Randall Balmer on Bob Jones, Abortion and Segregation

[Stephen Fox]

I fully realize I have a thread going on Balmer's new book, but thought this piece deserved special notice of its own as Balmer will hold Workshops two days, Thursday and Friday at the Upcoming National gathering of the CBF in Atlanta.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 5IbFNhOWM8

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Balmer's thesis predictably reflects his own perspective, and bias. There's a nice spin on some of his facts, and a remarkable lack of documentation of some of the quotations and "facts," not unusual for Balmer, or for many writers in the same vein. Memory fades over time, and the number of people left to challenge the presentation who were actually there, and involved, is quite diminished. This isn't anything new, and the twists Balmer puts on his theory aren't, either. The quote from Criswell is left undocumented, a mistake a high school student writing a term paper shouldn't make. I've read plenty of Criswell's views on abortion, and I can tell you, nothing he ever wrote or said on the subject supports the statement that Balmer claims as his quote.

Oviously, reaction to the 1973 Roe decision was varied, even among evangelicals. It took a while to realize the implications, including the politics, and reaction was slow. As far as Southern Baptists go, the convention's leadership was an entrenched oligarchy of good ole boy close friends, relatives, in-laws and seminary chums, and the convention's actions weren't an accurate reflection of the views of its constituents. Balmer's perspective, bias, and lack of attribution puts his view in the same category as the one he challenges--it's a theory, but it isn't an accurate reflection of fact.

Having been in the Christian school movement for over 30 years, I consider Balmer's views as "twisted," and therefore as inaccurate, as his other perspectives. Take what he writes with a grain of salt, because he is definitely pushing a thesis rather than writing straight fact. Segregation has been an element in the Christian school movement, especially in the South, and there are schools that were started, couching their foundations in Christianese, for the purpose of avoiding having to send white children to the same school as African Americans. But even in the South, those schools are a minority. The accelerated growth of Christian schools began in the 60's, and centered on the Supreme Court decision that banned prayer from public schools. Two of the four Christian school's I've worked for in my career were founded by churches in the wake of that decision, and both were multi-racial from the beginning. The first Christian school I ever served, on Houston's east side, was founded by an SBC church in 1946, for the purpose of giving students an education that would challenge their intellect, and help them grow in their faith, the mission and purpose of the school being to inspire and train church leaders of the future. Whites were always in the minority of the student body, and when I left there, the school was 50% hispanic, and 30% African American. The current school I serve is the only one that isn't Southern Baptist, and it was founded in 1963, in response to the decision removing prayer from the schools. Racial discrimination has never been part of its culture, either.

[Stephen Fox]

Mused by Page 341 of Charles Marsh bio of Bonhoeffer.

The facts are with Balmer in this matter, and Christine Stansell's asily googled piece on Roe from the New Republic on the politics of "mendacity" goes to the craw of Sandy, Richard Land, the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.

For Helms and Pressler and the driving forces with which Sandy was complicious, their Birch Society White Citizen's council strategy with the race card had run aground; so they morphed it into the politics of abortion and from the there the politics of religion.

See Bonhoeffer on the politics of "Stupidity!'

[Sandy]

Sorry, Stephen, but it appears that revision of history after the fact is not just a habit of your alleged "fundamentalists." The credibility of Balmer's whole article is questionable, without much in the way of reference or citation. I don't think reading another slanted blog article will straighten things out.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I don't think there is any question that the motivating factor for the political engagement of certain Religious Right leaders - e.g. Jerry Falwell - was the Green decision and IRS action against private Christian schools with racially discriminatory policies - which later would be blamed entirely on Jimmy Carter but started during the Gerald Ford administration.

I think Balmer has some great insights - though he might push the thesis too far (which isn't original to him by the way, go read Civil Rights and the Culture Wars by Andrew Manis)

I took Balmer's thesis (which he first published in a previous book, see chapter on "abortion myth") and tweaked it. I think the focus on segregation makes the thesis more "sexy" given present-day politics. For Falwell, it may have been about segregation to some extent. BUT, it was also (and primarily, in my opinion) about the expanding role of government in American society.

The rise of the Religious Right was motivated by strong opposition to a quickly expansive, intrusive (in their opinion) regulatory government. Segregation was just one of many issues affecting the way of life of southerners.

Sociologists like Robert Wuthnow have noted the "restructuring of American religion" was in part a reaction to a government that was growing and taking on new roles, roles that "the church" used to handle.

In my dissertation and most recently in a paper at the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion gathering, I argued this thesis about the rise of the Religious Right and applied it to the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC, specifically with regard to the Baptist (anti)environmentalism that was emerging among conservative leaders beginning in the 1980s.

All that said, segregation was an issue influencing the rise of the Religious Right - especially INTEGRATION. Was it THE issue? I don't think so. But, I also think the role of abortion has been subject to a bit of revisionism. All one needs to do is look at opinion polls during that era. The fact that one of the most prominent pastors in America - W.A. Criswell - was so explicitly pro-choice (I think pro-abortion better describes Criswell's views actually....) - says something about the culture at the time.

Opinions about abortion changed as there was an organized effort (pro-life movement) around the issue in the political arena (quite similar to how views about same-sex marriage have changed in response to the gay rights movement).

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

Thomas Aquinas thought it took a few months for the Spirit of God to infuse itself into the embryo, too.

[Sandy]

Your documentation, Keith, comes from revisionist sources who have the same bias that Balmer does. You also have to remember that the SBC leadership who controlled the denomination and its resolutions, held a view different from those of their churches and consitutents.

I've read most of what Criswell wrote, going back into the sixties, and I see nothing in what he wrote that would allow for a conclusion that he "welcomed" Roe v. Wade. If you look through his writing, and his sermons, you can see that his pro-life position crystallized, and found its way into his activities by 1975, and certainly by 1976, when his ringing endorsement of Gerald Ford from the pulpit, where Ford was seated, and from which Ford delivered the "sermon" that morning, flies in the face of Balmer's assertion. I'll agree that there was a period of time after the decision was handed down when there was not a wide range of conclusions on the subject, but to contend that it was used to demagogue Carter's re-election is absolutely in error. By the time Carter ran for re-election in 1980, Evangelicals were solidly organized and abortion on demand was the top motivator.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, while I understand something of you resistance of what Balmer writes. After all any one wanting to be taken seriously when it comes to what happened in the SBC takeover should know that those casting votes at the SBC Convention are Messengers, NOT delegates.

On the other hand I think he is very possibly on track with the position on abortion that he ascribes to Criswell.

But when you write " You also have to remember that the SBC leadership who controlled the denomination and its resolutions, held a view different from those of their churches and consitutents. "

I feel compelled to again challenge your perception of the SBC leadership of the period in question.
If in fact that leadership "held a view different from those of their churches and constituents." How did they ever gain control? Or in other words, how, specifically did they control the resolution process?

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

How is a Messenger (capital M) different from a delegate (lower case d)? How does a "representative" in one state differ from a "legislator" in another? How does a "parish" in Louisiana or a "borough" in Alaska differ from a "county" in most other states?

Granted that those attending the SBC are "Messengers", are they not also "delegated" by their local churches to be such?

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

[Lou]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Hauro in the days before the take over, SBC polity declared that churches did not "instruct" messengers as to how to vote at the the convention. I recently mentioned on these Boards that the first time I attended an SBC convention (1971) I asked my pastor how I should vote on a couple issues and he simply told me to vote my conscience.
I will acknowledge that in practice this distinction was not always followed by all churches. However at the time that the term messenger was put into their constitution it was clearly enunciated an many Baptist State papers. And this point was clearly taught in the classrooms of all six SBC owned Seminaries and in various classes of the three SBC affiliated Colleges that I attended. And those three schools where owned by three different State SBC related Conventions which made the same distinction for attendees at their annual meetings.

Also see Lou's post just above.

[Stephen Fox]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I don't see any proof of demagoguery related to the pro-life issue. That there was not a solid view on abortion rights developed among conservative evangelicals early on, I'll concede. But a single quote from Criswell, forty years later, and the presence of other interests at the time doesn't mean a solid view of abortion wouldn't develop, or wasn't accepted by the time Carter ran against Reagan in 1980. Carter's incompetence and ineptness, combined with his knack for choosing corrupt and self-interested advisors, a "good ole boy" approach to the Presidency, and a general inability to be effective, even when dealing with a Congress of his own party.

The pro-life position is Biblically sound. Pregnancy is a choice, it involves moral responsibility, and a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body starts with a decision to be responsible to prevent pregnancy. Otherwise, you accept the consequences.

[Dave Roberts]

One of the problems I see is that the "anti-abortion movement" has only been pro-birth. It is not pro-life. Otherwise, it would care as much about hungry children as about a fetus. It would care as much about abused children as pre-born ones. It would care as much about girls who are shot as about life in utero. It would care as much about the death penalty as about protecting life before it is born. The Catholic position is the only consistent one. Baptists have never really been pro-life.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: I tend to agree that Dave has a good points, however he seems to make Baptists sound much more monolithic than we are.