Conservative resurgence on Wrong Side of History

[Stephen Fox]

Molly Worthen in her book The Apostles of Reason shows how the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC was on the wrong side of History on Inerrancy.

But Inerrancy was a ruse as Harold Blom concludes in his notable quote in the American Relibion that says it was a "tragedy, the result of a purely political conspiracy that continues to masquerade as a religious movement." Bloom rightly compares the fundy leadership to the Know Noghtings of the 1840s.

I am convinced history will show that Paul Pressler in particular was in many ways a lesser version of some odious historical personages whose personal grievances compelled him to be a dark figure in 20th Century America. Robert Wuthnow's Rough Country suggests as much.

Nowhere is that more evident than his association with Jesse Helms and their misgivings about Martin Luther King and Civil Rights. All indicators are as early as the late 50's when Pressler was in the Texas legislature the last two years of Carlyle Marney's tenure at FBC Austin, Pressler was on course in the shadows of the Texas Regulars, and White Citizens Councils. His lifelong affiliation with Jesse Helms and Albert Lee Smith, even Mississippi Curtis Caine's indicates how they were naturall drawn together.

For certain they were adversaries to the Texas trajectory of James Dunn in much more than Church State ideas. That was just a cover for something much more nefarious.

As I've said many times before, the Texas 1948 Senate Race, set Pressler and Bill Moyers at odds in more ways than has been explained to date.

And Tom Edsall in his 84 New Politics of Inequality outlines the reasons for the different worldviews and the wedge issue politics that emerged. As Paige Patterson said, It ought to go over as well as the "Inerrancy thing."

April 15 1984 New Republic tied Jesse Helms to the death squads of Roberto Daubuisson.

Abd here we are now with the beatification of Oscar Romero.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world ... .html?_r=0

As Stewart Newman wrote WA Criswell in 1968: "The Blood of many martyrs......"

[Sandy]

Your connectionalism is dubious at best. Pressler's short foray into the Texas Legislature was relatively uneventful, aside from the fact that he, like Helms, was a Southern Democrat, and both happened to be Southern Baptists, the association between the two requires the kind of speculative leaps you are prone to taking in that if something looks logical to you, you are sure that's the way it is.

Can't recall that Helms was particularly active in the resurgence. I believe his church membership was in a moderate SBC congregation in North Carolina that is currently listed as a CBF partner. His alma mater, Wingate University, also hangs out on the moderate side of Baptist life, and was a beneficiary of his library and papers. He did like Jerry Falwell, though his association with him was prior to his joining the SBC.

What "side" of history is the conservative resurgence "on"?

[Stephen Fox]

http://religiondispatches.org/why-chris ... -that-way/

This Q and A doesn't advance the conversation much; My take is the Nybooks.com review of last October of Wuthnow's Rough Country cuts to the chase in much more significant way.

Again for the umpteenth time, Joe Ferguson's book on the ties of Helms to Pressler was written in the early 80s and Sandy has failed for 30 years to own the fact. It was Bill Moyers himself ho in late 80s was on the links of Helms to Pressler and their coagulation in the takeover.

Between the speculations of Sandy, and Rice 's Chandler Davidson, I'll go with the true scholar on Pressler's agenda.

Ed Young and Pressler and Ted Cruz could be an interesting story in next sis to 8 months if someone wants to follow Edwards trail, though again, Wuthnoow on Criswell and the Atwater memo cut closer to the chase in Pressler's world and what the fundy akeover of the SBC wrought!

[ET]

There is no such thing as the "wrong side of history".

[Sandy]

[David Flick]

[William Thornton]

Yet another occasion where Fox sees Molly Worthen walking on water. Maybe Fox can get it on vimeo so the rest of us can see the miracle.

[KeithE]

[ET]

Well, thanks Flick.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

The sense intended is the sense in which Pharaoh was on the wrong side, and Moses and the Children of Israel on the right side, of the history of the Exodus, which is probably not exactly history, either, in the modern sense.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Stephen Fox]

What a spectacular and timely Title for this conversation. Hope some of you have the Christian charity to indulge every word of this online conversation:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015- ... ding-to-us

[Stephen Fox]

I spent about 20 minutes on a reply with bullet points ranging from flick's penchant for spurs when I'm in play to Harold B;loom's analysis of the fundamentlaist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Alas and quite to my frustration it got vaporized before posting.

I will say this board could learn a lot from Worthen, especially if they follow with a close read of Wuthnow's Rough Country and think about it in light of Bonhoeffer's thoughts on the politics of stupidity.

By this fall I hope to share a letter at this board Grady Cothen sent me in 1990 after his visit to my home in Alabama prepping for his book on the Takeover.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; I have to thank Keith for forcing my to check a few dictionaries for the definition of "bias" apparently I have long misused the word. But wile It seems that both Sandy and I have misused it, I am not sure that Keith is totally accurate in saying "bias is a going-in position that someone has before undertaking a serious study of the matter at hand". Nor am I convinced that serious study is always a remedy. Now I have a dilemma. What is a suitable word to to explain the forces at work when some one does "serious study" and is still unmoved in his or her errant opinion? Keith, I have argued with a number of inerantist here and elsewhere. I do not accept your stated opinion that "conservative evangelicals who believe in inerrancy are not credible". I wouldn't be surprised if even you might agree that some of them are quite creditable in other areas. And by the way not all conservative evangelicals believe in inerrancy, nor are all who hold to that position conservatives, nor evangelicals.

BTW, why is this thread on the CBF Forum?

[Haruo]