics.org/understa...
Contemporary reviews:
NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/boo...
San Diego Reader: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...
The author is primarily a documentary filmmaker, and created a 1987 PBS documentary from the same material called "Born Again". See a two-minute preview (two minutes or six minutes) at Vimeo. A DVD is available for purchase at the author's website for $29.
It is included in a list from CivilPolitics.org in the list "To help liberals understand (and be civil to) conservatives:"
http://www.civilpolitics.org/understa...
Contemporary reviews:
NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/boo...
San Diego Reader: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...
The author is primarily a documentary filmmaker, and created a 1987 PBS documentary from the same material called "Born Again". See a two-minute preview (two minutes or six minutes) at Vimeo. A DVD is available for purchase at the author's website for $29.
July 27, 2018
It was fascinating to see an outsider's sociological look at the kind of environment I grew up in. I would have liked much less about the process of doing this kind of study/filmmaking, and much further exploration of the "shadow church" of former members, where Ault barely scratches the service.
Similarly, I found myself wishing that he had paired with a woman sociologist in this study. While his observations about the rigid gender roles, marriage as adversarial, and use of gossip/"soft power" were accurate, I found myself wishing for more insight/analysis on women's-only spaces in fundamentalist churches, the kind of access he was not able to have.
Similarly, I found myself wishing that he had paired with a woman sociologist in this study. While his observations about the rigid gender roles, marriage as adversarial, and use of gossip/"soft power" were accurate, I found myself wishing for more insight/analysis on women's-only spaces in fundamentalist churches, the kind of access he was not able to have.
February 13, 2025
really intriguing read on the inner-workings and community relationships within a tiny, conservative christian church. it was honestly very humanizing and a sobering account of the power that religion holds in transforming stereotypical american indvidualistic culture into one of obligational bonds and mutual reciprocity. i thought that ault's insights on why some contradictory viewpoints are held by members of the church (such as giving to those in need vs. supporting welfare and abortion vs. supporting the military) were particularly insightful.
i wish that ault would've gone more in depth with the gendered relations of the church, and how it manifested within some of the broken marriages in the community that couldn't be fixed through the church. some of his gendered analysis felt a bit surface-level, especially regarding women working in the background of the church and wielding power through family ties. that was fine, but considering that there was an explicit portrayal of a woman who left an abusive relationship, it would have been fitting to discuss the implications of the church's patriarchal structure on cases like hers rather than focusing on the wives who were very involved in the church's administrative side.
i wish that ault would've gone more in depth with the gendered relations of the church, and how it manifested within some of the broken marriages in the community that couldn't be fixed through the church. some of his gendered analysis felt a bit surface-level, especially regarding women working in the background of the church and wielding power through family ties. that was fine, but considering that there was an explicit portrayal of a woman who left an abusive relationship, it would have been fitting to discuss the implications of the church's patriarchal structure on cases like hers rather than focusing on the wives who were very involved in the church's administrative side.
February 18, 2024
Wow. I started out really liking this, and then realised that it could only be as even-handed as it was because the author’s a straight white man. This is not a book that could have been written by, for example, a gay woman, even if she had the same kinds of access and trust that Ault did with the Shawmut River congregation. While it’s a useful piece of fieldwork, Ault’s complete disinterest in, you know, actually critiquing any of the pastor’s shit-awful approach to marital problems in his congregation, or the all-pervasive homophobia, really soured me. And a lot of the approach to women’s experiences in these sorts of places seems downright optimistic, especially giving the cultural evolution of women’s roles in these sorts of fundamentalist congregations.
I’m glad I read this but holy hell was it a frustrating read.
I’m glad I read this but holy hell was it a frustrating read.
December 4, 2019
A fascinating participant-observer in-depth study of a fundamentalist Baptist church from the mid-80s. Among other things Ault identified several important traits:
- family-based networks
- reciprocity
- an oral tradition (despite being a 'people of the book')
- offering plate democracy
- gender-defined domains
This book will help towards an understanding of the resilience of the Christian fundamentalist movement.
- family-based networks
- reciprocity
- an oral tradition (despite being a 'people of the book')
- offering plate democracy
- gender-defined domains
This book will help towards an understanding of the resilience of the Christian fundamentalist movement.
July 7, 2020
As an insider to fundamentalism almost my whole life I found the work fun to read. It was helpful to read an outsiders perspective. His approach is sociological. He is fair and understands fundamentalist better than their drive-by liberal critics and even some fundamentalists.
November 29, 2007
This book was pretty interesting but not gripping enough to finish. The point is that fundamentalist church communities offer people the kind of interdependent community life that is often lacking in the secular/intellectual world. I didn't really want to see if the (secular/intellectual) author found Jesus at the end so I stopped. He spent most of the book making friends with the church people and finding out how their lives went, which seemed to be a lot of preaching about crap and giving money to the church, but it was OK not to do what was preached as long as you had a "good reason" (i.e. women aren't supposed to work, but no one really gives them shit for it).
May 19, 2013
A good look at a particular IFB church in the 70s. Some of it is a bit foreign (for instance, the "weird ones" are those who are KJV-Only and forbid pants on women, when in my experience, that is far and away the norm), but it helps understand the close-knit fundamentalist communities, and the power struggles and rhetoric employed, very well. I really want to hunt the documentary this was based on now. This book would be much different if it was chronicling a church that had a few more decades before he showed up, and especially in the fallout of the moral majority and the like.
April 23, 2014
Ethnography of a fundamentalist Baptist church in the 1980s. Why published in the 2000s? Read it for a project, learned a lot, but not a must read.
July 18, 2014
Provided me with important insights into the faith and and appreciation for the way of life of fundamentalist Christians, with whom I largely disagree, but now understand better.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews