Transcripts For CSPAN3 Evangelicals In Politics 20161009 : v

Topics include christian leader henry lord beecher, prohibition, and the 18th amendment, and the u. S. Supreme court case roe v wade. Bob Jones University hosted this event. It is an hour and a half. Well, good evening, and welcome to bob Jones University. And the series of the first of three forms on bouncing piety balancing piety and pragmatism, evangelical and politics. We appreciate you being with us this evening. If we could, lets begin our program of the word of prayer. Heavenly father, we do thank you for the opportunity that we have here at bob Jones University to learn more about our civic responsibilities and the great nation that you have blessed us to be a part of. We do pray for our nation. We pray for our elected leaders. We pray for president obama particularly, as he leads this nation, that you might grant him wisdom, and that your sovereign hand might be directing the decisions that he makes. We think of the tragedies that have happened recently, attacks on the wellbeing and even life of many citizens. We pray that you protect the life come and pray that those of us who know you would live godly lives will be able to influence those horror around us. I pray that we can do that for your glory. We pray that you bless this discussion tonight that we might learn something that would make us more effective citizens. We ask this in christs name. Amen. Before i introduce this evenings panelists, i want to take a few minutes and set the context and purpose for the tonights discussion. It is my opinion that believers, or evangelicals, should engage in political activity or civic responsibilities on the basis of their faith commitment. I hold this opinion for a couple reasons. First, scripture assumes that a follower of christ will seek opportunities for influence. This is just one example, in jeremiah 29 7, god instructs his people to seek the welfare of the city where i have caused you to be carried away as captives. Pray to the lord, for the piece peace thereof shall you have peace. It is natural for evangelicals to seek opportunities to influence both people and social institutions, including government, because we see that in scripture. Second, evangelicals engage in political activity as an outgrowth of their faith, because faith is not simply part of a christians life, but it is central to his or her identity as a person. Evangelicals see themselves as citizens of two kingdoms an earthly one and a heavenly one. We have responsibilities, some of which are distinct in both kingdoms, we render unto caesar the things that are caesars, and we seek those things which are above. As we carry out responsibilities of citizens in this earthly kingdom, we do so in keeping with our identity as followers of christ. So the involvement of evangelicals in american politics in american politics as , evangelicals, should come as no surprise. Knowing, however, the most appropriate ways to carry out this call to influence and to participate in our Representative Democracy is not always straightforward. Sadly, evangelicals have not always exercised this responsibility and wisdom and in meekness. Sometimes, we are so enamored of the political power of this world that we become, in the words of cal thomas and ed thompson, blinded by might. In a world where evangelicals are increasingly pressured to keep their faith in their private life and away from the public sphere christians must , understand how to carry out specific responsibilities in meekness and in wisdom. It is my hope that tonights forum will accomplish two ends. First, an understanding of how evangelicals have taken part in the American Government will be expanded. Also, the missteps of evangelicals of the past that are instructive to our lives today. Our format tonight is simple. After interviews our panelists, after i introduce our panelists, i will ask some questions, and then following those questions, we will take time to answer some from the audience. If you want to ask a question, make sure you get a card from our volunteers. If you dont have one, you could slip your hand up really quickly and our volunteers can get you one of those cards. Tonight, we have the privilege of hearing from four distinguished panelists, each bringing a unique perspective to our topic. And let me introduce each one of them to you. First of all, carl abrams, who is on your far left. I dont mean anything [laughter] political by that, i assure you. First is dr. Carl abrams, professor of modern and european history here at bob Jones University. Dr. Abrams is frequently sought by the media as an expert on religion in American Culture. He is the author of two books, selling the oldtime religion, american fundamentalist in that culture from 1920 21940, and conservative constraints, North Carolina and the new deal. Dr. Abrams holds three degrees in history, a ba from bob Jones University, an ma from North Carolina State University, and a phd from the State University of maryland. Additionally he said studied at the he studied at the sorbonne in paris. And then dr. Jin jim guth, who is on your far right, he is the william r Junior Science university professor. He has served as furniture for the faculty and the Political Science department. In 1998 he initiated washingtons intern program, which sent over 1000 students to washington. As a specialist in american assessed dr. Guth the effect of religion on the process. Dr. Guth holds a bachelor of science from the university of wisconsin and a phd from harvard university. And then in our center left, we have dr. Mach who isr. Tom from cedarville university. He teaches United States history and worldview integration. His Research Area is 19thcentury america, especially the political history of the American Civil War in the gilded age. He was selected to attend the American History seminar on the gilded age sponsored by the larry institute of American History and the council of independent colleges posted by stanford university. His Research Also includes the role of ohio and its politicians in National Politics during the 19th century. Fromach holds a ba cedarville university, and a phd from university of ohio at akron. Finally on the right is kellen funk. He is a phd candidate in American History at princeton university. His area of focus is 19thcentury american legal institutions both practice and , theory, the development of a legal profession, the reform of civil trial practice, the debates over the complication of the common law, and the intersection of american law and american christianity. He recently assumed the position of law clerk for chief judge Lee Rosenthal at the u. S. District court for the Southern District of texas. Mr. Funk has received legal history fellowships from Yale Law School the Hearst Institute , at the university of Wisconsin Law school, the American Society for legal history, and he has also received a legal religious history fellowship from the center for religious study at princeton. Mr. Funk holds the ba in history and a ma for Church History here and a phd from Yale Law School. Would you please welcome our panelists for tonight . [applause] we are going to begin tonight with what might seem like somewhat of a simple question, but i think definitions are very important. So im going to direct this kellen and callan ask him to define what an evangelical is, and how would you distinguish evangelicals from other religious groups . Kellen funk thank you for inviting me. Thank you for the question, and hopefully we will have about two minutes after i have answered to have the rest of the panel. It is it does seem like a simple , question, a good question to start off by defining the term that we are going to be talking about for the panel and then in panels to come. But it is also a very cruel question for an american religious historian because historians debate rather furiously what evangelical means, and who that label applies to. And part of that reason for that is the word evangelical really didnt have much meaning until the 20th century. But clearly, the evangelicals of the 20th century have their roots going back further. There were movements and groups in the 18th and 19th centuries known by all sorts of names, pietists, revivalists,ity they have all different personalities and theologies and aims and types of thinking about reform in politics. But clearly there were emphases and strands and things held in common among these groups. And so historians debate whether , the term evangelical is evangelicalism is appropriate for these groups. One historian of evangelicalism named David Bevington has offered four emphases that mark what an evangelical is. And these criteria, nobody agrees with. Everyone disagrees over whether these are actual emphases, whether all for go together, whether there should be more than probably other panelists four. Will want to disagree with it. But precisely because everybody talks about it and wants to argue about it, it is a convenient benchmark to start with. Bevingtons for qualities four qualities, the first is the first is a high regard for the authority and sufficiency of the bible. The second he calls crucio centrism, which is a fancy way of saying the cross and the theology of the atonement is central to evangelical identity. The third is conversion, the emphasis that individuals ought to be choosing conversion to the obedience tof in the gospel. And the fourth category is activism, which is not just in the political sense of being politically active, although reforming oneself and reforming society is part of activism. It means especially that it up the belief and conversion ought to change a persons life, and that a person ought to be active in changing their life because they have converted and believe the gospel. So these are the four emphases that are suggested to define an evangelical. I should emphasize that they are emphases. The point is not that evangelicals are the only christians who think that the bible is important. Not on the first point. These are supposed to be the things that are at the center of evangelical identity, as opposed to what a lot of 19thcentury historians would call liturgicals as opposed to evangelicals. This would be strands of christianity like catholicism or or a biscoe or a piscopo which dont focus on going out in converting people, but are more focused on the sacraments of the church, of worshiping through liturgy, of gathering around the sacraments, of raising up and waits in the church and not so much of raising up families in the church and not so much going out in converting people like evangelicals. So let me sort of sketch a timeline of the 19th century to now, which will let me fill in a little more of the definition. Basically in the 19th century, when you are thinking about evangelical involvement in politics, you find the people that historians would call evangelicals basically on every side of every issue on every side of every political party. Maybe. Maybe there are arguable emphases which we will get to. They are sort of everywhere. Evangelicals that support temperance reform, evangelicals that oppose temperance reform. There are evangelicals that are ardently antislavery, there are evangelicals that defend the institution of slavery. There are evangelicals that are democrats and republicans and whigs and populists in the hole and the whole list of parties that went to the 19th century. There are certain generalizations you can make. And those generalizations tend, in the 19th century, to run along the national line, where challenge illegals, along with some of the liturgicals almost always catholic, almost always reliably vote democratic, from jackson into the late 19th century democratic party, for reasons we can get into. While along methodists and presbyterian evangelicals, calvinists congregationalist, and some of the more respectable liturgicals at that time episcopalian, lutherans, debtor , dutch reform, they would reliably vote for the whig party and then are later involved in the Republican Party after they evolved from the whigs. That is a very different story from what happens in the 20th century. In the 20th century, it is no longer that you can sort of divide evangelicals along denominational lines and sort of figure out who was politically active where and who is voting for whom. After the rise of liberal theology and the fundamentalist modernist controversy, as the fundamentalist movement get s started, it is attracting people from across the denominational boundaries. That, for instance, a methodist fundamentalist found a school that has a lot of presbyterian fundamentalist on staff and a lot of baptist fundamentalists attending the stick attending the students. Anyone know the school i am talking about . [laughter] what happens to this fundamentalist movement is people realize that very often, they have more in common with other fundamentalists across denominational divide than they do with people within their own denomination. A fundamentalist methodist has a lot more in common with a fundamentalist baptist than necessarily a liberal methodist in his or her own denomination. And over the course the 20th century, what starts to happen coalescence that crosses denominational boundaries, culturally and socially with these different movements, also starts to happen politically, where conservative evangelicals all sort of our together on one side of the political spectrum in a way that has not always been true of evangelicals in the 19th century. This is referred this thesis is broadly referred to as the restructuring of American Religion, which is a term coined coined term by bob with low a , sociologist at princeton. So briefly that leads me to define one more distinction. Hopefully the state has been set. What is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelicalist, for the purposes of this discussion . The historian of American Religion George Morrison humorously defines a fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry about something. [laughter] kellen funk which, he means it humorously, but it is a helpful denniston definition. If you are picking through the historical labels a fundamentalist is basically a subset of evangelicalism that has this added point of militancy. Fundamentalists were especially dedicated to take a stand for the gospel for those for info sees four emphases and willing to sunder ties, with the liberal theologians they felt at ends with. Theologian comes to actual history, around the 1950s, it is used by people like billy graham and the editor of christianity today. They were using the term evangelical to kind of distance themselves from that militancy point. Sometimes people refer to this as new evangelicalism. I dont know that that title is very helpful, or has any meaning, because really, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are both new in the 1950s in significant ways as they are both significantly old in the 1950s in significant ways. What happens from that point onward is these different groups, fundamentalists and evangelicals often use those , labels to make sure you know the they are not the other one. Even though they all share those four emphases i mentioned about what historically marks evangelicals. Now bring the story up to today, the political media and political pollsters have no kind of patience for this nuance. Right . There is no break and pulls between how fundamentalists vote and how evangelicals vote, and where pentecostals are on that scale. In the popular media, evangelical is often just used to describe conservative, politically conservative christianity of any kind. And often that term is used interchangeably to talk about evangelicals, to talk about the talk about fundamentalist to , even talk about conservative roman catholics, who, in the 19th century, would not have fit in the category at all as fundamentalists use it. A long and meandering way to say i have not given you a precise definition, because history does not give us a precise definition. But i think that is part of the helpfulness and usefulness of starting with a panel on the panelistshaving these here to think through what the change over time is, and why they matter to what is going on right now. So thank you again for inviting me. Im looking forward to hear from the other panelists. So, as i said what , seems to be a simple question about defining what an evangelical is is complicated. Kellen in his answer invited discussion on this, so i want to send out this next question to the entire panel, whoever wants to jump on it. I think kellen suggested his answer to the question, but when did evangelicals become recognized as a Political Force, or as a Political Movement historically in the United States . Can we point to a particular time when either historians or political scientists have said that evangelicals should be recognized as some sort of a Political Force or some sort of a Political Movement . Anybody . I would just add a working definition to simplify what kellen just laid out for us. For fundamentalists in the 1920s and 1930s, they had a simple way of communicating what they meant. They talked about believing in supernatural christianity. That very quickly got to what they were really all about, which would include what kellen just elaborated on. One other thing that they would add, some of them i dont agree with them but some of them would add premillennialism, and there was a big debate between, is militant the answer or is it premillennialism . There were other sort of shorthand words that were used. To get