« Faith in Public Live Part 4: Balmer and the Good Baptists Still Left | Main Blog Page | Faith in Public Live, Part 6: Balmer on the Origins of the Religious Right »

Faith in Public Live Part 5: Mainstream Baptist Posts Back

Randall,

Thanks for your kind words about Mainstream Baptists. We are indeed calling Baptists back to their birthright as advocates for liberty of conscience and we are not alone.

While the news media has been fixated on the political antics of the current leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, moderate and progressive Baptists across America have been quietly working to forge new alliances. Some reconfigurations are taking place that may strengthen the voice of traditional Baptists. In June 2007 American Baptists (Baptists in the North) and Cooperative Baptists (moderate Baptists that left the SBC in 1990) are holding a historic first joint session in Washington, D.C. A few months later, Mainstream Baptists are involved in planning a meeting for all North American Baptists.

Bill Underwood, President of Mercer University, described the significance of this new movement with these words:


There are whispers of an exciting new movement emerging in Baptist life. Within the past several weeks, leaders of Baptist organizations representing more than 20 million Baptists have launched an unprecedented initiative to advance the Kingdom through the combined voice and work of Baptists throughout North America. Baptists from the North and from the South. Black and white Baptists, conservative, moderate and progressive Baptists joining together in a covenant -- the North American Baptist Covenant -- to affirm "their desire to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times."

David asked what features of modern American society created the opportunity for the ideological development of the Christian Right religio-political machine. Here are some of features that I think have been most overlooked in reporting about the rise of the Religious Right:

The Civil Rights Movement. Randall is one of the few who have written about the abortion myth that the Religious Right developed to explain their conception. He emphasizes the role that the 1972 Green v. Connally decision played in motivating religious conservatives to organize politically. Anyone with a memory that extends back to the mid-1960's knows that the names and faces of the religious leaders who opposed Martin Luther King's civil rights movement and school integration are largely the same as those who led the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980's.

Christian Reconstructionism. I think Francis Schaeffer's A Christian Manifesto served as a bridge from more traditional conservative evangelical thought to the theocratic ideology of Rousas J. Rushdoony. Schaeffer and Rushdoony always shared a presuppositionalist apologetic and a belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation. Schaeffer's latest writings also appear to be encouraging some form of Christian Dominionism.

The Council for National Policy. In 1981 Tim LaHaye, Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie founded a secretive Christian lobbying group which appears to have played a significant role in frequently bringing together America's most powerful conservative politicians, journalists, lawyers, and industrialists to strategize about politics and public policy with Christian right leaders .

I would be interested in learning what the two of you think about these features of modern American life.

Bruce

Comments

I am so glad someone has finally raised the fact that it was the fight for racial equality that created the anger that led to the rise of the Christian Right. It was a necessary, but not (however) sufficient condition. I do think Roe V. Wade was the straw that broke that particular camel's back, however, because this was now about equal rights for women; with legalized abortion, especially on the sweeping scale allowed by Roe, women were finally (potentially) emancipated from their "traditional" role as the bearer of children. The threat to male dominance was a threat that hit closer to home to more Americans that the fight for civil rights for African-Americans.
The Council for National Policy arrived after Richard Viguerie had given the name "Moral Majority" (working on Nixon's "silent majority") to Jerry Falwell's organization, an organization jump-started by Viguerie's direct-mail list. It was Flawell's self-promotion as thekey to Ronald Reagan's 1980 defeat of President Carter that put the Christian Right on the mainstream media's list of players to get to know better. The Council was more a way for a variety of groups - some separated by serious theological differences - to have a unified voice in DC than a policy study center or a co-ordination center for Christian Right political tactics.

There are an interesting couple of sentences in Tom Edsall's New Politics of Inequality published in 1984, I had the good fortune to ask President Carter about at the CBF Convo in Bham in 1993.
Edsall said it was the independent oil community who go as far back as Joe McCarthy in finding ways to demagogue a working class constituency. Michelle Goldberg gets close to explaining the CNP's political DNA through the Birch Society in her book, Kingdom Coming; and Rice U's Chandler Davidson is looking in the right places when he explored WA Criswell's affinity for the Birch right of the Hunt Brothers in Chandler's Race and Class in Texas Politics.
Paul Pressler's Dad was a vice president of Exxon Oil. Look at what Edsall reports about the election cycle of 78; then go figure the takeover of the SBC from that perspective, with the religious right galvanizing the SBC against Carter after Carter hit Oil with a windfall profits tax in 78 or so.
That is why Pressler plays the visionamerica.us card for CNP. Ronnie Floyd is just a useful idiot in it all.
Even so my fundamentalist friend John Killian, a supporter of George Wallace Jr. does have some honest populism to him; and professes to be a dispensationalist but not a Reconstructionist.
The self name fundamentalist chair of the Bama Alsbom, MikeShaw, is for Constitutional and Tax Reform in the State.
Balmer is great. I think he should be a primetime featured speaker for the CBF convo in DC next year.
In meantime however, both he and Prescott and Mercer's Buddy Shurden should google up Furman proff Jim Guth 2000 article in the Christian Century about Bob Jones U; and all of you should temper Balmer's prescriptions with the notions of James Ault's final chapters in Spirit and Flesh, a book endorsed by the Henry Ford line of AmericanProtestantism,Reinhold's Great Nephew, Gus Niebuhr.
What say youins?
Stephen Fox
Collinsville, Alabama

And of course there is Amy Sullivan's April 06 Washington Monthly article easily googled Up: "When Would Jesus Bolt?"
Quite likely it has come across your radar and been widely discussed here, but if not it is great fodder for nuanced updated discussions with Balmer and Prescott and Brent Walker, and Mercer's Buddy Shurden.
Randy Brinson's Disenchantment with the Christian Coalition in Alabama is the guts of the story.

I happen to have a copy of a book called The Farther Shores of Politics: The American Political Fringe Today, published in 1968 by George Thayer. The second Part of the book, subtitled "The Far Right", includes a chapter called "The Christian Right". There are a number of figures, early on in the formation of the CHristian Right, who are described here - and the connections are drawn between the corporations (Exxon is not listed, but Adolph Coors and "Bucky" Hunt are), the Birchers, and such groups as Campus Crusade for Christ are drawn out. The connections were made a decade before the stunning appearance of Falwell, Viguerie, Swaggart, and others. To my mind, the strangest thing is the way what was fringe rhetoric is now a staple of our public discourse; the warping of our political and social debates by what can only be described as an extreme vocabulary makes it almost impossible to be heard anymore.
Of course, it goes without saying that the perversion of political rhetoric, the convergence of groups with wildly disparate theological positions, and the desire for political power has also warped much of our discussion, not only about religion, but within Christianity itself. That is one sad result of all this. A return to our diverse roots, honoring our differences - even rekindling old arguments! - is an essential part of reclaiming our rich religious heritage in America.

While I agree with the general analysis of the trend of conservatives leaving the Democratic Party in the late seventies, the report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on May 22, 2006 gives some good reasons not to overstate the early role of the "race" or "gender" reasons. While they factor in, Galston suggests [with convincing stats) that it took awhile - until Clinton - for religious conservatives to really leave the Democratic party.

Mr. Galston points out:

"My view is that [evangelicals] began by thinking of [Carter] as an alternative to the “McGovernized� Democratic Party, and by the end of his term they saw him as having become a captive of that party. That was a process, by the way, that started very early. If you look at what happened in the Democratic Convention of 1976 — what the platform looked like, what the negotiations with the traditional interest groups looked like, what the Carter campaign in the general election as opposed to the primaries looked like — and the fact that Carter lost support steadily through the general election campaign, and if it had lasted another 10 days, he probably would have lost it.

So, you can already see signs that the very personal religious appeal that Carter had was beginning to wane. When his administration associated itself with the progressivism push on a number of gender and social issues, I think many evangelicals said to themselves, well, his personal views may be wonderful, but he is doing absolutely nothing to buck the tide of the party; and that convinces us that if he can’t or won’t do it, who could or would; so maybe we ought to turn elsewhere. Then there was a massive shift among white evangelicals, between 1976 and 1980, away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans.

The fact that the bottom didn’t fall out for Democrats until 1992 suggests to me that maybe the racial dimension of this is not as dispositive as some people thought it was. If it had really been dispositive, then the bottom should have fallen out a lot earlier than it did. Also, the religiosity gap, as late as 1988, is really very narrow if you look at those two charts I presented, and then there is a large shift. With the first boomer president, all of these cultural, social and religious issues suddenly become the basis of a deep schism in the electorate. That’s what I had in mind."

Thanks for speaking to Richard Viguerie's important role in the conservative movement, as I think a lot of people are not aware of what an influence he's had--helping bring on the Reagan revolution in 1980, etc. He actually has a fascinating new book out called "CONSERVATIVES BETRAYED: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Betrayed the Conservative Cause." I thought about getting it when I heard him on Bob Edwards a few weeks ago, and then a friend just recommended it to me, so I broke down and ordered a copy. I'm so glad I did, as it's right on the money about so many things...the collapse of moral values, Bush's total and complete betrayal of conservatives...right on target. IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING, spread the word! You can pick up a copy on Amazon - her'es the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Betrayed-Government-Republicans-Conservative/dp/1566252857/sr=8-1/qid=1158102671/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4985221-8852658?ie=UTF8&s=books

Post a comment

Enter in the number you see in the image below.
This helps us eliminate comment spam


Faith In Public Life