From Scopes to Reagan


Material Information

From Scopes to Reagan Presbyterians and the Persistence of Antievolution
Physical Description:
1 online resource (512 p.)
Abraham, Joshua Baiju
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Committee Chair:
Committee Co-Chair:
Committee Members:


Subjects / Keywords:
History -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
History thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Creationism in America as a protest about evolution in the public schools erupted three times, in 1925 with the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1981 with the call for equal time for young earth creationism in Arkansas schools, and in 2005 with the Dover, Pennsylvania battle that resulted in the legal system categorizing "intelligent design" theory as a variant of creationism. While George Marsden's history of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, Ronald Numbers's history of creationist institutions, and Edward Larson's history of legal developments surrounding creationism are important foundational works, the three eruptions still appear hard to discern as part of a larger pattern. Among the various entities that comprised the body known as the "Religious Right" in the 1970s, there was one stream that provided the articulation for this pattern to the academic world, conservative Presbyterians beginning with the story of J. Gresham Machen in the 1920s and leading up to the story of Francis Schaeffer in the 1970s. Their concern that Enlightenment thought was overtaking the legacy of the Protestant Reformation in America through the changes in the federal judiciary and sociological upheaval involving interest group politics demonstrated that the three eruptions of creationism were clear evidence that bursts of antievolutionist sentiment were not a haphazard events. Instead, they were manifestations of constant Protestant resentment of centralization through the twentieth century and fear about the growth of federal power in relation to the states.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Joshua Baiju Abraham.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




2014 Joshua Baiju Abraham


To Joshy and Mariamma Abraham


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all I thank my parents, Joshy and Mariamma Abraham, f or understanding how worthwhile this project was and donating large sums of money to support its completion. My parents endured substantial burdens to see this project to its completion and I sincerely thank them. I owe a great debt that I can never repay secondly to the professors of the University of Florida History Department. Above all, I thank Dr. Frederick Gregory for taking me on as a student and teaching me about the roots of modern science and training me to think about the development of science a nd the complex interactions it has had with the domain of religion. Dr. years was truly a herculean feat of patience and endurance. I also wish to thank Dr. Va ssiliki Betty Smocovitis for teaching me about the history of evolutionary biology but also urging me to think about science and scientific communities in an interdisciplinary way. Dr. Robert Hatch schooled me in the origins of ancient science and the scie ntific revolution. Dr. Jack Davis taught me about the history of the South after the Civil War and got me thinking about issues of race that played so central a role in my work. I also owe a debt to Drs. Charles Montgomery and the late Alan Petingy for com pelling me to think about the Religious Right in the 1960s. Drs. Mark Noll and David Livingstone put me on the track that led to this dissertation when I took their 2000 class on science and religion at Regent College in Vancouver, a seminary to which I ow e much in terms of thinking about these issues. I also wish to thank Drs. David Mahan and Richard Horner of the Rivendell Institute for Thought and Learning at Yale and the Christian Study Center of Gainesville respectively for their mentoring me in thinki ng about Christianity and culture. I also owe thanks to thirteen interviewees who elucidated the structure and values of fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant cultures, including Dr. Udo Middelmann, Dr. John Frame, Mark Rushdoony, Dr. Douglas Creer, Dr Charles Thaxton, Dr. Tim LaHaye, Dr. Elmer


5 Towns, Dr. George Marsden, John Whitehead, Professor Jeffrey Tuomala, and Dr. John Morris. Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Elizabeth Dale and Dr. Brent Henderson, who served along with Drs. Gregory, Davis, and Smoc ovitis on my committee, for reading this lengthy document and providing critique.


6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13 Recapitulation of the Thesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 The Changing Historiography of the Po st Scopes Era ................................ ........................... 28 2 J. GRESHAM MACHEN, PRESBYTERIAN INTELLECTUAL OF THE SCOPES ERA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 70 John Gresham Machen (1881 1937) ................................ ................................ ...................... 82 ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 Early Warnings: The Threat of Disciplinary Autonomy ................................ ................. 88 Academic Etiquette and Attempts at the Re Integration of a Compartmentalizing Modernity ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 93 Machen vs. Fosdick: Conflicting Codings of the Future and the Past ............................ 97 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 102 style Bureaucratization ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 102 Machen on Suffrage: States Rights ................................ ................................ ............... 104 Alien Registration and Fingerprinting: European Resemblance Abhorred ................... 105 ................................ ................................ ......................... 108 Education: Differentiation as Good, Uniformity as Evil ................................ ............... 111 The Final Batt Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 115 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 119 3 DIVERSITY AND UNITY HARR Y RIMMER AND GEORGE MCCREADY PRICE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 125 Harry Rimmer (1890 1952): Self Styled Researcher ................................ ........................... 128 Defending Supernatural Inspiration: Anticipating Science in a Pre Scientific Age ..... 135 Speculation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 140 ................................ 141 the Earth ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 146 Autonomy as a Mark of the Devil ................................ ................................ ................. 154


7 George McCready Price (1870 1963): Instantaneity in Geology and Biology .................... 157 Stopping Geological Time ................................ ................................ ............................. 163 The New Geology ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 165 Geology and Genetics: Limiting Time ................................ ................................ .......... 169 Stopping Biological Time ................................ ................................ .............................. 172 Coding Race Mixing as Evolution, Autonomy and Apostasy ................................ ...... 178 4 CARL MCINTIRE AND THE CHRISTIAN BEACON APOSTASY IN CHURCH AND STATE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 182 Carl McIntire (1906 2002): Separatist Pastor and Rights Advocate ................................ .... 187 Backdrop: The Ecumenical Movement, Neo Evangelicals, and the Worldview of The Christian Beacon Newspaper ................................ ................................ ............. 198 Containing Revolutions On Many Fronts: The Beacon rst Battles ......................... 204 Ecumenism as Spiritual Adultery/Apostasy ................................ ................................ .. 207 The Seduction of the Brethren, Part One: The NAE ................................ ..................... 213 The Battle Fully Joined: Codings and Antithesis in 1954 ................................ ............. 214 A Moment in the Spotlight ................................ ................................ ............................ 224 The Ecumenical Monster Cartoon ................................ ................................ ................. 230 A Year of Transition: 1957 1958 ................................ ................................ .................. 232 A Matter of Vocabulary: Unveiling the Decepti on of the Middle Steps into Apostasy ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 232 Revolution as Seduction of the Brethren, Part Two: The New York City Crusade of Billy Graham ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 234 Revolution as Civil Rights ................................ ................................ ............................. 242 5 THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FUNDAMENTALIST WORLDVIEW ................... 245 The Beginnings of Judicial Revol ution ................................ ................................ ................ 247 From Free Speech and Race to the Rights of Religious Minorities ................................ ..... 260 Religious Minorities and the Beginnings of Organiz ed Culture War ................................ ... 267 6 ................................ ..................... 280 Carl McIntire: Forerunner of the Religious Right ................................ ................................ 282 The Christian Beacon ................................ .................... 284 1964 1965: Antirevolutionary Fervor Peaks ................................ ................................ 287 A Movement for Fundamentalist Rights ................................ ................................ ....... 289 The Third Protest: Reformed Fundamentalists as Eclectic, Independent, and Co belligerent ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 298 Francis August Schaeffer (1912 1984) ................................ ................................ ................. 299 ................................ ........................ 312 Rights Era ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 315 A Review of a Saturday Evening Post Article on the Activism of the Supreme Court ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 316 Recovering the Sole Origin of the American Legal System: The Reformation ............ 320


8 ................ 323 ................................ .......................... 325 Judicial Activism as the Beginnings of Totalitarianism? ................................ .............. 332 Rousas John Rushdoony (1916 2001) ................................ ................................ .................. 335 Hostility Toward the Enlightenment ................................ ................................ ............. 338 Christian Reconstructionism ................................ ................................ ......................... 342 ................................ ........ 344 Preserving Local Governmental Co ntrol ................................ ................................ ....... 345 Power Arrangements ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 350 7 FRANCIS SCHAEF FER AND THE RE EXAMINATION OF FOUNDATIONS ............ 358 Schaeffer on Evolution ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 367 ................................ ................................ ........ 367 The Wistar symposium ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 372 The Influence of Michael Polanyi ................................ ................................ ................. 376 H ow Should We Then Live? (1976) ................................ ................................ ... 385 A Christian Manifesto (1981) ................................ ................................ ............................... 394 8 ANTIEVOLUTIONISM AND THE RIGHTS BATTLE OF THE 1970S .......................... 402 An Arkansas Courtroom, 1981 ................................ ................................ ............................. 402 Background to the 1970s ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 406 Stages o f Cultural Displacement of Conservative Protestantism ................................ .. 407 A Sophisticated Antievolutionism? ................................ ................................ ............... 411 Fundamentalists Shift to Anticom munism ................................ ................................ .... 413 The New Left, Rights, and Interest Group Politics ................................ ....................... 4 16 Melding a Fundamentalist Worldview to Interest Group Politics ................................ 420 The Political Story: The Battle for the Mind and the Moral Majority ................................ .. 427 Timothy F. LaHaye (1926 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 437 ................................ ................................ ......................... 441 Totalitarianism Looms ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 442 The Carter Betrayal ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 443 Academic Evaluations of LaHaye ................................ ................................ ................. 448 Elmer L. Towns (1932 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 450 Guided b y Public Opinion Spikes ................................ ................................ ................. 451 Carter and Cobelligerence ................................ ................................ ............................. 454 The Academic Life and The Lord of the Flies ................................ .............................. 456 The Legal Story: Public Interest Law for the Religious Right ................................ ............. 458 John W. Whitehead (1946 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 458 Wielding the Constitution and Bypassing Enlightenment Science ............................... 463 The Network of Attorneys in Cobelligerence ................................ ............................... 480 The Ac ademic Story: Responding to the Enlightenment and the Left ................................ 486 John Morris (1946 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 487 Charles Thaxton (1939 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 488 George M. Marsden (1939 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ 491


9 9 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 499 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 500 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 512


10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 From Ken Ham, Th e Lie: Evolution (Answers in Genesis) ................................ ............... 13 8 1 ................................ ............................ 435 8 2 ion of the secular humanist world view. ................................ ............... 436


11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Phi losophy FROM SCOPES TO REAGAN: PRESBYTERIANS AND THE PERSISTENCE OF ANTIEVOLUTION By Joshua Baiju Abraham May 2014 Chair: Frederick Gregory Major: History Creationism in America as a protest about evolution in the public schools erupted three times in 1925 with the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1981 with the call for equal time for young earth creationism in Arkansas schools, and in 2005 with the Dover, Pennsylvania ry as a variant of surrounding creationism are important foundational works, the three eruptions still appear hard to discern as part of a larger pattern. Among the various entities that comprised the body known pattern cons ervative Presbyterians beginning with the story of J. Gresham Machen in the 1920s and leading up to the story of Francis Schaeffer in the 1970s. Their concern that Enlightenment thought was overtaking the legacy of the Protestant Reformation in America th rough the changes in the federal judiciary and sociological upheaval involving interest group politics demonstrated that the three eruptions of creationism were clear evidence that bursts of antievolutionist sentiment were not haphazard events. Instead, th ey were manifestations of constant Protestant


12 fear and resentment through the twentieth century of the growth of federal power in relation to the states.


13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1 1. From Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis ) By 1980 Ronald Reagan, then merely a presidential hopeful, received applause and support from fundamentalists and religious others of the New Right when he publicly undermined the status of evolution. To an audience numbering approximately ten thousand fundamentalists in Dallas, Texas, he responded to scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that


14 also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of ---from Unifying Biology by Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis science and the American Civil Liberties Union occurred in 1925, before the space age and uclear power and medicine, among many fields. But as late as 2012 Republican presidential candidates were still supportive of the idea that creationism was a valid alternative to the consensus of the scientific community. According to the Huffington Post, Texas Governor Rick Perry called evolution a flawed theory that contradicted the reality of divine creation; former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was so vocally opposed to evolution that he had over a decade earlier sponsored an amendment defending t he teaching of earth creationism among evangelicals; Mitt Romney, the eventual nominee, former Massachusetts Governor, and a Mormon, called for acceptance of both creation and evolution, as di d the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. 1 For creationists like Perry and Santorum, evolution was antithetical to belief to God and the root of many social problems that seemed to prove America had become a secular nation. The philosopher of scienc e Michael Ruse spoke for another group of Americans 2 had beco me a riddle for science. Who were creationists, and why did they survive the twentieth century so intact as to have influence in the highest corridors of American power? Were they 1 election gop candidates evolution _n_934045.html (acce ssed September 4, 2013). 2 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1982), p. 285.


15 really the opposite of intelligent and informed people as many involved in the Scopes fiasco had been portrayed by the media? Or were they something else, and did features of American social structure promote their survival at least on a limited scale? My interest in this question began with exposure to Baptist fundamentalism at a small Christian school in Southern West Virginia. The young earth creationism of Henry Morris and the Institute for Creation Research dominated the science textbooks published by Bob Jones University and Pensacola Bible College that were in use there. After going to a large boarding school close to Philadelphia for high school, I entered Yale University as a biology major in 1988, just the intelligent design movement was about to burst on the national scene. The national debate over evolution began to raise fascinating questions; e.g., why had the evangelical campus organization Campus Crusade for Christ switched sides from its previous defense of ancient eart h by endorsing Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson as he toured New England campuses promoting his book Darwin on Trial. As time passed two observations impressed my thinking abut science and religion both during a stint teaching evolutionary theory as a biology teacher and later when I entered an evangelical seminary. Firstly, among evangelicals it was the Presbyterians who exhibited the most academic orientation to the issues. Secondly, the antievolutionist leaders I was meeting were all white mal e Protestants who were politically conservative. Was there a relationship much staying power after the fiasco of the Scopes trial in 1925? Perhaps an historical study of the Presbyterian tradition could help provide answers to such questions.


16 Creationism in America as a protest about evolution in the public schools erupted three times. The first instance was in 1925 with the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The second occurred in 1981 with the call for equal time for young earth creationism in Arkansas schools. earth variety championed by evangelist and engineer Henry M. Morris si nce the 1970s that the term Americans, young earth, old earth, and intelligent design, who railed against evolution since the 1960s.) The third occurred in 20 05 with the Dover, Pennsylvania battle that resulted in the legal Interpreting these eruptions among academ ics was done initially at a cultural distance, until three historians appeared in the academy with understanding of the fundamentalist and support to equal time pro posals as the opening quotation suggests. Church historian George Marsden and two historians of science, Ronald Numbers and Edward Larson, presented respectively an evangelical/fundamentalist history since the Civil War, a history of antievolutionist inst itutions, and a history of legal developments emanating from the creation 197 0s. Marsden, Numbers, and Larson provided an important foundation upon which others


17 1992 masterwork The Creationists, for example, did not elaborate on the issue of the persistence of antievolutionist attitudes after the defeat in Arkansas in 1981. He mentioned the supportive infrastructure behind the equal time campaign, such as megachu rch pastor Timothy LaHaye, only in passing. What were the views of LaHaye and his fellow Moral Majority leaders that gave Morris so much aid? Moreover, how did the millions of antievolutionist laypeople relate to pastors compared to the scientist Morris? de novo in the 1980s without connection to historical precedents and without a relationship to the young earth gisterial effort The Creationists represents. However, the dimensions of antievolutionism require more than a account of the anxieties antievolutionists arti culated about their nation, not just their fears about the trajectory of its science. The present work began as a search for the group best suited to serve that function of articulation. The Moral Majority (created in 1979) provided an initial clue. Its leadership comprised theologically conservative Protestants who were Baptist and Presbyterian. Although the Religious Right eventually incorporated Catholics, Mormons, and Pentecostals among others, those groups do not serve as the focal point here. Henry Morris himself was a Baptist; hence it seemed logical that Baptists would emerge as the articulating group. But here a roadblock appeared as I sought in vain for a cohesive narrative about evolution among Baptists between the 1920s and the 1970s. Examina tions of Baptist archives reveal little except for an occasional attack scattered among an ocean of competing concerns. Yet when the 1970s battles came,


18 Baptists rallied to the cause of antievolutionism. Who can explain the basis for the unity of the Major ity? The Presbyterians and their cousins the Reformed were uniquely suited for this task of articulation, because they had a dual identity. They were allies of the Moral Majority but they also had the longest standing connection with the academic world, seen most visibly in the relationship of Presbyterians with Princeton Theological Seminary. The Seminary links the story nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to that of New Testament scholar J. Gresham Machen, who in the 1920s responded to the Scopes situation and led an exodus out of Princeton to found a new seminary, Westminster, in Philadelphia. From this school graduated a future leader of American fundam entalism, Francis Schaeffer. As Reagan contemplated a run for the White House in the late 1970s, Schaeffer became unique history as an American fundamentalis t transformed by contact with secularizing Europe in the 1940s; Schaeffer feared for the West and his native land. He attacked the legacy of the Enlightenment and upheld America purely as the product of the Reformation. He feared his America was evolvin g the federal judiciary was taking new powers to itself and creating law without legislative approval based on perceived sociological needs, such as the call for desegregation of schools or for the outlawing of school sponsored prayer. In a dramatic 1962 l ecture, Schaeffer blasted both the Brown v. Board of Education decision and the Engel v. Vitale Engel ruling was quintessential for all of the l ater court decisions about Roe


19 v. Wade decision, Schaeffer reiterated his 1962 perspective now in the very context he feared before as the Court continued to exte nd its role in interest group politics using the Fourteenth Amendment. The story of Francis Schaeffer and other Christian leaders of the Presbyterian tradition reveal that the three eruptions of creationism were not haphazard events, but were manifestatio ns of constant Protestant resentment of centralization of authority in the hands of the federal government to the detriment of the power of the states. Schaeffer epitomized the antievolutionist earth vie w he rallied to his defense during the Arkansas trial of 1981. Simultaneously Schaffer influenced the younger generation who later became leaders in the intelligent design movement of the 1990s. Recapitulation of the Thesis The following narrative expl ores the odyssey of conservative northern Presbyterians as they negotiated the culturally turbulent middle decades of the twentieth century. An assumption underlying the text is that these Presbyterians, like others, experienced stress on multiple dimensi ons between 1925 and 1960 and extreme stress on the dimensions of federal power, interest group politics, and Enlightenment science almost simultaneously after 1960 and have ever since, compelling the construction of Manichaean dualistic narratives about s ecular narratives serve both the purpose of reassuring the faithful that a divine order will come out of ilitating engagement in national politics. Enlightenment science was subdivided by these fundamentalists into historical science, which involved worldview, religion, and satanic forces, and experimental science, which could be accepted universally. The ex pansion of federal power which scientists clamored for remained a dream unfulfilled and a nightmare to creationists. Ultimately, evolution was to fundamentalists


20 deeply connected to the rights revolutions as well, especially feminism and the crusade for ab ortion, as well as gay rights movements. But the expansion of federal power that civil rights represented came first, and Presbyterians like Schaeffer were ready with their rejection of increased judicial authority over the states as counter to the values of a Reformational heritage understood to be the root of American government. Thus the story of antievolutionism in America after 1960 is profoundly interconnected with other dimensions of American history in this period. Chapter 1 tells the story of J. Gr esham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary and the fundamentalist respectability even with the likes of Baltimore Sun reporter H.L. Mencken, who loathed William Jennings Bryan, demonstrated that not all fundamentalists were cut of the same cloth. While refusing to aid Bryan in the Scopes trial prosecution, Machen nonetheless wrote in Christianity and Liberalism that the two views represented two separate religions. Machen was me ntored by the noted Presbyterian theologian B.B. Warfield, who was himself educated at Princeton during the heady days when Charles Hodge was opposing Charles Darwin there. But rather than choose the path of anti intellectualism that characterized later fu ndamentalists, Machen chose to utilize modern higher critical methods in a way consecrated to God. However, socially and politically Machen remained a staunch conservative very resistant to the growth of federal power in areas such as child labor and wome the state was to be feared as the usurper of local rights because he saw the centralization of education as an absolute tyranny. His conservatism clima engineering and a path to dictatorship. In the field of science and faith, Machen was more willing


21 to tolerate ambiguity than other fundamentalists, but still held that evo lution could never be truly creative. Chapter 2 illustrates the pluralism among antievolutionists between the Scopes era and the 1950s. Both Adventist George McCready Price and old earth creationist Harry Rimmer saw evolution as linked to dangerous socia l and political change. Rimmer was an apologist, who had a reputation as a rhetorical fighter as he toured the nation. He established an early form of creationist institute in the Research Science Bureau, exerting much of his energy trying to save youth from the teachings of higher criticism. Later he turned his attention to evolution as an enemy to be conquered as well. Rimmer was a Baconian in his science and avoided theorizing, choosing instead to prove how the Bible was prescient in its ability to pre dict scientific indiscernible mass of species each without either ancestor or descendant. Nonetheless, he was s chief social evil was that it promoted autonomy Price, acting as an apologist for the Adventist teachings of prophetess Ellen White, took a stricter view of the age of the earth as b eing limited to mere thousands of years and defended the older than another. Price also attacked uniformitarianism by stating the divine forces were at work at the beginning of earth history that have not acted since. Price also held that Mendelism on process to work. For Price everything in creation appeared nearly instantaneously and simultaneously. Finally Price believed in the divinely ordained superiority of the white race. Because of his bookish approach


22 sm, Price was a proto creationist and model for later individuals such as Henry Morris. The period between the Scopes trial of 1925 and the Second World War was not a time of inflexible dogmatism about the age of the earth or even biological life among fu ndamentalists. The pressures to consolidate came from extra scientific and extra theological directions only in the next three decades. Chapter 3 moves the story back to the 1930s and the northern antimodernist Presbyterians distancing themselves from Princeton Theological Seminary and founding new denominations and new seminaries of their own. The exodus Machen led was itself divisive and soon split into Orthodox Presbyterian and Bible Presbyterian parties, led by Machen and Carl McIntire respectively and connected to Westminster and Faith Theological Seminaries respectively. At the same time, a body of evangelical moderates were forming with leaders such as Machen disciple Harold Ockenga. McIntire soon proved to be a dominee ring leader who could tolerate not even a nuance of difference among his followers with his teaching. McIntire and the Bible Presbyterians expressed through their newspaper, The Christian Beacon, a fear of apostasy and compromise springing up everywhere in American culture. Ecumenism expressed among modernists in the Federal Council of Churches and the World Council of and evangelical moderates, and the civil rights movement (suspected of leading to the redistribution of private property) were others. Overshadowing all was the threat of Communism, which McIntire and his group zealously fought and imagined as bursting into the American scene daily. Wisconsin Senator Presbyterians admired and aided. A symbiosis between right wing politicians and right wing


23 pastors began in this period of the 1940s and 1950s, to reach its climax in the Reagan Revolution of that threatened along with civil rights to drag America into Marxism and away from the true God. However, in this period very little attention was paid to the evils of Darwinism as the source of these threats. Nonetheless, the theological, social and political dimensions of American life were changing in ways white Protestant fundamentalists found deeply offensive to their cultural values. Chapter 4 is an intermissi on that examines the legal dimension and how changes in the power of the federal judiciary frightened fundamentalists greatly. The Fourteenth Amendment essentially gave greater power to the federal government over the states in the name of defending the r ights of citizens, especially minorities of all kinds. Though ratified in 1868, the 1950s, as the Supreme Court began to make decisions touching the nature of free spe ech, race, ce devoid of references to God as had been commonplace in communities with Christian majorities. Suddenly white fundamentalists realized they were but one of a pluralism of interest groups jockeying for recognition by the courts. Chapter 5 returns to the story of the conservative Presbyterians in the 1960s. McIntire launched an anti civil rights and pro school prayer campaign, allying himself with segregationists like South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. The Supreme Court was a chief culprit in both d esegregation and school prayer, as far as McIntire was concerned.


24 conservative President appointing conservative justices. (In the midst of the Goldwater exciteme nt, California governor Ronald Reagan came to public notice and was published in the The Christian Beacon .) Federal control over the states was profoundly terrifying to fundamentalists in this period. Nonetheless, the national discourse about race that t he civil rights protests ignited did make a lasting mark on the followers of Carl McIntire and upon McIntire himself. Here the story takes an important turn. Believing holiness should be a church priority, Christian along with fundamentalists John R. Presbyterian colleague Francis Sch aeffer underwent a profound transformation as a result of needs of the young, the seeking, the unchurched, and the educated. Nonetheless, Schaeffer remained a fundam entalist in his theology and in his political views about the evils of federal power. But he chose to separate himself from the vitriol of McIntire in the mid 1950s. he ordered desegregation as a form of tyranny while simultaneously acknowledging its beneficial tics forbade such federal action over the states as eventually the courts would relativistically rule for causes against the


25 Schaeffer gained some inspiration for his views of the nation from an Orthodox Presbyterian named Rousas J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism which promoted the application of Old Testament civil law to American society. Rushdoony was an was hostile to the notion of Enlightenment influence upon American history. Seeing its connection to Enlightenment heresies, Rushdoony was very vocal in his opposition to Darwinism and advised Henry Morris in the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961. Rushdoony al so Chapter 6 explores the intellectu al context out of which the most recent challenges to evolution in American education emerged. It sets a spotlight on a lecture by Schaeffer about eation science and the equal time question in the 1970s, it has a special significance for revealing the diversity of antievolutionists.) In this timeframe, Schaeffer befriended a chemist and a later leader in the intelligent design movement named Charles Thaxton. Schaeffer revealed that he had read broadly about evolution and was up to date regarding recent Schaeffer dimly described the super tranquilizer, the dark solution of journalist Arthur Koestler to the tortured brain of humans created by the evolutionary process. Schaeffer celebrated the have uncovered by defining evolution as solely chance. Finally, he detailed physical chemist


26 higher order principles than could be deduced from observing the workings of physics and chemistry alone. How Should We Then Live? (1976) and A Christian Manifesto (1981) have an important place in the narrative of the culture wars of the 1970s of which equal time campaigns to include creationism in public school curriculums w ere a part. The first book the 1960s, he returned to militant fundament alism by the 1970s. He saw secular humanism as rooted in a desire for autonomy from God, and the Supreme Court as creating sociologically driven law that had no philosophical base other than relativism. With the abortion ruling of 1973 a thing of the past second book, Schaeffer made a call for open activism for an entry by reticent Christians into politics. The power of the state had grown too great and God was being erased from the public sphere. Schaeffer wrote these words just as the state of Arkansas was debating equal time for creationism in the public schools. The final chapter is a convergence of streams. The first six chapters only occasionally mention the story of indepe ndent and Southern Baptists. But the 1970s the focus of Chapter 7 were a period of alliance among fundamentalist Presbyterians such as Schaeffer and these other two parties to form the Moral Majority as well as a myriad of other vehicles for protest. Morr divides Americans into creationist and evolutionist camps, a dualism that masked t he complex dimensions of the political realities emerging as Reagan ran for office. The tactics of the New


27 Left both offend and instruct fundamentalists concerned about the direction the American family was taking. Foremost among fundamentalist leaders a re Schaeffer linked televangelists Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye. Darwinism swiftly became linked to the transformation of the family and the school by the forces of civil rights, feminism, and the gay rights cause. Fundamentalists had to create a simple their response was multi dimensional, with political, legal, and academic aspects. LaHaye wove a political story of good and evil with secular humanism and evolution at the helm of Ame new immorality. Above all was the problem of growing federal power. Jerry Falwell, in the words of his associate Elmer Towns, preached at the Thomas Road Baptist Church according to opinion spikes from polling more than direction from Henry Morris or Francis Schaeffer, but he allied with both men in cobelligerence nonetheless. For both LaHaye and Falwell, the organization of American Christian conservativ es. On the legal front, a host of young attorneys came to public attention around 1980. Wendell Bird was the crusader for equal time for creationism in schools, on the grounds that the league John Whitehead was founder of the Rutherford Institute, a religious liberties organization named after Samuel Rutherford, who linked the Reformation and climactic achievement was arguing on behalf of the state of Louisiana regarding equal time before the Supreme Court the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling maintained that creation science was a sectarian conce rn only and had substantial influence on the tactics of the intelligent design movement that Charles Thaxton along with others later led.


28 Finally, there was the academic story. Henry Morris and his group debated scientists, while Francis Schaeffer debated evangelicals like historians George Marsden and Mark Noll fundamentalism and irked Schaeffer for deciding to testify on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union at the Arkansas trial. Meanwhile Charles Thaxton as a chemist and historian of science found himself neither able to side fully with Morris nor with theistic evolutionists in the American Scientific Affiliation and chose instead to work with Probe Ministries in Dallas, an early intelligent design organization. George Marsden, as a Ph.D. with a Yale background and a history linking to the story of J. Gresham Machen, was a new kind of evangelical an academic schooled in the values of the university and represent ed a hybridization of church and academy. Thus he was unwilling to engage in the culture war tactics Schaeffer, Falwell, and the him because he could not enterta in middle categories in his warfare for the gospel. The America of the twenty first century is thus a pluralistic nation of juxtaposed belief systems, the fruit of a legal system and a federal government that neither aids nor hinders religion but claims ce their domain, and evolutionists theirs. The story of northern Presbyterians from the 1920s reveals s in the 1970s was a necessary union of ideological cousins to save a nation that they all perceived as turning to apostasy and away from its roots in the Reformation. The Changing Historiography of the Post Scopes Era After the Scopes trial of 1925, the academy, including scientists, had to wait for over forty years for their colleagues in the humanities and social sciences to take up the challenge of evaluating fundamentalism as something more than a momentary aberration worthy of caricature


29 and little else. Therefore, in the period when Darwinism became enshrined and reinserted into textbooks, between the 1920s and 1960s, fundamentalism remained veiled in mystery to most observers. The story began with the 1925 trial of Tennessee schoolteacher named J ohn Scopes, who intentionally violated the Butler Act which outlawed the teaching of evolution. The law was the result of efforts by the Anti Evolution Movement. Its champion William Jennings Bryan created a pattern for his ideological descendants of linki ng Darwinism to sinister social forces convinced after World War I tha t Darwinism was a sinister force. He had already witnessed the destructive theological effects of the European import known as modernism (especially in its manifestation in the textual science of higher criticism) upon the old time religion of evangelical Protestantism that had grounded American life with a strong faith in the miracles of Scripture. Bryan came to believe that Darwinism threatened to bring naturalism into the minds of schoolchildren by teaching them that random chance, not a loving Design er, had brought them to be. In a 1921 group of unbelievers to avoid, which included the agnostic and the atheist, Bryan is exactly the belief of most of the 3 He also bu 4 In a 1922 apologetic entitled In His Image 3 William Jennings Bryan, The Bible and Its Enemies (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportag e Association, 1921), p. 17. 4 Ibid ., p. 19.


30 obscuring God and weakening all the virtues that rest upon the religious tie between God and 5 Arming for battle, Bryan had studied two implications of Darwinism running unchecked through society: militarism in Germany during World War I and the loss of faith among college students. 6 Though Scopes was found guilty and told t evolutionism at the trial was shaped by the words of both revered defense attorney Clarence Darrow, who humiliated Bryan by putti ng the prosecutor on the stand and asking him about miracles of Scripture, and by Baltimore Sun journalist H.L. Mencken, who continued the tar and the city men who laughed at him so long, and brought him to so tatterdemalion an estate. He lusted for revenge on them. He yearned to lead the anthropoid rabble against them, to punish them for their execution upon him by attacking the very vitals of thei 7 Mencken understood a vast chasm 5 William Jennings Bryan, In His Image (New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1922), p. 88. 6 William Jennings Bryan, Seven Questions in Dispute (New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1924), pp. 146 147. See also the st udy of college students in James H. Leuba, The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological, and Statistical Study (Boston: Sherman, French, and Company, 1916); on the matter of militarism, see the two sources mentioned by Bryan in the Seven Questions citation: General Friedrich Von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War translated by Allen H. Powles (New York: Longsman, Green and Company, 1914), and Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power Larson notes Vernon Kellogg, as a prominent scientist whose reflections about German propaganda in Headquarters Nights (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1917) affected Bryan profoundly (see Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Un iversity Press, 1999,] pp. 40 42). For a view from Bryan and his wife about the events motivating the Scopes prosecution as well as correspondence, see William Jennings Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1925). 7 H.L. Mencken, H..L. Mencken, The American Scene: A Reader ed. Huntington Cairns (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 230. The section was printed originally in the Baltimore Evening Sun July 27, 1925, according to a no te provided by Mencken.


31 fundamentalism openly. The culture that it was only a matter of time before Bryan and his species would go extinct. 8 The caricature of fundamentalism as anti modern and anti science became the dominant public image of t he subculture. The media treatment proved a public relations disaster immensely damaging to evangelicalism. 9 until the 1960s. Evangelicals began to go underground as far as the urba n sophisticates of 10 In fact, three historians in the decades immediately following the trial prognosticated of authentic alarm. Stewart Co le in The History of Fundamentalism (1931) predicted an utter 11 He reflected openly about the backwardness of his subjects, whose endearment to ignorance seemed to reflect a mental instability. 12 The theme of hostile anti intellectualism apparently became the hallmark of the fundamentalist movement. In The Fundamentalist Controversy 1918 1931 (1954), Norman Furniss focused on the rejection of the insights provided by evolutio n and that 8 Ibid. pp. 228 229. 9 In 1980, George Marsden said of the Scopes to the Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture 2 nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 184. 10 George Marsden notes that in alternative to secular civilization began to grow in the form of Christian radio and colleges, among other things ( Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 194). 11 Marsden, Fundam entalism and American Culture p. 199; Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York: R. R. Smith, Inc., 1931), p. xi. 12 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 212.


32 13 But no one would be more influential among his peers in stamping the obscurantist label on evangelicals than Richard Hofstadter, Pulitzer prizewinni ng historian of Columbia University, who wrote the related works Anti Intellectualism in American Life (1963) and The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), both of which touched upon the fear based tactics of fundamentalism. 14 In Anti Intellectualis m Hofstadter set forth explicitly what today remains the orientation of many academics across many disciplines toward evangelical thought. In addition, he questioned those who would argue for the quick demise of the fundamentalist cause and saw a magnifi cation of the opposition to modernity instead. He was supremely aware of the real presence of fundamentalists on the national scene they had not gone quietly away as Cole predicted. Hofstadter foresaw inevitable confrontations between fundamentalists and secularists or 15 gious style shaped by a desire to strike back against everything modern higher criticism, evolutionism, the social gospel, rational 16 matter: the juncture between populistic democracy and old 17 The instincts indeed better than that of 13 Ibid ., pp. 199 and 212. For the quotation, see Norman Furniss, Th e Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918 1931 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1954), p. 39. 14 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 211, footnote 20. 15 Richard Hofstadter, Anti Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Knopf, 1963), pp. 117 1 18. 16 Ibid ., p. 121. 17 Ibid ., p. 128.


33 18 Hofstadter was nervous about what real powers of persuasion the fun damentalist forces possessed immediately after the Scopes trial: No doubt, the militant fundamentalists were a minority in the country, but they were a substantial minority; and their animus plainly reflected the feelings of still larger numbers, who, howe ver reluctant to join in their reactionary crusade, none the less shared their disquiet about the trend of the times their fear of the cosmopolitan mentality, of critical intelligence, of experimentalism in morals and literature. 19 The second wind fundam entalists received came from the anticommunist propaganda survival seemed based upon the support of technology and ideology, both big science and a civil religion with m ainly Judeo Christian undertones. In an atmosphere where the positions an intellectual took could be read as atheistic, and therefore disloyal, Hofstadter read a Mencken like vision into his portrayal of evangelicals most notably Billy Graham, who as Will iam Bell trial. (Riley had been a leader of the World Christian Fundamentals Association that gave impetus to the antievolution cause.) 20 It should therefore be no surprise what the spark for Anti Intellectualism in American Life was fighting the shock of McCarthyism. 21 But after the publication of Anti Intellectualism in American Life two challengers took Hofstadter to task for underanalyzing what constituted t he evangelical worldview. Ernest Sandeen and George Marsden have been among the most influential among new historians of The Roots of Fundamentalism : British and American Millenarianism 18 Ibid 19 Ibid ., p. 130. Emphasis is mine. 20 Ibid intellectualism in the evangelical tradition 21 Ibid ., p. 4.


34 (1970) defined the fundamentalist movement as specifically reactionary against the liberalizing influences of modernism. 22 The Origins of Fundamentalism: Toward a Historical Interpretation claimed that fundamentalists were rooted in a previously ignored, but recent, synthesis of Plymouth Brethren dispensationalism (a belief that God organized history into episodes with a conclusion foretold in the book of Revelation) with Princeton Seminary 23 Sandeen began by challenging the theses of h is predecessors, Stewart Cole and Norman Furniss, who had both claimed earlier that fundamentalism was merely a momentary jolt in denominational evolution soon to be forgotten. 24 Writing two decades after the rise of neo evangelicalism, Sandeen also pressed his contemporary opponents who too quickly had dismissed fundamentalism as ephemeral and obscurantist. The author was essentially defending the genesis of the movement as having a cosmopolitan character, contrary to the mocking tone of a Mencken or the conspiracy thinking of a Hofstadter: Fourth, we ought to stop referring to Fundamentalism as an agrarian protest movement centered in the South. Only by uncriti cally accepting the setting and conduct of the Scopes trial as the model of all Fundamentalist activity can such a parody of history be sustained. If one turns to Fundamentalist periodicals and conference platforms, he does not find them dominated by ill taught stump preachers or demagogues. In the nineteenth century, especially, the proto Fundamentalists were frequently men held in high esteem in their own denominations and communities. Only later in the twentieth century (if then) did Fundamentalism bec ome a phenomenon primarily of the South. Fundamentalism was not a sectional controversy but a national one, and most of its champions came from the same states as their Modernist opponents. Fundamentalism originated in the metropolitan areas of the northe astern part of this continent, and it cannot be 22 Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 5. 23 Ernest Sandeen, The Origins of Fundamentalism: Toward a Historical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Pr ess, 1968), p. 3. 24 Ibid ., pp. 1 2. See also Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York: R. R. Smith, Inc., 1931), and Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy 1918 1931 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954).


35 explained as a part of the Populist movement, agrarian protest, or the Southern mentality. 25 Sandeen heralded the rise of a new generation of scholars who were willing to take evangelical Protestantism seriou sly as a cultural fixture not to be easily shaken. George Marsden Fundamentalism and Am erican Culture particular eschatology and exegetical method did not clarify how the early, 1920s style of fundamentalism gave rise not only to the ultra conservatives of today but also to coalition of contemporary American evangelicals whose common identity is substantially 26 Marsden identified fundamentalism as the product of religious pluralism and the decentralizat ion Eugenie Scott of Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of co belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought 27 Accordin g to Marsden, the rise of neo evangelicalism seen in the success of Billy Graham and others emerged from a cultural heritage that shared some of the perspectives of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, and the like, but not the militant attitudes of the latter in relation to secular culture. The historian active after 1980 is able to note the political demographic fundamentalists represented throughout the 20 th century: mainly Northern European, evangelical Protestant, with male leadership, and de fending the heterosexual parenting of the family. 25 Sandeen, The Or igins of Fundamentalism p. 26. 26 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 5. 27 Ibid ., p. 4. Emphasis mine.


36 intellectualism drove the fundamentalist cause. Still, he acknowledged Hofstadter for providing did not mindlessly reject all intellectualism out of prejudice. 28 majoritarian rule, realized through the equalization of common and expert opinions, is echoed in Fundamentalism and American Culture 29 damentalists using Thomas orientation, compelled fundamentalists to join the battle against modernism: amentalist experience. model based on common sense. Almost all their apologetic and inter pretation of Scripture rested on this foundation. Their opponents, however, belonged to a philosophical tradition that, especially since Kant, was willing to see perception as an interpretive process. Hence they were more open to speculative theories. Th ey nevertheless considered these theories to be reliable inferences from the facts, and felt no modern scientific person could seriously doubt them. 30 perceptual model [closer to the Kantian view] took place in both the scientific and theological 31 32 28 Ibid ., pp. 199 and 212. 29 Ibid ., p. 212. 30 Ibid. p. 215. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.


37 Marsden thus demonstrated why the cultural appeal of fundamentalism had not waned, given that in the American political always been celebrated at the expense of cloistered elites. 33 After the success of Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election, historians reconsidered their understanding of evangelicals, and Marsden became their guide. The fissures that had separated academy from church cultures had been long in development, and Marsden noted that the Scopes clear that in the twentieth century, the cities, and the universities had won a resounding victory, and that the country, the South, and the fundam 34 Evangelicalism had developed an image of having a regional base in 1925 The groupings are revealing. The strength of evangelical support in the ensuing decades most often arose outside the states th at have historically developed as the academic centers of gravity for the nation (the urban Northeast ). Ultimately, the likelihood of animosity between antievolutionists and Neo Darwinians was exacerbated by their separation in physical space, by regions The secret of evangelical adaptability occupied scholars when the academy most needed interpreters for a language distant from their experience. Joel Carpenter has examined the period 20s and the Billy Graham years of the 1940s) when the movement adjusted to the shock of its defeat in Dayton. Carpenter, [fundamentalism] to a passing populist reaction 33 Ibid. p. 212. 34 Ibid ., p. 186.


38 35 Fundamentalism and American Culture his predecessor. 36 I n explaining the rebound, Carpenter suggested that evangelicals not only found their audience through making a less controversial appeal but also learned to tailor their 37 Evangelicals constructed an alt ernate civilization of Christian radio, colleges, camps, ministries, and book publishing apart from the world of the secular academy and the big city after 1925.Their exercises of free enterprise and religious freedom allowed by the Constitution surprised observers in the 1980 election. The simple fact was that academics waited for insiders to the conservative Protestant subculture to bridge the gap between church and university. Marsden (see Chapter 7) was such a person, as a member of Calvinist Presbyter ian and Reformed groups, including the Orthodox Presbyterians, a church founded by J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary in response to modernism. Similarly, Ronald Numbers, a former member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, first came to public attention in the 1980s as an interpreter of creationism. Fundamentalism and American Culture did in elucidating the general history of fundamentalism Numbers accomplished in the specific history of antievolutionism with the nationall y recognized work The Creationists published in two editions in 1992 and mands for equal time for young earth creationism in the public schools shocked the academy into 35 Carpenter, Revive Us Again p. 9. See also footnote #17. 36 Ibid ., pp. 236 237. 37 Ibid ., pp. 3 12.


39 action. 38 Numbers marveled at the sudden swing to the extreme option regarding the age of the the most conservative Christian apologists readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre included William Jennings Bryan himself 39 and the authors of the 1910 1915 pamphlet series The Fundamentals which Numbers ca 40 Thus during the Scopes era and into the 1930s, greater pluralism existed among fundamentalists about origins than the 1970s scenario might suggest. Numbers described the coexistence of old earth creationist and popular speaker Harry Rimmer 41 with George McCready Price of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose young earth ideas became the foundation of Henry rally because of Adventist teaching about the Sabbath, wrote prolifically against evolution and in defense of the billions of years demanded by uniformitariani sm. His 1923 work, The New Geology, was the when Bryan attempted to cite Price at the Scopes trial. 42 38 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists pp. 6 7. 39 Ibid ., p. 7. 40 Ibid ., p.53. 41 Ibid ., p. 76. 42 Ibid. pp. 89 90 and 98.


40 The humiliation of fundamentalism the Scopes encounter r epresented might have been the end of public agitation against Darwin. However, the unseen and unacknowledged networks likely would be remembered as merely the product of a very small Christian sect had not he met a young Henry Morris. After Price and other antievolutionists attempted to organize the Religion and Science Association in the late 1930s, that organization fell apart by 1937 due to differences among members about the age of the earth. 43 The Deluge Geology Society was an attempt to learn from the past and create a more homogeneous group of young earth creationists, including Price; it lasted until 1947. Most importantly, Morris joined the group and la ter became an engineering graduate student at the University of Minnesota who considered writing a dissertation about flood geology. 44 Numbers claimed that Henry Morris and theologian John Whitcomb repackaged Pricean flood geology partly in response to ano perceived liberalism/compromise with mainstream geology and biology. (See Chapter 2). Numbers was focused on the birth and flourishing of institutions connected to Morris. He followed the birth of the Creation Research Society in 1963 45 Creation Research (ICR) springing from an earlier organization, the Creation Science Research Center, created in 1970 and associated with Christian Heritage College in San Diego, a project of Timothy F. LaHaye (1926 ), w ho was a close friend of Jerry Falwell during their co founding of the Moral Majority as a political organization in 1979 (see Chapter 7). 46 Young earth creationism also found fertile soil with the Australian Kenneth A. Ham who rose to prominence 43 Ibid ., p. 134. 44 Ibid ., p. 140 and 159. 45 Ibid ., p. 255. 46 Ibid ., p. 313.


41 within IC R and eventually founded a sister organization, known as Answers in Genesis, in Kentucky in 1994. 47 ) articulated an argument for giving equal time to creationism in the public schools. 48 Numbers skillfully tracked the In 1992, Numbers gave the academy the most researched accoun t of American fundamentalists who lived in the cultural space between mainstream science and conservative Protestantism; The Creationists has stood the test of time as a document of the history of religious apologists with advanced science degrees who saw science only in terms of service to resurgence of young earth creationism as a phenomenon among the general population of fundamentalists in the 1970s, Numbers ma de some claims that need examination. century creationism, little knowledge of formal science and 49 d developed into a nation of neighbors in close proximity with sharply conflicting worldviews in places such as university towns in the South. Furthermore, fundamentalists close to Henry Morris like Tim LaHaye had enough political pursuit of the White House in 1980 and enough understanding of the publishing market to sell 70 million books about end times biblical prophecy in the 1990s and howev er was a common set of assumptions about reality disseminated for thousands of years 47 Ibid ., pp. 365 and 400. 48 Ibid ., p. 351. 49 Ibid ., p. 369.


42 among billions of people, assumptions that the Abrahamic faiths held in common though some particulars arose from the history of Protestant Christianity specifically, as t he evidence will Fundamentalism and American Culture did the field of history find a scholar able to bridge the ps ychological and sociological gap between the world of fundamentalism and the secular university. Thus, first of all, there are dimensions to fundamentalist success that Numbers ignored because he was not seeking to understand the multiple dimensions of fun damentalist anxiety after 1960, anxiety into which the narrative of creationism eventually fit with the equal time battles after 1980. For example, on the critical matter of politics, Numbers saw the issue as a secondary or tertiary add on to the core mat ter of religious apologetics. Commenting upon occasional comments by creation scientists in the Creation Research Society about social debates 50 Numb ers, pages before, mentioned a figure famous in fundamentalist organization, as an apologist for the old time gospel to the secular mind. McDowell was noted for writ 51 In some sense, as the interview with with apologetics he was a Josh McDowell with an engineering doctorate. But wh at about the Morris matter in the fundamentalist activism of the 1970s? 50 Ibid ., p. 370. 51 Ibid ., p. 316.


43 churches, Christian schools and colleges, Numbers is probably right. But then he considered narrower issue of why increasing numbers of creationists shifted from ac commodation to 52 He took note of the re entry of evolution into textbooks, ot examine what the leaders of the Religious Right were thinking in the years after 1960, partly because of the scope of his project and the emphasis on creationist institutions and their leaders. 53 With regard to the ascendancy of flood geology at the expe nse of old earth creationism and theistic evolution, Numbers credited science doctrine, which did away with the ambiguity about science that options like an old earth position suggested. 54 But since Numbers gave no historical connection between the intelligent design movement (ID) and the 1960s, ID seems to appear almost de novo in the 1980s and included old contemporary incarnation dates from the mid 55 He mentioned Charles B. Thaxton (1939 ) as an early leader of ID, b ut no predecessor. In fact Chapters 6 and 7 will show that antievolutionism always had multiple faces among American fundamentalists old and young 52 Ibid ., p. 370. 53 Ibid 54 Ibid ., p. 371. 55 Ibid .., p. 373.


44 earth proponents coexisted in the 1960s. As a Baptist, Morris spoke for the latter and gave creationism a public visibility and an organization. But it was a Presbyterian, Francis Schaeffer, who discipled young evangelicals like Thaxton to consider fighting Darwinism but from an old earth viewpoint that was culturally overshadowed by the glamour and publicity campaign in the 1970s. direction of the Moral Majority was concerned. Thus Morris may not have cared much for politics, but others most certainly did. What is thus needed is a history of fundamentalist pastors group. T he dimensions of fundamentalist concerns and anxiety between the 1925 Scopes trial and 1980 equal time battles are several, many beyond the scientific domain. Scholars have contributed to the growing discourse into which the story of creationism can fit. N rights and restrictions [that] have applied to the teaching of evolution and creation in American Trial and Error: The American Co ntroversy Over Creation and Evolution first published in 1985 and updated in 1989 and 2003. 56 Beginning prior to the Anti Evolution Movement of the 1920s which resulted in some states enacting antievolution statutes, Larson depicted the changing structure of legal interpretation about the origins issue across the twentieth century. But Larson did not discuss the role of race in the resistance of fundamentalists to the Brown v. Bo ard 56 Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution 3 rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. vii.


45 of Education Chapters 5 and 7 will show how Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell, as Presbyterian and Baptist respectively, reacted to federal commands to desegregate schools and to make school sponsored prayer illegal as essentially two manifestation s of big government tyranny. In tandem with the legal facets of the creation evolution struggle, the work of sociologists Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (1991). Increas ing degrees of cultural and religious pluralism in American life from the colonial period to the present have created a veritable galaxy of allying the result o f immigration by Catholics and Jews beginning in the 1830s, but that the new century. 57 However, the doors were about to open to more than just the religions of Abraham : Hunter argued that the second half of the twentieth century demonstrated a widening of what pluralism meant: that the major rift is no longer born out of theological or doctr inal disagreements as between Protestants and Catholics or Christians and Jews. Rather the rift emerges out of a more fundamental disagreement over the sources of moral truth. 58 Hunter understood that evangelicals from the nineteenth century onward champio The Fundamentals for 57 James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Redefine America (New York: Basic Books, 1991), pp. 69 71. 58 Ibid ., p. 77.


46 seven anti 59 Repeated ly noting the contribution of next generation fundamentalists Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell, Hunter claimed that the protests of conservative Christians in the 1970s and beyond were multi dimensional, touching five realms: family, education, media and the a rts, law, conspicuous field of conflict in the culture war. Some would argue that it is the decisive little doubt that the issues contested in the realm of family life are central to the larger struggle 60 Close behind was education. Hunter acknowledged that the Scopes trial was a turning point in education, but he made clear that it had evolution debate is really only one component of a much more comprehensive conflict that has taken shape over the content of public 61 the seemingly one dimensional battle between Enlightenment science and Reformation religion the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in the 1930s in response to Presbyterian modernism 70s gay rights battle of an OPC church in San 59 Ibid ., pp. 82 83. 60 Ibid ., p. 176. 61 Ibid ., p. 197.


47 ist and his supporters [who] charged discrimination on the basis of sexual 62 Hunter failed to mention that the lawyer aiding the church was John Whitehead, a ought to restore America to what he understood to be its Reformational heritage. Furthermore, Whitehead partnered with Wendell Bird and many other Christian attorneys in the 1980s as an arm of the Religious Right (see Chapter 7). ist, William Martin, echoed the theme of culture war but chose an episodic treatment that began in the 1940s with the story of Billy Graham. In With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (1996 and 2005)he moved from Graham to Richard others. Martin like Hunter talked at length about family issues being at the center of funda mentalist concern in the 1970s, but his book lacked a clear argument from start to finish, its segmented construction reflected in the PBS television series based on it. Christopher P. Toumey brought anthropological insight to the question of creationism in (1994), in which h e examined both the national movement as well as a local example of an activist group in North Carolina. He calls 63 (Toumey was writing during the birth of the intelligent design movement but did not mention it earth creationism generally.) He noted t hat creationists were intelligent people aware of their cultural 62 I bid ., p. 5. 63 Christopher P. Toumey, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994), p. 2.


48 a rote exercise in biblical literalism, and that the source of creationism is ignorance of sc 64 Because the problem of modern creationism is more complicated, more subtle, and more interesting than is ordinarily supposed, I propose to approach it by seeing creationism as a system of cultural meanings about both immorality and science that helps fundamentalist Christians make sense of the realities, anxieties, changes, and uncertainties of life in the United States in the late twentieth century. As a system of meanings about immorality, creationism offers a series of theories that allege that the idea of evolution is intimately involved, as cause or consequence or both, in the moral disintegration of modern U.S. life. These feelings about immorality are the common stock of fu 65 a baptism as legitimately scientific, could be invoked to enhance the appeal and provide a cloak of legitimacy. 66 Toumey explored the belief system motivating creationists thoroughly. He made a convincing argument for three model s of science in competition in America the Protestant model that utilized nature for religious apologetics, the secular model based upon the European would unlock 67 Speaking of the period between the 1925 Scopes trial and 64 Ibid ., p. 5. 65 Ibid ., p. 6. 66 Ibid ., p. 7. 67 Ibid ., p. 15.


49 Sputnik event in 1957, he declared that evolution had not won over many Americans by that poi nt: Even if the idea of evolution had practically unlimited credibility among U.S. scientists, it was poorly understood and not necessarily believed by most of the public. And so it was not the secular model of science that won the hearts of most people i n the middle decades of the twentieth century, but rather the trivial 68 Toumey noted the interconnection of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, which stated that specialized knowledge could mislead when the facts of nature were evident to all people, and the reducing tendency as both Common Sense and the Princeton Theology 69 These ideas had enormous importance for fundamentalism in the 1920s and up to the present as it confronted the advances of science. The tendency to doubt the value of theorizing and sp eculative structures made skepticism about Darwinism acute. Such a skepticism also created a divide between historical science and experimental science in the minds of fundamentalists that did not exist for the participants in Enlightenment science. A wa r between cultures was brewing. During the middle third of the nineteenth century, many U.S. scientists turned toward the secular model of science. Their change of heart was not a conscious rebellion against the Protestant model. Rather, it was a conseque nce of the that time, the role models for U.S. scientists in the mid nineteenth century, were Europeans, most of whom embraced the secular principles of the Enlightenment, which recognized an important role for theories and hypotheses. 70 68 Ibid ., p. 27. 69 Ibid ., pp. 16 17. 70 Ib id ., p. 18.


50 With the re entry of Darwinism into high school textbooks in the 1960s, creationists developed a narrative about evolution and the destruction of America. Toumey noted that there was a stron g independent Baptist presence among the creationists, citing Henry Morris, and pastors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell. 71 Their foe was secular humanism, which appeared to them to be a unified anti Christian force visible since the 1950s. Attitudes about se xual freedom beyond Judeo Christian restraints, the increase in divorce, the availability of birth control, the new judicial lenience toward pornography, and the outlawing of school prayer and Bible reading were all indicators that America was falling into apostasy. 72 humanism, informed by the thesis of a lawyer named John Whitehead, eventually an ally of Francis Schaeffer, centered around the concept of complete autonomy from God, and presumably, fundamentalist truth about Go d. 73 homosexuality, drug addiction, abortion, and giving away the Panama Canal to Communists. The cumulative product was a low 74 However, there was a design to and white dualism made LaHaye and the Religious Right ready to engage the dualism of Republican Democratic politics in the 1970s. Finally, a particular understanding of evolution colored the As Secular Humanism is said to be a process by which autonomy generates anarchy, so evolution is accused of promoting this process by implying that 71 Ibid ., p. 56. 72 Ibid ., pp. 78 79. 73 Ibid ., p. 82. 74 Ibid ., p. 82.


51 ra evolution into that theory requires one to represent it as a celebration of randomness: evolution is described in terms of its stochastic features, especially mutation. 75 Such a in tandem with stochastic forces. 76 But framing evolution as chaos fit the n arrative the Religious Right was building about the moral chaos of America in 1970s. Creationism helped 77 system thick with symbols unknown to outsiders comes closest to the purposes of the present work, though he does not explore the road from Charles Hodge of the Princeto n Theology to Francis Schaeffer as a Presbyterian ally of independent Baptists such as Falwell. Nonetheless, Two works of politi cal science provide additional dimensions to the understanding of the creation In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (2007) applied social movement theory ightful efforts of 75 Ibid ., p. 91. 76 Ibid ., p. 92. 77 Ibid ., p. 265.


52 78 Lienesch showed the same sympathy to creationists by looking at the linkages among ideas, activism, organizations, and strategies. 79 Importantly, he stated a com 80 an insight the present work will attempt to utilize in treating six decades of dialogue that occurred first among Presbyterians and then between Presbyterians and Baptists ab out America and academic learning. Lienesch reflected on the resilience of creationism by making a comparison to work done The studies also suggest some of the means by which activists have managed to adapt to changing circumsta nces, including (1) the construction of institutions or the forming of new groups and transforming of older ones; (2) the development of issues especially critical concerns that can initiate a resurgence of protest and solidarity; (3) the establishment o f overlapping connections between movements, in strategies and goals that allow them to respond to changes in the political and ontinue, they must constantly be re creating themselves. 81 Creationist activists exemplify all four of the means Lienesch identifies. 1. Institutions. In the Scopes era of the 1920s, the World Christian Fundamentals Association championed the cause; in t he 1970s, the Institute for Creation Research did. During the decades intervening, other institutions such as associations, fellowships, and independent churches and individuals such as George McCready Price and Harry Rimmer formed a bridge between the two periods of high 78 Michael Lienesch, In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (Chap el Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007), p. 4. 79 Ibid 80 Ibid ., p. 7. 81 Ibid


53 activity. 82 as the shocking revival of evolutionary teaching in the public schools in the 1960s. 83 3. Con rged with the cause of the Religious Right and supporters [in televangelists LaHaye and Falwell], as well as access to their millions of 84 4. Strateg ies. First with the help of law student Wendell Bird, creationists tried to protest that their rights were being violated in the rights oriented 1970s. 85 When Bird and other attorneys failed to win a hearing for creation science in the public schools as a matter of the free exercise of religion according to the First Amendment, a new group of creationists known as the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling for allowing a diversity of opinion about ori gins within the science classroom. 86 Here Lienesch mentioned the involvement of Charles B. Thaxton, a Christian chemist, but did not 87 Still, Lienesch concluded that there was more continuity have developed an elaborate critique of evolutionary theory, attacking it with an arsenal of 82 Ibid ., p. 201. 83 Ibid ., p. 205. 84 Ibid ., p. 212. 85 Ibid ., pp. 209 210. 86 Ibid ., p. 220. 87 Ibid


54 theolog 88 it takes creationists seriously as an American social phenomenon. In (2010), Pennsylvania Stat e political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer focused on the decisionmaking power of teachers as the pivotal aspect of the differential in evolution education from school district to district nationwide. The scientific community appeared out of touch both with the local teacher and the historical context in which he/she operated, and instead maintained an attitude of complete confusion. Scientists are at a loss to understand how so many educated Americans believe that creationism should be accord comprehend why evolution occupies such a marginal place in the high school biology curriculum and why it continues to be controversial today. How is it on? 89 The authors contended that judging the controversy as merely an intellectual debate between Protestant theology and Enlightenment science is insufficient and distorts conclusions: But a disagreement about ideas is not sufficient to account for the a mazing durability of this conflict on the American scene. A more complete explanation for why the conflict continues to exist must account for politics should govern 90 A complex pict ure of teaching and teachers in the twenty first century emerges. The authors called the creation inevitable clash. The 1920s were the critical moment American Protestantism split into fundamentalist and modernist wings, science continued its professionalization begun in the late 88 Ibid ., p. 229. 89 Michae l Berkman and Eric Plutzer, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 1. 90 Ibid


55 nineteenth century, and expansion of public schooling brought scientific ideas to the masses. 91 Moreover, national politics has absorbed the polarization between conservative religion and modern science. This conflict has been further institutionalized within the American party system. We have noted that three serious Republican candidates for president in 2008 acknowledged that they do not accept evolution. On t he other side, antifundamentalism has found a home in the Democratic Party. Thus as the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized along social, cultural, and religious lines, the issue has mapped comfortably onto this cleavage. 92 The a uthors point to a problematic feature of the American system that greatly civil rights 93 The authors saw the creation evolution controversy as a stable and massive conflict that had become institutionalized as part of the American landscape and sho wed no signings of diminishing in the future. 94 They conclude that ultimately the teachers decided what is presented to students, but that the teachers nationwide were sharply divided themselves, with one fifth teaching straight Enlightenment science with a missionary zeal, one fifths stepping away from the controversy by minimizing evolution or avoiding it altogether. 95 Thus the history 91 Ibid ., p. 215. 92 Ibid ., p. 216. 93 Ibid ., pp. 216 217. 94 Ib id ., p. 217. 95 Ibid ., pp. 219 221.


56 and politics of education in this country have essentially made impossible the uniformity scientists assume American public schools will pursue in imitation of their European makes this work a valuable contribution. Finally, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age a 2011 polemic against fundamentalists att empting to reshape the academic world in their image, pitted two Eastern Nazarene College professors against their theological cousins. Historian Randall J. Stephens and Physicist Karl W. Giberson unabashedly blasted fundamentalist attempts to reshape sci ence and history, to dismiss the findings of secular psychology, and to promulgate end times prophecy. ular experts at leading children. 96 the public schools and jettisoned a t raditional, God honoring, and patriotic curriculum for one 97 Christian leaders like creationist Ken Ham and end times writer Tim LaHaye have challenged the secular Goliath with conservative Christian s cheering such defiance of the 98 96 Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011), pp. 2 and 4. 97 Ibid ., p. 4. 98 Ibid ., p. 5.


57 99 In their description of the amateurish character of Christian leaders rewriting American history to preserve a distinctly fundamentalist vision, Stephens and Giberson mentioned Franc How Should We Then Live self How Should We Then Live pretended to be actual histor 100 Nonetheless, the book was a million seller, and the popularity of dualistic history in which the Christian God triumphs along with the faithful had immense appeal. The Anointed set a tone for evangelicals in the acade my who wanted to create as much distance between themselves and popular fundamentalists as possible. But still in 2013 the phenomenon of conservative evangelicalism, or fundamentalism, has as much strength as ever. The fundamentalist response to evolution must be considered in light of the larger fundamentalist response to America changing in multiple dimensions between 1925 and the 1980s. Three creationism: indepen dent Baptists, Southern Baptists, and the Presbyterian Church in America. northern Presbyterian story leading from J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Semina ry Fellowship in Switzerland in the 1960s represented the long lasting contact between fundamentalists and the academic world. Therefore the Machen Schaeffer linkage has been chosen deliberately to illustrate that not all fundamentalists tracked with every jot and tittle of 99 Ibid., pp. 11 and 18. 100 Ibid ., p. 78.


58 time threw Schaeffer and Morris together after 1980. Understanding creationism as an American p henomenon did not occur prior to the 1980s, and only then with the help of historians, political scientists, sociologists, and one anthropologist. But between the Scopes era of the 1920s and the decade of Reagan, scientists made their move to sequester bio logy away from supernatural causes. A review of how this sequestration occurred the mathematization of nature that the Enlightenment project represented. The D arwinists who offended Henry Morris and Jerry Falwell were of a far more robust and assertive kind than Bryan had denounced in the 1920s. Because no consensus of biologists existed in the early 20 th t primarily understood to be the result of natural selection. Borrowing a phrase from the biologist Julian Bowler claimed the eclipse temporarily 101 Nonetheless, in the years of the eclipse, there was a series of options that permitted real room for the spiritually minded to maneuver aro evolutionism, orthogenesis, mutationism, and Lamarckism were all developmental schemes by which the work of a Creator could be manifested. 102 age that defen ders of materialism had not yet proven their case in biology. One famous evangelical, Princeton theologian B.B.Warfield, chose theistic evolutionism as a way of avoiding 101 Peter Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), p. ix. 102 Ibid ., pp. 7 8.


59 val of the Livingstone has pointed out. 103 According to Livingstone, Lamarckism created considerable latitude for people of faith. [that] impelled evolutionary history ever onward and upward, 104 There was much more flexibility even among respected scientists to question Da 105 The success of Darwinism over its rival theories would create the environment for a much sharper conflict with creationism. The project of reductionistic science had always been to prove that supernatural causes were superfluous to explanation. Biology thus became a fu lly mature and enlightened science only when the Neo Darwinian synthesis expelled other options from the table. For the biologists at the forefront, the language of conquest and unity and dissemination occurred throughout this quiet revolution to change A merican education, and one unintended consequence would be an immense clash with another culture motivated by the same issues --the fundamentalists and evangelicals who were weathering their own eclipse between the Scopes fiasco and the 1950s. 103 David Livingstone, : The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1984), p. 117. 104 Ibid ., p. 54. 105 Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism p. 5.


60 The hour of this momentous cultural clash would be the 1960s, when the evolutionary synthesis was in its maturity and the Goldwater campaign sowed the seeds of the future Religious Right. What these evolutionists did not realize was that a culture unseen by them fram ed their public image as purveyors of deception to Christian laity. That culture held to the evangelical worldview as various subcultures united to save what they understood to be a disintegrating America, an adulterous New Israel. In the ivory tower, the creationist resistance consistently reiterated the soundness of Enlightenment science as a method and little more, failing to speak to the larger chaos of the 1960s and the decade to follow. The language of Neo Darwinism has become subject matter for historians of science. According to Betty Smocovitis, the synthesis was a gradually building tidal wave in the first half of the twentieth century, created by external pressures from the accomplishments of the physical sciences, feats fo r which the life sciences had no comparable answer. 106 Biology at the time but a disorganized potpourri of disciplines collectively known as biology. The call for a Genetics and the Origin of Species leadership were the turning points that finally set natural sel ection in the same central location Smocovitis described how heated historical debates about the nature of the evolutionary 107 She pinpointed the 1930s and 106 Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20. 107 Ibid ., p. 19.


61 disciplines of biology to interact from field studies, to laboratory experiments, and mathematical modeling of selection, to name a few. 108 109 The birth of evolutionary biology as a unifying discipline was the result. However, the synthesis itself created tensions among workers of different fields. Joseph physiology and cytology physics); as these laboratory workers dared to 110 Cain noted however that some field and museum workers quickly accommodated the winds of change, like George Gaylord Simpson, who meshed the new emphasis on quantification with the discipline of simulta neously. 111 Another process thus began to take place as the structure of the synthesis changed again at first, the synthesis had been focused merely on matching the mathematical aspects of other sciences, but secondly it had become important to achieve what Cain termed 108 Ibid ., p. 20. 109 Ibid 110 Joseph 1936 Isis 84 (1993): pp. 16 17. 111 Ibid ., p. 18.


62 cooperation and the maintenance of Darwinism in its central place. 112 Regardless of these initial tensions, enough had been successfully resolved that e volutionists celebrated the triumph of Darwinism at the University of Chicago at the Darwin Centennial of 1959. 113 on materialist presuppositions. In the nineteenth century the theory of natural selection became competition, as Darwin sought to demonstrate why certain adaptations endured and others failed, according to John Maynard Smith 114 In the twentieth century the single most important event behind the eventual conquest of natural selection was the reconciliation of Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. This union effectively ended the eclipse of Darwinism in the 1940s. Until then, th eistic interpretations of evolution that allowed for a God active in nature still had some limited place within what was considered respectable academic discourse, because a veil of mystery remained. Until the Neo Darwinian synthesis, biologists lacked pro of that selection was at work at the level of deeper physical realities. Supporters of Darwinism had no physical locus around which to build credibility for their view --that is, until the 1920s when the concepts of genes and chromosomes provided the conc rete particles upon which selection could act. The success of the Neo Darwinian synthesis essentially occurred away from public view, next four decades, as experts 112 Ibid ., p. 19. 113 Smocovitis, Unifying Biology p. 23. 114 John Maynard Smith, The Theory of Evolution (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1958; reprint, 1977), pp. 30 32.


63 accomplishment. Vitally important to the understanding of creationism is the fact that the key activities that became the glue of Neo Darwinist community occurred far outside the reach of Southern culture and religion, in Northern urban centers and university environments. Smocovitis cited the Princeton conference of 1947 along with the creation of the Society for the Study of Evolution and a journal, Evolution as key events. 115 The success of the disciplinary forging process was so complete that another celebratory conference was organized, the Darwin Centennial Celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959. But even more important was the timing of this particular meeting, because the post Sputnik environment created the perfect milieu for a re invasion of the anti evolutionist South: The special anniversary was also an opportune time to transmit the same synthetic theory and the restoration of Darwinism to American high school teacher s in the hope of keeping the increasingly hostile hoards of American fundamentalists at stated emphatically in the title of a paper directed to American high school teachers. 116 It may win strong federal support, but the threat of nuclear war no doubt helped motivate lawmakers toward pragmatically meeting the need of the hour and outpace the Soviet Union. 117 Leading historian of creationism Ronald Numbers said of the and technology by pouring millions of dollars into im 118 115 Smocovitis, Unifying Biology pp. 21 22. 116 Ibid ., p. 2 School Science and Mathematics 59 (1959): pp. 304 316. 117 Ibid ., p. 23. 118 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 265.


64 come. The long delay in readdressing Southern education is important because the time lag reveals that the federal government was m otived to act not merely to promote science but also for national survival. Furthermore, it was clearly the widely acknowledged success of the physical sciences in technology and warfare that led the way, with the biologists riding their coattails, back i nto Southern classrooms. Nonetheless, the consensus of biologists became clear by the 1970s. The Neo Darwinian synthesis grew into such a potent explanatory paradigm that the limited and focused nature of the controversies that followed illustrated how th oroughly it had persuaded. Smocovitis described a series of workshops in 1974, organized by Ernst Mayr, involving the former participants in the synthesis project and a volume Mayr coedited with historian of science Will Provine, entitled The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology that also incorporated the testimony of ex participants. Both the workshops and the book demonstrated that evolution was anything but a disputed fact, nor was selection disputed as its driving force. T he main question was instead what discipline could take the most credit for the success of the synthesis --119 The vocabulary of the life sciences was now fully naturalistic. The days of Pal eyan natural theology, theistic evolutionism, or Lamarckian inner forces were over as far as the gatekeepers of the new biology were concerned. The end of Lamarckism as a potential peacekeeping force between science and theology pointed to the victory of n aturalism that made biology a rigorous science by disenchanting it. This result was one of the most important yet quiet revolutions implied by the success of Neo Darwinism, because science declared finally that a supernatural agent was unnecessary to the 119 Smocovitis, Unifying Biology pp. 29 30.


65 e luous. Lamarckian inheritance received its answer in Neo Darwinism. Genes were quantifiable entities through that new variations could endure over time, deflecting the concern that an inevitable blending effect arising from sexual reproduction would wash out innovations. 120 But how would Darwinism answer its chief competitor, Lamarckism, which suggested that a fe edback loop existed between genes and environment such that acquired characteristics (such as increased muscular strength) could transfer to offspring. There was a real need for an empirical means to adjudicate between these theories. In the late ninetee nth century August One leads by cellular division and differentiation to the individual body, or d which is mortal. A hence to the next generation. Thus the germ line is potentially immortal; Weismann held that it was also independent of changes in the soma. 121 It took several decades before this conclusion made, on the macrocosmic level, could be information can flow from nucleic acids to proteins, but cannot flow from pro tein to nucleic 120 Smith, The Theory of Evolution p. 46. 121 Ibid ., p. 66.


66 122 The feedback loop thus became an untenable hypothesis, and the success of Darwinism was the indirect result of the inadequacy of its rival. Neo Darwinism won because its competition was unable to explain the data as thoroughly. Ag ain the vocabulary carried with it presuppositions of the adequacy of naturalistic explanations. That language became understood as modern, i.e., testable and quantifiable, and therefore morally superior in the interests of humanity. The language of the r evangelicals inevitable. The 1960s was a fleeting golden age for the teaching of evolution, sandwiched be tween the Darwin Centennial and the rise of creation science organizations in the 1970s. The situation created by the Centennial made public what the culture and value system of biology had been behind the scenes. At this point Southern anti evolution stat utes dating back to the Scopes era still remained in place. But now university science was about to retake lost territory through the synergy of the intellectual accomplishment of the Neo Darwinian synthesis and a federal government under Cold War induced pressures. A three volume set edited by Sol Tax and Charles Callender documented the Centennial conference and related events, one of which is noteworthy for the televised comments of Sir --the most important 123 needed. Since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for 122 Ibid 123 Evolution After Darwi n: The University of Chicago Centennial Discussions vol. 3, Issues in Evolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 42.


67 a supernatural agency in its evolution 124 After centuries of mathematization had tamed the heavens and then the earth, the remaining bit of ground for supernaturalism in nature, organic life, Huxley declared lost. In many ways, Huxley was a new H.L. Mencken --an intellect bent on illuminating American culture. He was absolute in circumscribing what counted as intelligent discourse. In response to a religious objection about the evolution of mind, Hu xley noted that 125 The Neo Darwinians argued that human nature arose from below, emerging from the rest of nature, whereas the evangelical teaching from Genesis held that humanity was set apart from rest of nature by being uniquely created in the image of the Creator. Biologists saw their field as distinct from other sciences. Ernst Mayr himself was quick to recognize that evolutionary theory demande d a new category of evaluation sensitive to the limits of historical evidence, one that sciences. Evolutionary science, unlike physics, involved the explanat ion of unique occur rences. 126 Nonetheless, Mayr saw biology as still completely explained through naturalistic principles that allowed for its apparent non ical visions of nature. 127 human beings summarized the aspect of evolution that creationists found most offensive --the homogenization of all living things: 124 Ibid ., p. 46. Emphasis is mine. 125 Ibid ., p. 45. 126 Ernst Mayr, This is Biology: The Science of the Living World (Cambrid ge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 64. 127 Ibid ., p. 187.


68 concl years later Huxley, Haeckel, and others firmly established the principle that there was nothing supernatural about the origin of human beings. No longer isolated from the rest of the liv ing world, Homo sapiens and its evolutionary history had become secularized into a branch of science. 128 The sequestration of humankind for a special destiny had been at the core of historic Christianity for centuries. No longer the crowning achievement of special relationship to its maker, humanity was displaced into a set of lateral relationships with other creatures. That concept, understood by evangelicals to create the means for autonomy from God in a post 1960 world, that saw itself as seemingly liberated from absolute truths in the Bible, along with national educational policies that implied the growth of federal power, set the scientific and fundamentalist communities on a collision course. The present work seeks to expand th e terrain from the map given by Ronald Numbers, persistence. Rather, Morris and Whitcomb sat in a context of pastors of cobelligerent denominations who were deeply worried about America. The Presbyterian leader Francis twentieth century. As Schaeffer and the like minded leaders Carl McIntire and Rousas J. Rushdoony encountered th power structure, which they had believed earlier had favored the forces of the Protestant Reformation. Antievolutionism found new life in the 1970s because this spreading anxiety about Am erica was articulated by a chorus of conservative Christian leaders, of which Schaeffer was the clearest. Thus the concerns of Presbyterians leaving Princeton Seminary under J. Gresham 128 Ibid ., p. 227.


69 ation. Fears among this group accumulated in waves over the next five decades, from religious liberalism, to ecumenism, to neo evangelicalism, to Communism, to civil rights, and eventually to church and state issues into which antievolutionism was integra ted. The preservation of the traditional only one of many competing concerns, including abortion and homosexuality; in fact, wn supporters was maximized when the spread of evolution was connected philosophically to the destruction of the family, as the opening cartoon from Answers in Genesis suggests. The Presbyterians are the weavers of this narrative of destruction over the d ecades from the Scopes trial of 1925 to the Arkansas trial of 1981. Therefore it is vitally important to trace their worldview and response to social issues over these decades, which the following argument attempts to do.


70 CHAPTER 2 J. GRESHAM MACHEN, PRESB YTERIAN INTELLECTUAL OF THE SCOPES ERA If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else as well. --J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary, testifying at congressional hearings on a proposed federal depart ment of education, February 1926 The Roaring Twenties was a decade of confrontations. The First World War had shocked many in the devastation left behind, and social forces in urban centers were calling into question the Victorian traditions of the small town. Legal showdowns served as clarifying moments in an age of uncertainty. The decade also saw the Presbyterian scholar J Gresham Machen attempt to stem the tide against the forces of secularism he saw threatening America. The campaign led by William Jennings Bryan to outlaw the teaching of evolution in the public schools was another effort to identify and root out what was going wrong in America. militaristic l ust for power during the war, but was also part of a secular educational system threatening to strip Christian youth of their faith. Historian Edward Larson details the impact of Headquarters Nights (about German views) and James H. Leuba The Belief in God and Immortality (about the secularization of the academy) upon the Great Commoner. 1 The antievolutionist drive to stop the spread of Darwinism in the public schools succeeded in the State of Tennessee in the form of the 1925 Butler Ac 1 Edward J. Larson, Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Pre ss, 1999), p. 40 41. The full citations are Vernon Kellogg, Headquarters Nights (Boston: Atlantic, 1917) and James H. Leuba, The Belief in God and Immortality (Boston: Sherman, French, 1916).


71 theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach 2 The participation of a high school teacher, John Scopes, as a test case defended by the American Civil Liberties Union to question the legality of the Butler Act, set up a classic confrontation between the astute legal mind of Clarence Darrow and that of the politician and telling of the cultural event now known as the Scopes trial cast evangelical Protestants as reactionary voices in the wilderness, when in reality the context of the controversy was obscured by the public melee Bryan and Darrow had engendered. for approximately fifty years prior to the trial. Fundamentalism was hardly the monolithic entity the papers depicted. Bryan had recruited diverse thinkers for the trial, two of which declined to show, namely the Seventh Day Price defended a rec ent creation of the earth (within a few thousand years), whereas the Scofield Reference Bible popular among fundamentalists since 1909 had advocated an old earth, and Bryan himself admitted he accepted the concept of Genesis days as eras. 3 Ronald L. Number s 4 2 Tennessee House Bill 185 (1925). Cited in Larson, Summer for t he Gods p. 50. 3 Larson, Summer for the Gods p. 189. 4 L. Sprague de Camp, The Great Monkey Trial (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), p. 402. Cited in footnote 4 in Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design Expanded edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 89.


72 On the other hand, Machen was respected by the chief satirist of the Scopes episode, H.L. Mencken, 5 In the midst of the obvious diversity the term fundamentalism represented and the confusion of the trial, the narrative chosen by reporters was the simplest --Bryan versus Darrow, creation versus evolution. It was a winner take all struggle. This outcome neither revealed the complexity of fundamentalist anxiety nor served to predict the reality of fundamentalist survival. The purpose of thi journey as a guide to understanding fundamentalism at its most intellectually durable. Fundamentalism becomes comprehensible in light of its antithesis, modernism, and in light of the relation of each to the unp recedented pressures of the nineteenth century upon historic Protestantism in America. After the Civil War, forces of alienation and of secularization threatened to undo Christian civilization. George M. Marsden notes how Victorian ideals of civic order immigrants, together with rapid industrialization, created virtually insurmountable urban 6 Bradley J. Longfield comments that the proportion of the American population living in cities jumped from twenty percent at the time of the Civil War to fifty percent by 1920. 7 In addition, an increase in immigration had the result that made up over one century 5 Baltimore Evening Sun, January 18, 1937. Cited in D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism i n Modern America (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994), p. 3. 6 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture 2 nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 21. 7 Bradley J. Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalis ts, Modernists, and Moderates (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 15.


73 Anglo Saxon and non Protestant nations. 8 Changing demographics mean t the development of two American experiences --that of the pluralistic city and of the monocultural small town. Alienation and accompanying anxiety were the natural results for native Protestants. America was not only industrializing, it was globalizing, and the new threat posed by the study of comparative religions was to put Christianity on an equal level with other faiths and in contact with historical forces. 9 However, problems were erupting even within previously Christian institutions as secular tre nds became the norm. European ideas involving the evolution of life and the scientific study of biblical texts (known as higher criticism) were at work transforming American thought as early as the 1890s. 10 There was a related impact on institutions, wh ere the German university model and the rise of scientific positivism and historicism were among the forces that culminated research. Further, secular business interests simultaneously freed many schools from dependence on denominational funds. 11 Two divergent responses to the forces of alienation and secularization became known as fundamentalism and modernism respectively. The former resisted these changes and labeled them as anti Christian; the latter accommodated and where possible assimilated them as contributions to the transformation of Protestantism. The clash between fundamentalists and modernists ultimately would demonstrate two very different approache s to tradition and 8 Ibid ., p. 16. 9 Ibid ., p. 14. 10 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture pp. 25 26. 11 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy pp. 16 17.


74 persistent accent on the immanence of God in human culture, the goodness and value of humanity, the moral interpretation of the atonement [a s a lesson from Christ rather than a salvific act], and the importance of experience, feeling, and ethics in religion [as opposed to the doctrine 12 confidence in the n history and an apologetic thrust. 13 But never were such features made part of a unified creed for diverse, and changing federation of co belligerents united by their fie rce opposition to modernist 14 The battles between the fundamentalist and modernist camps went through two stages: a period of building frustration before World War I and a series of clashes --in cluding that over evolution --after the war. 15 Although fundamentalism was a multi denominational movement, according to Marsden the activities of the Northern Baptists and Northern Presbyterians (Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.) are especially important as each held substantial numbers of conservatives and liberals within its organization. 16 A critical shock in the first stage was the defection of Charles Augustus Briggs, professor of languages at Union Seminary in New York. Longfield comments that Brigg s in an 1891 speech attacked the inerrancy doctrine directly 12 Ibid ., p. 19. 13 Marsde n, Fundamentalism and American Culture pp. 3 and 6. 14 Ibid ., p. 4. 15 Ibid ., p. 6. 16 Ibid ., p. 165. Marsden comments that Southern Baptists and Southern Presbyterians were overwhelmingly conservative and thus gave modernism little sway.


75 17 The 1893 asse mbly of the PC USA voted to remove Briggs and re articulate its commitment to inerrancy. 18 This moment represented an early warning of the battle to come, as Union Seminary would part with the PC USA as a result. 19 resulted in a 20 Two significant statements came from the fundamentalist side prior to the war. Between 1910 and 1915 The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth was a privately financed pamphlet series sent to approximately three million people. 21 Marsden identifies the series as a public coming out for the fundamentalist cause. 22 Its content included traditional concerns such as the doctrines of salvation and missions but also a strong rebuttal to higher cri ticism. But two 23 A second declaration emanated from the PC mad e it mandatory that ministerial candidates affirm a five part statement in which the that all candidates for ordination should be able to affirm the inerrancy o f Scripture and the 17 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 23. 18 Ibid 19 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 117. 20 Numbers, The Creationists p. 41. 21 C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 19 76), p. 18. See also Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 21. 22 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 119. 23 Ibid ., p. 120 and 122.


76 virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and miracle working power of 24 By the 1920s fundamentalists of varied denominations would hold up these four of these five statements as a creed. 25 As an important sidenote, premillenial dispensationalism as a view of the end of the sovereignty of God in human history. Premillenialists hold that Christ's return to earth occu rs before a 1000 year reign prophesied in Revelation and that both events are in the future, out of human hands. By contrast, postmillenialists make human choice paramount by placing the fulfillment of Revelation's battle of good and evil in the present ag e, with Christ's return that they reflect polar opposite views of the value of human agency in light of divine power. According to George Marsden, premillen ial dispensationalism is one of the defining intellectual contributions of fundamentalism as it reacted to the perceived failure of postmillenial thinking to prevent secularization in America. Marsden claims the heyday of postmillenial thinking among evan gelicals ended with the Civil War, when the success of America economically and scientifically was baptized as God ordained. When liberalizing tendencies began to downplay the supernatural component in postmillenialism, premillenial dispensationalism thriv ed as a reaction. Strongly Calvinistic, the perspective minimized human agency and found its modern prophet in John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren. Dispensations were seen as divinely bounded episodes that segmented human history leading to Christ' s eventual victory over evil. The view was in large measure a fruit of Princeton Theology and the doctrine of the inerrancy of 24 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 25. 25 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 1 17. He claims that the fifth regarding miracles was later substituted with premillenialism.


77 Scripture. C.I Scofield popularized this view in his 1909 Scofield Reference Bible Marsden sees this view of history as anti h umanist and anti developmental. which humans are the key agents play little if any role. Rather, humans participate in a larger cosmic struggle, the details of which have been planned and often revealed in advance." Dispensational ism reflected an essential pessimism about human improvement and an other worldly focus, whereas postmillenialism was engaged with present social problems. 26 The Scofield Reference Bible was not only widely popular but its views added diversity to the antie volution movement in that it allowed for an old earth via a gap of indefinite time between the first two verses of Genesis. 27 Numbers puts the sales of the Scofield Bible at around ans who shared the 28 However, prior to the clashes of the 1920s there were not only doctrinal but practical aspects to the genesis of fundamentalism. There was a turning away from matters of institu tional 29 The identification of the Social Gospel with modernist theology would be inevitable as the former tended to obscure the importance of 26 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 63. See also pp. 5, 44, 46, 49 52, 54, and 119. 27 Ibid ., p. 119; Numbers, The Creationists, p. 60. 28 Numbers, The Creationists, p. 60. 29 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 91.


78 personal salvation in favor of meeting human needs. 30 Finally, the Social Gospel prioritized institutional over individual evil, using tactics of collective action rather than focusing upon personal sin. 31 Ano ther related characteristic of fundamentalism was a strong unwillingness to fellowship in ecumenical contexts. As the Federal Churches of Christ, founded in 1908, was essentially a fruit of the Social Gospel movement, it automatically came under scrutiny by fundamentalists. 32 In addition, after the First World War, conservatives were quick to attack the Interchurch World Movement as a humanitarian counterpart to the League of Nations. 33 According to D.G. Hart, Presbyterian intellectual J. Gresham Machen ha d a strongly negative assessment of the IWM as an arm of liberalism steering Christians away from concerns of eternal 34 Nonetheless, to counter the interdenominational strength of modernism, fundamentalists of diverse traditio ns united under the banner of the World Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) in 1919. William Vance Trollinger, Jr. recounts the failed culminating with a campa ign against Darwinism in the public schools in the early 1920s. 35 By that decade modernism had achieved a presence in America that shocked the fundamentalists in the Presbyterian camp. In 1923, J. Gresham Machen was unequivocal in 30 Ibid ., p. 92. 31 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 20. 32 Ibid ., p. 20. 33 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture ement sought to consolidate all of the missionary agencies of American Protestantism into a single effort to fulfill their common The Presbyterian Controversy p. 26). 34 D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservati ve Protestantism in Modern America (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994), pp. 74 75. 35 William Vance Trollinger, (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), pp. 37 40, 44, and 56.


79 Christianity and Liberal ism that two different faiths were locked in conflict. In The Faith of Modernism Shailer Mathews, the dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School, defended The use of scientific, historical, social m ethod in understanding and applying evangelical Christianity to the needs of living persons, is Modernism 36 uman activity; i.e., understanding scripture was an ongoing process of recognizing the circumstances behind past and present contexts. 37 Hence the essence of scripture was given greater weight over its accuracy, and the supernatural became less of an empha sis. Marsden agrees: When Mathews said that Christianity was scientific and empirical he had something vastly different in mind from what Machen meant when he said the of th e scientific thought of the day, was that ideas and beliefs are not mirrors of external reality but products of the mind shaped by natural evolutionary and cultural developments. Thus religion was not based on static or standardized objective knowledge of God, but rather could best be understood as a social or historical development. Christians had faith that God indeed was acting in history, but they knew of him only through human religious experience which changed as society changed. 38 Therefore, moderni sm represented the exact opposite of the doctrine of the Bible as a static entity which had come to be a foundational principle of fundamentalism. As the needs of the present moment came into conflict with the desire of some to preserve tradition, confron tation was inevitable. 36 Shailer Mathews, The Faith of Modernism (New York: MacMillan Company, 1925), p. 35. Emphasis is 37 Larson, Summer for the Gods p. 34. 38 Marsden, Fundamentalism a nd American Culture p. 176.


80 Baptist named Harry Emerson Fosdick in a New York Presbyterian pulpit, that moment of clash came. Fosdick called for liberty among Baptists and Pres byterians, and cast the fundamentalist wing of each denomination as agents of intolerance. He challenged the fundamentalists to consider the impact of modern learning upon the interpretation of the Bible, e.g. the scientific mind could not easily accept t he doctrine of the virgin birth. 39 Longfield observes that Fosdick 40 Fosdick believed that the Christians of his era had no choi think our modern life clear through in Christian terms, and to do that we also must be able to 41 Accordin g to Robert Moats Miller, principles was to attack both the doctrines of inerrancy and of the second coming of Christ (in addition to the virgin birth) and to seek a w ide dissemination of his ideas. 42 In addition, Marsden notes that Fosdick had already unified his cause with that of science by debating William Jennings Bryan about evolution in the New York Times 43 Fosdick represented an aspect of modernist arguments fun damentalists found particularly hard to challenge --a stand taken for the liberty of interpretation. His position was quintessentially Baptist but also connected to the 39 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 10. 40 Ibid 41 A Preaching Ministry: Twenty One Sermons Preached by Harry Emerson Fosdick at the First Presbyterian Chur ch in the City of New York, 1918 1925 ed. David Pultz (New York: The First Presbyterian Church in the City of New York, 2000), pp. 191 192. 42 Robert Moats Miller, Harry Emerson Fosdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 116 117. 43 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 171.


81 tolerance posed a grave threat. The 1923 General Assembly of the PC USA was a referendum on modern ideas, evolutionary teaching in Presbyterian schools, the assembly vot ed instead for a far milder 44 This outcome demonstrated to what degree antievolutionism would be a sectarian crusade beyond the concern of denominational hierarchies. However, the c to challenge the modernism represented by Fosdick. The assembly voted to reaffirm the 1910 concept of revelation that Fosdick championed. Bryan took heart that the fundamentalist crusade was still alive and well in the PC USA. 45 liberty. This group composed a response to the cree dal actions of the Assembly in 1924, a document that popularly became known as the Auburn Affirmation While the signers agreed that believing that these are n no block to fellowship. 46 al statements handed down by the assembly without a vote from the presbyteries violated the 44 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy pp. 73 74. 45 Ibid ., pp. 74 76. 46 Affirmation : A Critical Narrative of the Document Designed to Safeguard the Un Iowa, 1967), pp. 397 399. Cited in Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 79.


82 47 With over 1200 signers, the Affirmation was a gauntlet thrown down to question the validity of the domineering fundamentalist faction. Har Affirmation made all doctrine theory] was an argument that Machen opposed vehemently. From his perspective, the Affirmation revealed the telltale flaw of liberalism, that of ma king theology independent of and secondary to 48 revealing a third party in the situation --moderates. 49 For J. Gresham Machen, fighting modernism was a lifet ime battle. Dealing with moderates at Princeton Theological Seminary was however highly problematic and ultimately his conscience led him to found a new school. Machen also addressed modernism in the missions field by creating a separate missions board, a n action that pitted him against the denomination itself. For Machen, separation became a necessary tool in the arsenal of weapons to fight modernism, but his methodical approach differed greatly from the outbursts of his fundamentalist colleagues --a fac t that reflected his upbringing and his academic exposure. Still, his championing of libertarian values foreshadowed the arguments of the Religious Right. However, his views of science involved nuance and detail, reflec ting an academic orientation that would later be obscured. John Gresham Machen (1881 1937) John Gresham Machen was born into wealth and privilege in a house steeped in Southern well as future U.S. 47 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 78. 48 Hart, D efending the Faith p. 116. 49 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture pp. 180 181.


83 President Woodrow Wilson. 50 Presbyterianism in which Scottish Common Sense reasoning dominated. According to heologian in the same way 51 Scottish Common Sense realism, in understand the physical universe and huma 52 Mark regarded truth as a static entity, open equally to all people wherever they lived, in the present or 53 Common Sen se reasoning and the commitment to Calvinism which undergirded it Machen chose a classical education at Johns Hopkins in 1898 for his undergraduate experience. 54 After graduation he struggl ed to find a sense of direction, and Machen later matriculated at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1902. As an exemplary student and member of Phi Beta Kappa, Machen graduated with two degrees, a B.D. from the seminary and an M.A. in philosophy from the university. 55 identity as a Southern Presbyterian as well as with the Common Sense reasoning he had been 50 Hart, Defending the Faith pp. 13. 51 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy pp. 34 35. 52 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 25. 53 Mark A. Noll, ed. The Princeton Theology 1812 1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Warfield (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 31. 54 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 15; Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 39. 55 Russell, Voice s of Fundamentalism p. 136; Hart, Defending the Faith p. 20.


84 trained to value. 56 scholarsh ip, at the German universities of Marburg and Gttingen. Entering Marburg in 1905, Machen faced one of his greatest intellectual challenges in the ethicist whose chief accomplishment was to redefine Christian faith as a moral, not dogmatic, 57 worldview divorced the historicity of Jesus from the ethics of Jesus. 58 Furthermore, Lo ngfield 59 In his writing about Herrmann, Frederick Gregory suggests that Herrmann refused to engage in a dialogue about the warfare between science and religion because he denied the realms could ever have overlapping interests. 60 In addition, striving for a reconciliation was likewise a futile act. 61 Here Herrmann took a cue from his teacher Ritschl, who made a stron g separation between the realms of faith and science. 62 Ritschl argued that faith and science diverged as science could offer no information about ultimate meaning without disregarding the scientific method that had made it successful. 63 The end result was t hat a teleological explanation 56 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 40. 57 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 21. 58 Ibid 59 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 41. 60 Frederick Gregory, Nature Lost: Natural Sc ience and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 202. 61 Ibid ., p. 203 62 Ibid., p. 204 63 Ibid., p. 209


85 could not be derived from scientific work. 64 Herrmann would claim that science and metaphysics had no point of contact. 65 Gregory notes that contradictory ideas were a necessary part of science but rejected in the metaphysica l realm. 66 But Herrmann also separated metaphysics and theology by claiming that uncertainty in the real world clashed with the religious belief that value could be assigned to the parts of creation. 67 For Herrmann, the core of Christianity lay in its moral structure, not its metaphysical claims. Gregory illustrates the creation of the world should be articulated without reference to God. 68 of fac conservative theologians. To Herrmann, miracle applied to the realm of faith and the per sonal view of the universe but not to the natural world. He opposed trying to significance of the New Testament miracles was not that they were objects of faith but that they directed for themselves. Herrmann even included the resurrection among the events whose supernatural aspects were not intended as objects of faith. The natural order was the object of cognition and scienc e; it was not to be confused with the realm of faith. 69 The Presbyterian worldview demanded a tight correspondence between facts as concepts and realities in the natural world in order to defend the claims of miracle in the Bible; rated the realms of nature and theology so totally as to make such 64 Ibid ., p. 210. 65 Ibid ., p. 213 66 Ibid., p. 214 67 Ibid., p. 215 68 Ibid., p. 245 69 Ibid ., pp. 254 255.


86 that it increased the struggle within Machen. 70 At Gttingen, amidst New Testament studies Mach en also realized a gap existed in conservative scholarship that demanded immediate remedy in order to answer the challenges of liberalism --his life calling grew more certain. 71 Machen returned to the United States in 1906 to take up a post at Princeton tha t began a relationship of twenty three years as he moved from instructor to professor of New Testament. 72 youth for two reasons. First, as a Presbyterian and an int ellectual he was mentored by several seminary professors, preeminently among whom was the noted biblical scholar Benjamin B. Warfield. Here Machen found his bearings again regarding the supernatural Christianity of his past and the means to defend it. 73 Sec ondly, the history of the seminary had provided an atmosphere supportive of such conclusions. Princeton Theological Seminary had been well known as a bastion of Scottish Common Sense realism. The teaching of theology at Princeton therefore became a matte r of the cataloguing of facts as opposed to speculation. 74 Two of the the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture to counter the impact of higher criticism. 75 In e ssence, this argument stated that the original autographs of the Bible were free from human error and 70 Hart, Defending the Faith pp. 21 22. 71 Ibid ., p. 23. 72 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 138. 73 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy pp. 43 45. 74 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 40. 75 Noll, ed. The Princeton Theology p. 26.


87 fully divinely inspired. 76 Machen rebounded with such confidence after his turmoil in Germany that he gave two addresses that warned of a coming battle wi th modernism: in 1912 he urged a consecration of all academic disciplines under a Christian banner, 77 and in 1915 he countered Christianity. 78 Machen set an example as a Christian leader fully engaged with scholarship. He used higher critical methods to defend the historic faith. In (1921) he examined claims that the Christianity of Jesus and that of Paul were grossly dissimilar and disconne cted in time; The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930) looked at the authenticity of claims of the miraculous. His 1923 Christianity and Liberalism stood as the best intellectual characterization of fundamentalism in contrast with liberal Christianity. Machen b ecame involved in the struggles of seminary and denominational life. His political views, as will be seen below, were consistently conservative. His understanding of the critical issues in science during the Scopes era prevented him from taking the polemi cal approach of Bryan; a persistently academic orientation had imbued Machen with a sense of etiquette and self limitation the Great Commoner lacked. While Machen offered leadership in the 1930s to a subset of Presbyterians who would later add their streng th to creationist fervor, his total legacy was complex and requires examination by stages. 76 Ibid ., pp. 218 219. 77 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p.46; Hart, Defending the Faith p. 31. 78 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p.48.


88 Early Warnings: The Threat of Disciplinary Autonomy Machen warned of a coming storm even as early as 1913 in The Princeton Theological R eview address. Making the case that God ought to be sovereign over all of life, Machen refused to separate the life of the mind from the life of the spirit, as many, including fundamentalists, destruction of one or the other of the contending forces? A third solution, fortunately, is possible -79 T he remainder of the article read like a battle manual for the Reformed as each coming wave of secularization threatened to displace Protestant orthodoxy from the centers of influence, whether ecclesiastical, academic, economic, or political. One particula r section was a critical element of a Reformed worldview --the assumption that human learning was not to be perceived as one among many autonomous, separated compartments of activity but as part of an integrated whole. The very notion of disciplinary auton omy apart from the taming and harnessing power of divine revelation was understood by Machen as ultimately blasphemous: Furthermore, the field of Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought in to some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. 80 79 ted from Princeton Theological Review 23, (January 1913). 80 Ibid ., p. 6.


89 81 The time was s 82 the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical 83 direct influence 84 He concedes that a new materialism might be the culprit, but immediately states that the real core of the f most strongly felt in the universities, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least it is out of connection with Christianity. The chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the 85 He then comes to the crux of the matter --modernity requires compartmentalization of human activities, and Christianity forbids such segmentation of the world: The vast majority of those who reject the gospel do so simply because they know nothing about it. But whence comes this indi fference? It is due to the intellectual atmosphere in which men are living. The modern world is dominated by ideas which ignore the gospel. Modern culture is not altogether opposed to the gospel. 81 Ibid 82 Ibid ., p. 7. 83 Ibid 84 Ibid ., p. 10. 85 Ibid


90 But it is out of all connection with it. It not only preven ts the acceptance of Christianity. It prevents Christianity even from getting a hearing. 86 In other words, the Enlightenment project of making the divine superfluous to human endeavor, which had already overtaken the rest of the formerly Christian world, now had within the last decades come to threaten the bastion of Reformation faith, the United States. Machen faced a series of challenges simultaneously. First, the university had secularized. rsities were the intellectual greenhouses of the nation, the cultural apostasy had to be stopped there or it would not be 87 However, disciplinary separation posed another problem. As Hart states, to intellectual life concerned knowledge and culture. At the seminary, however, these airtight compartments were unaccept 88 According to John Higham, there was significant resistance to intellectual specialization became dependent on the skills of others. 89 However, he c ounts the end of the nineteenth century as the last stand of those who attempted to resist the inevitable shift toward specialization. 90 Therefore, the implications for Machen become clear when one considers that Scottish Common 86 Ibid ., p.11. 87 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 46. 88 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 30. 89 The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860 1920 ed. Alexandra Oleson and John Voss (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979,) p. 4. 90 Ibid ., p. 5.


91 concept of specialization. Nonetheless, Machen remained committed to the concept of consecration in all activity, i.e., rather than follow many fundamentalists in rejecting the contributio n of secular disciplines, Machen sought to harness the academic world in the service of the sacred. For example, in 1915 at his installation address at Princeton Theological Seminary, he argued for a pattern of using higher criticism to defend orthodoxy. 91 Machen articulated the position he sought to dismantle: The true essence of the Bible [interpreted with modernist lenses] is to be found in rence whether the history is real or fictitious; in either case, the ideas are the same. It makes no difference whether Abraham was an historical personage or a myth; in either case his life is an inspiring example of faith. It makes no difference whether Moses was really a mediator between God and Israel; in any case the record of Sinai embodies the idea of a covenant between God and His people. It makes no difference whether Jesus really lived and died and rose again as He is declared to have done in the Gospels; in any case the Gospel picture, be it ideal or be it history, is an encouragement to filial piety. In this way, religion has been made independent, as is thought, of the uncertainties of historical research. The separation of Christianity from h istory has been a great concern of modern theology. It has been an inspiring attempt. But it has been a failure. 92 This process of division between the real and the fictitious denigrated the core of the faith, as far as Machen was concerned, because the co re of the faith was essentially not ideological but dependent on actual events. Other faiths declared ideas as truths, but Christianity, Machen believed, was a body of ideas centered around supernatural contact in past happenings and persons. However, mode rnists sought to domesticate the faith by sifting its broadly appealing ethical content apart from its exclusivist claims based on supernatural revelation. 91 printed from Princeton Theological Review 13 (July 1915) : pp. 337 51. 92 Ibid.


92 faith for t 93 To deal with Christ, they reconceptualized the four at 94 The future of religion in academia was set: The duty of the historian is to separate the two --to discover the genuine human traits of the Galilean prophet beneath the gaudy colors which have almost hopelessly defaced His portrait, to disentangle the human Jesus from the tawdry ornamentation which has been hung about Him by nave and unintelligent admirers. 95 This controversial agenda divided liberal from conservative Ch ristians with long term effects. At the moment Machen demonstrated the restoration of his faith from doubts that had a rebuttal of the claims of Wilhelm Herrman n that history could be effectively divorced from devotion to Christ. 96 Machen was not alone in lamenting the loss of universal truths. According to J. David Hoeveler, the New Humanist movement, contemporaneous with Machen, pushed for a re elevation of the humanities generally and attacked the popularity of dismissing universals for the pleasure of fads, intellectual and otherwise. 97 93 Ibid ., p. 6. 94 Ibid 95 Ibid ., pp. 6 7. 96 Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy p. 48. 97 J. David Hoeveler, Jr., The New Humanism: A Critique of Modern America, 1900 1940 ( Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1977), p. viii.


93 and the humanities, and it was an integrated vision that motivated him to discuss th e Apostle Paul and the virgin birth doctrine using higher critical tools. Academic Etiquette and Attempts at the Re Integration of a Compartmentalizing Modernity Maturing as a scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary in the shadow of Warfield in the lat mannerly engagement in the midst of dissecting critics. Respected by foes and supporters of the inerrancy doctrine, Princeton had remained a bastion of orthodoxy as the twenties began and had become the scholarly wing of an otherwise populist fundamentalist movement. But the record of the outside world and the need to defend super naturalism. In two scholarly works for which he became famous, (1921) and The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930), Machen employed higher critical methods, demonstrating that the continued relevance of the Christian faith depended on accepting the rules of the game. He preferred to adopt the etiquette of discourse to the dismissive ways of the polemicist. Ferenc Szasz clarifies the defining characteristics of the new field of higher criticism: like any other piece of literature, using the methods of 98 The result of this shift from literalism to criticism was a new application of scientific thinking to 99 Szasz notes the counterargument to historical studies was the inerrancy doctrine of Princeton Theological Seminary, championed by Charles 98 Ferenc Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America, 1880 1930 (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1982), p. 33. 99 Ibid ., p. 34.


94 Hodge and later Machen. 100 101 Most importantly, Mach en believed that the supernatural basis of New Testament Christianity was still legitimately arguable by these new rules. In Machen on the first page declared that there were two groups at war within the Church over the importance of the manner of life founded upon a message --102 In making this latter case, Machen employed the tools of his trade to strike down several to a dangerous, on naturalistic principles, to bring Paul into c ontact with Jesus. For if he is brought into contact with Jesus, his witness to Jesus will have to be heard. And when his witness is heard, 103 Secondly, he took on those who ar 100 Ibid ., p. 35 36. 101 D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith, p. 37. 102 J. Gresham Machen, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1947), p. 3. 103 Ibid ., p. 207.


95 myth of a dying and rising saviour 104 He also considered the matter from the perspective of a potential cross pollination between Judaism and paganism: It is exceedingly difficult, therefore, to suppose, in defiance of the Jewish sources, and in the mere interests of a theory as to the genesis of Paulinism, that the Pharisaic Judaism from which Paul sprang w as imbued with a mystical piety like that of the mystery religions or of Hermes Trismegistus. 105 Paul with a resurrecting savior god --he cites an example from Eg yptian texts. 106 But, at the 107 Furthermore, the Egyptian resurrection stories were 108 The purpose behind all of these defenses was to re establish the link between supernatural and natural using the new indices of proof; higher criticism posed no serious threat to orthodoxy if wielded correctly. Hart elucidates the nature of the debate over Pauline texts in s omehow transformed by Paul into a god. 109 104 Ibid ., p. 211. 105 Ibid ., p. 256. 106 Ibid ., p. 314. 107 Ibid ., p. 315. 108 Ibid 109 Hart, Defending t he Faith p. 48.


96 and Machen was compelled to re 110 In The Virgin Birth of Christ one finds the same strategy: a body of Biblical texts that had become the target of skeptical higher critics could now return to its rightful place, using the he idea of Christ having been born without a biological father? Could the ancient texts withstand the scrutiny of the higher critic? Machen strove to answer all objections to this the most controversial of all Christian doctrines in a scientific age, in wh ich the laboratory not the chapel was the source of truth. Machen sought to the doctrine of the virgin birth originated. In the first place, even if there were no earlier testimonies, the very fact that at the close of the second century there was such a remarkable consensus among all parts of the Church would show that the doctri ne was no new thing, but must have originated long before. But as a matter of fact there are earlier testimonies of a very important kind. 111 incarnation emerged with the first century church and was not a later accretion or worse, such as a syncretistic product of Christianity and another belief system. Taken together, and The Virgin Birth of Christ formed a symmetrical defense of the essenti al doctrines of Christianity as a supernatural faith able to stand one that employed a three step set of maneuvers. In step one, presuppositions determine d the 110 Ibid ., p. 50. 111 J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930), p. 3.


97 range of possible answers --and it was clear that German higher critics assumed a more limited range than Machen, confining their universe to naturalistic causes and effects only. In step two, the process of elimination came into play when analyzing texts and historical concepts. In step three, Machen had not ruled out the supernatural within the realm of the possible but also accepted the idea of naturalistic outcomes as well. In other words, Machen believed his range of possible answers demonstra ted his mind was more open than that of the Germans. For this reason, he decried the methods of the new age as anti intellectual. His method mirrored the higher critics, but his presuppositions freed his imagination in terms of which conclusions were scientifically verifiable that in fact made them look more biased to Machen. Finally, there was a lingering ambiguity about the impact of higher criticism upon the Chris tian religion as a whole. As Szasz comments, suddenly the common person was being told that real understanding in the field of religion was a domain that belonged solely to experts. 112 This was a substantial leap from the Common Sense worldview, and yet Mac admission that the world had changed and even conservative Christians had to adjust to a degree. Machen vs. Fosdick: Conflicting Codings of the Future and the Past was not limited to the seminary cloister but controversy, with Harry Emerson Fosdick on the opposing side. Fosdick was a militant Baptist with a wide audience. Mache n, according to Robert Moats Miller, had already written off Fosdick as early as 1916 for preaching what appeared to be another religion altogether. 113 Miller 112 Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America p. 40. 113 Robert Moats Miller, Harry Emerson Fosdick p. 114.


98 also noted a reply Fosdick made in The New York Times campaig 114 famous polemic was yet to come. Defining modernist Christianity was a straightforward m atter for Fosdick. His language of cultural evolution as a result of innovation in science and comparative anthropology reached a crescendo of enthusiasm: --new knowledge about the physical univ erse, its origin, its forces, its laws; new knowledge about human history and in particular about the ways in which the ancient peoples used to strangely similar ways in which developed everywhere. 115 In light of naturalistic presuppositions he could not avoid, Fosdick questioned the most basic doctrines Machen and other fundamentalists held dear. On the virgin birth of Christ, he clai med a legitimate defense for the plurality of divergent perspectives on a heated issue. If it of the Christian church would go some of the best Christian lif e and consecration of this generation 116 Likewise the doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible static and mechanical theory of inspiration 117 114 Ibid ., 115. 115 A Preaching Ministry p. 191. 116 Ibid ., pp. 195 196. 117 Ibid ., p. 196.


99 Finally, he proposed that a breakthrough in human thought had occurred and that a threshold in religious perception had been crossed: Consider another matter upon which there is a serious and sincer e difference of the ancient world had ever thought, as we do, of development, progress, gradual ey thought of human history as a series of ages succeeding one another with abrupt suddenness. 118 worldly suffering and moral darkness. How to relate the will of God with notions of development and progress as human life and institutions advanced was the essence of the divide between Fosdick and the Reformed represented by Machen. of science at the conclusion requires citation in full, as it seems to encapsulate so much of the battles in decades to come. Ministers often bewail the fact that young people turn from religion to science for the regulative areas of their lives. But this is easily explicable. Science treats a have seen, so far. Come, study with us! See what we al ready have seen and then you imagine any man who is worth while turning from that call to the church if the from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance 119 The promise The underlying assumption here was that the doctrinaire positions of the fundamentalists would 118 Ibid ., p. 198. 119 Ibid ,, p. 202.

PAGE 100

100 pass away with time as young people realized that at stake was not just scie ntific discovery but the breaking of unjust bonds upon the whole of their lives. question is not whether Dr. Fosdick is winning men, but whether the thing to which he is 120 Machen went on full attack, claiming the historical facts of miraculous events such as the resurrection of Christ grounded Christianity, not opinions and ethical statements ready made for a new world. This shocking alterat ion was an offensive development that had to be reversed: But the religion of Dr. Fosdick and of the great host of Modernist preachers in the Presbyterian church and in other churches, is not really a redemptive religion. It regards Christ as the Founder o f Christianity not because he redeemed men by paying the price of sin, but because He was the initiator of a type of religious life 121 This evolutionary moment in Christianity would therefore create a new faith far removed from 122 To a scholar s uch as Machen who had spent his life defending orthodoxy, the goal of the modernists appeared to be the one thing intolerable to a believer in the The eradication of the basic need for salvation from sin and eternal condemnation allowed modernists such as Fosdick to re forge the belief system in an era friendly way, with 120 ed to the Christian Work December 13, 1924, Vol 117, no 524, p. 686. 121 Ibid 122 Ibid

PAGE 101

101 regarded the Cross only as an inspiring example of self 123 124 Machen sarcasticall y concluded that its joyous development of existing human resources; whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken and contrite spirit, and begins with the cons 125 At the end of his argument, Machen assailed Fosdick for transforming Christ from the a leader, but not in any real sense of the word a Saviour; he has love for Christ but not trust in 126 intellectualism, a pragmatist ske 127 possibility of the supernatural out of hand. Machen exemplified the ability to question modernist assump tions without the bombast and vitriolic style of fundamentalists epitomized by William him to leave Princeton Theological Seminary to found Westminster Theologica l Seminary in 1929 and to leave the PC USA denomination to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. But his reputation as an academic and front line fighter for fundamentalism can obscure 123 Ibid ., p. 687. 124 Ibid 125 Ibid 126 Ibid ., p. 688. 127 Ibid

PAGE 102

102 taken stands on social issues that marked him as a conservative politically. Religious Right. style Bureaucratizatio n The rise of bureaucratic regulation involved a shift in worldview that a leader like Machen would have found difficult. Machen longed for another world that according to Robert H. Wiebe had passed away by the 1920s. Wiebe points to a transformation of America from a bureaucracy played important regulative functions. 128 The social rules of the small town could not meet the problems of urbanization, as individuality fade d into the background and aggregates became more visible. 129 watchfulness and mechanisms of co 130 One casualty of this new orientation was that the moral behavior of one person became less important compared to the actions of the mass. 131 bureaucratic approach posed a serious challenge. A secondary effect would be the development of sociologically based legal decisionmaking rather than recourse to absolutes. 132 Legal definitions changed as bureaucratic structures recontextualized groups of people beyond the 128 Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877 1920 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1967) p. xiii xiv. 129 Ibid ., p. 133. 130 Ibid ., p. 145. 131 Ibid ., 148. 132 Ibid ., 150.

PAGE 103

103 category of family, from women who later demanded the vote or underage children forced to work. But still Machen was too independent a thinker on social issues to be labeled easily. conservative showed little hesitation to resort to politics in order to promote their beliefs in the public 133 Hart claims that Machen was of a mindset that pleased neither the inclusivist nor the id that individuals, families, and private organizations of all faiths should 134 Consequently, in refusing to use political power to advance Christian goals and instead holding to a culturall y disengaged confessionalism, Machen ultimately sat outside the mainstream of fundamentalist political activism in his day. Nonetheless, he remains an important liminal figure. He articulated the central Reformed position on government, the need to chec k federal power in favor of the states during the New together with his resistance to innovation in theology, create an image of a conservative opposed to all fo rms of change imposed from the top down. 135 As a participating member of the intelligentsia, Machen argued three major points in the 133 D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith 146. 134 Ibid 135 Ibid ., 137.

PAGE 104

104 and federal control of education, and an overarching warning that the United States could never allow itself to mirror European centralization, as individual liberties depended on the in opposing trends of centralization in government, declaring that the great American principle of 136 Machen on Suffrage: States Rights For Machen the method used to secure change was as important as the change itself. The Pr inceton professor was quick to attack the crusade to secure the vote for women, as recorded in the Congressional Record of January 1918: In urging you to vote against the Susan B. Anthony amendment I am not animated chiefly by a spirit of opposition to wo man suffrage in general, though personally I am not yet convinced that it is just or wise. Even if I were an ardent advocate of woman suffrage I should still be strongly opposed to the present amendment, which seems to me to run directly contrary to the ma nner in which important constitutional changes ought to be made. 137 from the federal level for Machen. He continued: Furthermore, I can not for the life of me see w hy the suffrage issue should not be left to the individual States. The chief argument for Federal action in many concerns of government as against State action is that often Federal action alone is effective. Such an argument might plausibly be urged for example, in the case of the prohibition amendment. But it does not apply at all to the suffrage issue. Every State can choose the kind of suffrage it desires and make its choice effective, quite independent of the choice of any other State. And conditions in the various States differ so widely that the forcing of suffrage upon the women of some States may be an offensive piece of tyranny. 138 136 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 146. 137 Congressional Record 65 th Cong., 2d sess., 1918, vol. 56, pt. 1: p.79 9. 138 Ibid

PAGE 105

105 Machen was arguing that extending the vote to women as a veiled act of control by a sinister power, a transformed fed timed and unintelligent feminism. Do such leaders really represent the women of this country? 139 t the amendment represented an attempt to avoid a popular vote by unscrupulous suffragettes who 140 Innovative maneuvers to address unprecedented problems did not concern Machen as much as the continuanc e of traditional etiquette between the federal and state levels. Alien Registration and Fingerprinting: European Resemblance Abhorred Machen would not allow the suffrage issue to become a tyranny of the few over the many; likewise, he resented federal act s of intrusion upon the ordinary citizen. Despite the growing fears of many Americans that communists, anarchists, and subversives threatened to infiltrate the country, Machen would not tolerate any form of surveillance over the mass population by the nati onal administration. In the December 9, 1925 issue of the New York Herald Tribune cards to aliens because it would place common citizens in the bind of having also to provide evid 141 Russell states that this case revealed 142 139 Ibid 140 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 147. 141 J. Gresham Machen, Letter to New York Herald Tribune December 7, 1925. 142 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 148.

PAGE 106

106 The loss of --the transition Machen feared --consisted of irreversible the Secretary of Labor for enrollment of aliens is, therefore, a very sinister p 143 efficiency or of material betterment. That is one of the cardinal principles upon which this 144 Lynn Dumenil observes that reforms w ere often lumped together by 145 Mache Eight years later in a letter to The New York Times Machen expressed abhorrence for another proposal that called for a new degree of federal oversight. The Senate was considering a proposal of compul sory fingerprinting, and Machen was swift in reiterating a Reformed that it is for their own benefit is paternalism; and paternalism ought to be hated with a perfect 146 With building anxiety, Machen was reading the signs of the times, as the re ife is gradually being 147 143 J. Gresham Machen, Letter to New York Herald Tribune December 7, 192 5. 144 Ibid 145 The Journal of American History 77, no. 2 (September 1990): pp. 514 515. 146 Letter from J. Gresham Machen to Editor of New York Times Septembe r 13, 1933. 147 Ibid

PAGE 107

107 Once again, the reference point for contamination was the ways of Europeans. Using the relationship of America to the Old World Machen reinforced his case: In this extension of bureaucratic contro l the climax would be reached by the well known in Europe before the war. We Americans then had a horror of it, and we regarded our citizenship in a country to which it was prof oundly abhorrent as our dearest earthly possession. 148 Declaring that the growth of bureaucracy here will likely produce the same disorder and instability that resulted when similar acts of control were imposed in Germany, he set forth one of the most impor tant and succinct statements of Reformed understanding of American politics in the name of national security. A nation is the more stable the looser its control is over individual lives. The reason is that the life of any country depends ultimately upon the moral quality of its individual citizens. Bureaucracy, with its narrowin g of the area of individual choice, destroys moral fiber; it is liberty which is really stable in the long run. 149 A general sense of God given freedom which no earthly agency had power to alter was the hough a single man all his life, nowhere was his commitment more vigorous than in the matter of parental control. Two examples of 148 Ibid 149 Ibid

PAGE 108

108 In 1924, Machen denounced a proposed child labor amendmen t using many of the same rationales stated above: such a measure created too powerful a bureaucracy based upon a European worldview. The proposed amendment read as follows: Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate and prohibit the labo r of persons under eighteen years of age. Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by Congress. 150 Accord 151 Machen exulted in 1924 upon hearing of the mass rejection of the proposal by Massachusetts vot ers via referendum. He was quick to attack those who declared business interests had somehow becoming disgusted with the whole tendency that appears in particularly extreme form in this --the whole tendency toward the slavery involved in placing control of the 152 Machen referred to values and ideals under threat, exp 153 150 Editorial research reports 1924 (accessed December 29, 2010). 151 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 148. 152 J. Gresham Machen, Letter to the Editor, New York Times Tuesday, November 18, 1924. 153 Ibid

PAGE 109

109 Subsequent articles on this topic illustrate a central point in Machen federal government should always serve at the pleasure of the states, and its very existence was bad, involves at least a revolutionary change in our Constitution; and we do not think such revolutionary changes ought to be made without careful consideration and without direct 154 In fact, on this issue Machen brought the same sense of boundaries to bear upon the conduc Presbyterian church ought to become a political lobby; we do not think that it has any right to put itself on record as either favoring or opposing political and social measures about which no direct gui 155 unidirectional power relationship from the state to the federal level. Writing to the editor of The New Republic Machen intended to be clear: Will you permit me to observe that at this point your conception of American institutions differs fundamentally from ours. We hold that the local autonomy of the States, far from being a mere matter of expediency, is at the very foundation of our American freedom. But under the proposed amendment that local autonomy would practically be destroyed. By far the most important half of life would be 156 Nonetheless, the idea of the preservation of separate z ones of sovereignty was not part of an elaborate argument by Machen to argue for a divinely ordained arrangement. Machen simply 154 Machen, Trenton Sunday Times Advertiser U.S. With Tyranny Similar to 155 The Presbyterian 95, no. 4 (January 22, 1925): p. 6. 156 The Woman Patriot 9, no. 5, (March 1, 1925): p. 39. Reprinted from The New Republic 41, no. 526, (Dec 31, 1924): p. 145.

PAGE 110

110 possibility of legislative invasi of 157 Writing to The Presbyterian Machen framed the social issue within a church context. There was in this framing of the po wer of ---the bill of lie at the foundation of all our Anglo 158 within the power of Congress if this amendment is adopted to take any chil d away from its 159 The use of alarmist language was already a commonplace after World War I among fundame ntalists; images of sudden and violent displays of federal bullying loomed on the horizon, it seemed, with every such innovation in law. hands of the army 160 What was a proposed law designed to prohibit work by those under eighteen was read by tless cruelty masquerading under the guise of 161 Here Machen stood on common ground with many Catholics, who Dumenil 157 Ibid 158 The Presbyterian p. 6. 159 Ibid 160 Ibid ., p. 7. 161 Ibid ., p. 6.

PAGE 111

111 which by inference would impede t 162 Finally, Machen once again warned of adulteration that brought about resemblance to the between the American home and a tyran ny like that of bureaucratic Russia, except the will of 163 By the 1920s, the notion that America could absorb any moral good from continental Europe was out of the question from the Reformed vantage point. Dumenil comments that the Red Scare of 164 Secularizing Europe was bearing the fruits of its atheism (such as tyranny) as the counterpoint to the godly ways of American Pro testants. Related to the child labor issue was the larger question of whether a Education: Differentiation as Good, Uniformity as Evil The professionalization o f American science and the university system occurred in the nineteenth century in imitation of European models, according to George Marsden and Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Michal M. Sokal, and Bruce V. Lewenstein. 165 The boom in secondary education occurred s omewhat later, even as the Scopes controversy captured the national scientific approaches naturally shaped educational policymakers. The school as an institution 162 163 The Presbyterian p. 6. 164 165 See George Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Prote stant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) ; Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Michal M. Sokal, and Bruce V. Lewestein, The Establishment of Science in America : 150 Years of the American Association for the Advancement o f Science (Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999).

PAGE 112

112 was undergoing a transformation from the days of rote memorization using the Protestant tinged morality of in a one room schoolhouse. By the 1920s, the new vision of a public school was a modern laboratory like world in which the relativ ely new notion of adolescence combined with the national need for a scientifically literate, inquiry oriented generation to meet the challenges of an unpredictable future. The pressure to standardize education that inevitably attended these events threate to federal governments once again, and his participation in the national debate over the value of creating a Department of Education in 1926 was an important harbinger of the later Reformed protest over teaching e volution. Machen received an opportunity to participate in congressional hearings in February of 1926, and the argument he made reflected elements of his other social positions. But the sweeping influence of the proposed Department of Education motivate d him to present one of his most systematic polemics to date. Supporters of the new concept coded uniformity as unity, as patriotism, and as adaptation to provide a competitive edge in a changing world. Machen coded uniformity as the denigration of the hu man psyche into a mechanistic mold. In his words, the 166 supreme over all others. The parents formed the basic governmental unit, out of which state and federal power were emergent phenomena that existed only at the pleasure of the parents. Such freedoms required the preservation of diversity as parents differed --and so children grew 166 The Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, and The Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Proposed Department of Education: Joint Hearings Before the Committe e on Education and Labor, United States Senate, and The Committee on Education, House of Representatives 69 TH Cong., 1 st sess., February 24, 25, and 26, 1926, p. 95.

PAGE 113

113 differentiated from one another ---rather than the creation of uniformity for the service of the State. This process ensured the separation of powers. The transitions in sovereignty in this power arr angement implied by the proposed department of education were impossible for uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the 167 To Machen, any student of Western civilization would have known better. A few weeks earlier he had declared to the conservative organization Sentinels of the Republic that this misguided attitude has years --the principle, namely, that education is an affair essentially of the State, that education must be standardized for the welfare of the whole people and put under the control of 168 the State eliminated differences among people to satisfy its own purposes; they were merely children belong to the State, [and] that their education must be provided for by the State in a way that makes for the 169 Machen expected that government would not interfere in the education of the young. Essentially, he read any effort toward forging uniformity in education as based upon a horrific presupposition, namely, that human nature was little more than mechanism, akin to one 167 Ibid 168 vered by J. Gresham Machen, Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary, Before the Sentinels of the Republic, Washington, D.C., January 12, 1926, p. 2. 169 Ibid

PAGE 114

114 of countless automobiles rolling off the Ford assembly line. 170 How could the equivalence be made between a individuality was more important than the national good. In his nightmare vision, the State could employ its ideology of efficiency to expunge novelties and differences among childre n through a 171 Machen was not alone in his protests to preserve parental power. According to Lynn Dumenil, warnings about tyranny resonated in Catholic circles. Regarding the department of that the department of education would bring autocracy, followed 172 173 Machen had also established a place in a substantial conservati ve network --two of the audiences to which Machen communicated about education and child labor had a strong lean to opposition to Prohibition with opposition to a wide ra nging list of welfare legislation endorsed by the so including the child labor amendment, the Sheppard Towner Act [funding for 170 Ibid 171 Ibid ., [unmarked last page, p. 4]. 172 173 Ibid ., p.515.

PAGE 115

115 maternity and child care], and the education bill, criticizing them not merely as vi 174 Machen was in reality part of large cohort of disillusioned Americans unwilling to allow regulation to expand the powers of the federal government regardless of the assumed need. The education bill drew the fire not only of Catholics but also from Republican politicians and members of the business community whose interests were threatened. Dumenil comments that seated anxieties over the fate of ind ividual autonomy in the 175 That anxiety reached a high point with the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As Americans saw their eco nomic dreams shattered with the stock market crash of 1929, stration and the creation of numerous bureaucracies to assist the country in unprecedented ways to ameliorate hardship, for J. Gresham Machen a familiar tyranny was rearing its head in a different form. In 1933 Machen directed his sense of betrayal at the National Re destroy the financial standing of anyone he suspected of misusing the Blue Eagle stamp, which 174 Ibid ., p. 522. 175 Ibid ., p. 524.

PAGE 116

116 e standards of the National Industrial Recovery Act. 176 law? Will the man have a day in open court to defend himself against the attack upon his good name and his property? Not at all. His livelihood will be taken from him because General Johnson alleges that he has cheated and then uses the full aganda organization to raise a popular 177 In evaluating this situation, finding a sinister motive and a web of conspiracy was part of N.R.A. 178 The nature of the drive and the silencing of dissent encouraged yet another against those who favor 179 A transformative process was underway; under claims of a national emergency, social engineers making America unrecognizable to the lovers of liberty. Machen confronted the master engineer himself, the President, in a polemical letter dated opposed to these 180 What 176 177 Ibid 178 Ibid 179 Ibid 180 J. Gresham Machen, Letter to the New York Herald Tribune

PAGE 117

117 Machen means by these two terms was most revealing about how his worldview shaped his political vocabulary: In the first place, they are inimical to liberty. We are living in a t ime of great distress. Instead of simply relieving that distress, as humanity dictated, you have used the distress of the people in order to sell them into slavery by placing them under a permanent system of government supervision and control. 181 The chief distinction will never be obliterated between the man who has saved and toiled and the man who 182 The New Deal was subverting the Protestant work ethic and the ba lance of justice, rewarding the unworthy by penalizing the hardworking through the redistribution of his wealth. support must, indeed, in emergencies, be given to the destitute --community support or state 183 However, the gradual slide into total dependence upon the federal government was to be avoided, just as with the matter of too much fede ral aid to the states for education: But at the very heart of any healthy condition of society is the deep seated conviction, in the minds of the people, that the receiving of such government support is a thing to be avoided with might and main. In the lon g run, such support means slavery. By forcing it upon us, in your system of compulsory government insurance, you are making paupers of our whole people. 184 If these charges were not enough, Machen then accused Roosevelt of destroying 181 Ibid 182 Ibid 183 Ibid 184 Ibid

PAGE 118

118 185 This claim concluded with a direct assault: The repudiation of the debts of the United States government which is involved in your monetary policy is not like an honest bankruptcy, where the debtor frankly acknowledges the debt but confesses himself unable to pay; but is rather a very ruthless application of the principle that might makes right. In thus depriving our country of its reputation for honesty, you have done it a far greater injury even than has been done by your reckless waste of its material resources. 186 political s 187 Machen had exaggerated the overthrow of checks and balances in the American system, however. According to Jerome Himmelstein, the revolution of Roosevelt never took on a full 188 Howev er, Himmelstein is quick to point out that, compared to previous levels of activity, Deal. 189 nd although Senator leaders of irrational, anti 185 Ibid 186 Ibid 187 Ibid 188 Jerome L. Himmel stein, To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 16. 189 Ibid ., pp. 16 17.

PAGE 119

119 the Great Depression, and of many decades of American life before it: the urge to defend the autonomy of the individual and the indep endence of the community against encroachments from 190 Characterizing the thirties as an era of uncertainty and high 191 rtarian views would resonate in his own lifetime and with Reformed leaders of the future. However, his intensity in these matters was not echoed in his scientific views, which demonstrated a more measured approach than was typical of fundamentalists of hi s period. Although he was a contemporary of William Jennings Bryan and an intellectual for the fundamentalist cause, Machen was not willing to cross disciplinary boundaries when called upon by Bryan for the Scopes trial in 1925. despite his commitment to historic Christianity he was still attached to the world of the 192 But within the university world, Machen expected that integration under a Christian banner rath er than disciplinary separation would rule. A more revealing statement came a year later as Machen responded to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President E. Christianity at the Cross Roads ping a precise critique. Rejoicing in 190 Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression (New York: Vintage Book s, 1983), p. xi. 191 Leo Ribuffo, The Old Christian Right : The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983), p. 14. 192 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 85.

PAGE 120

120 193 In separating hard scientific facts from religious eyes. 194 to which we disagree with Dr. Mullins is found in his sharp separation between the spheres of scien 195 But the chief example Machen chose for rebuttal was not found in the book of Genesis but the New Testament: the question of the historicity of 196 As a scholar of the New Testament, Machen remained with in his area of specialty. In debating Mullins, Machen maintained his academic sense of etiquette. Still, Machen desired for religion and science to overlap: Theology, we think, is just as scientific as chemistry; and if we fail to recognize its scientifi c character we are in danger of delivering ourselves over to that anti Mullins shares our conviction that Christianity is based upon truth; and it is in the interests of that co nviction that we ask him to give up the separation between religion and science. 197 Machen understood the temptation to shield religion from the skepticism of scientists by declaring the disconnect of the two fields. While Bryan became a laughingstock at th e hands of Clarence Darrow for being unable to defend biblical claims, Machen likewise denied himself the comfort of sequestering religion from scrutiny: At any rate, we for our part cannot with safety go one step upon this anti ntists are attacking Christianity in the name of science and philosophers are attacking it in the name of philosophy, it seems to be such an 193 Princeton Theological Review Vol 24, No 1, January 1926, p. 45. 194 Ibid ., p. 41. 195 Ibid ., p. 45. 196 Ibid ., p. 47. 197 Ibid ., p. 51.

PAGE 121

121 easy escape from the battle to say that religion has its own credentials which it alone can judge; it seems so easy to withdraw thus into a place that shall be free from all possible attack. 198 pulling back from engagement. In this regard, Bryan and Machen had a common cause i n matters of science and religion, but Machen as an academic insider knew which limited contests had a higher chance of victory, whereas Bryan felt competent to answer as a political expert in both theology and science. The two men represented the breath of the fundamentalist cause, and ideological descendants of both would later emerge. In making his argument for a point of contact between religion and science, Machen revealed the extent to which Common Sense philosophy had shaped his views. In What is F aith? first published in 1925, Machen revealed his unwillingness to move beyond a Common Sense orientation: I am not altogether unaware of the difficulties that beset what may be called the common sense view of truth; epistemology presents many interesting problems and some puzzling antinomies. But the antinomies of epistemology are like other antinomies which puzzle the human mind; they indicate the limitations of our intellect, but they do not prove that the intellect is not reliable so far as it goes. I for my part at least am not ready to give up the struggle; I am not ready to rest in a pragmatic skepticism; I am not ready to say that truth can never be attained. 199 Baptist and Presbyterian denominational cultures differed substantially enough in the 1 920s that Mullins and Machen disagreed about the nature of religious truth. Hart states that 198 Ibid ., pp. 65 66. 199 J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman s Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 27 28.

PAGE 122

122 200 conservative Baptists something in common with their liberal brethren who carried these 201 202 Mullins avoided conflict by making the appre hension of truth a private matter, but Machen argued for broad based agreement about obvious facts. As Marsden notes, Machen in refuting Mullins stood against the concept of ideas standing in between events in the outside world and the act of interpretat ion, claiming in the idea 203 In this regard, by giving access to ultimate realities to all, Machen reinforced the democratic aspect of Common Sense th inking and stood in the anti elitist tradition of Common Sense thinker Thomas Reid. 204 Common Sense thinking would continue to be an important part of the small movement of conservative Presbyterians Machen would lead out of Princeton and a vital part of t he creationist movement to come. In holding Common Sense views, Machen the intellectual was able to balance the demands of rigorous academic life with the traditions of Calvinism in a way uncommon among fundamentalists in his age. 200 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 95. 201 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 108. 202 Ibid ., p. 122. 203 Ibid ., p. 216. 204 Ibid

PAGE 123

123 s expressed views on evolution are sparse, but one particular letter from 1926 provides the most lucid statement of his position: working in certain spheres at least thro ugh nature, while creation means creation out of nothing. Evolution, by its very idea, cannot explain the origin of the world, and the origin of the world, with those creative acts of God that we call miracles, alone is produced by creation. Nothing is mor e absolutely fundamental to and his work of creation, for upon that sharp distinction the uniqueness of redemption in Christianity rests. 205 This argument thus formed more o f a passive resistance to evolution based upon the matter of ultimate origins; however, Machen did make space for some limited form of theistic evolution. Hence his willingness to tolerate ambiguity demonstrated that he was not likely to move from the acad emic sphere to the militant position of William Jennings Bryan. The story of antievolutionism cannot be told properly without noting that beyond the tension between secularists such as Darrow and fundamentalists like Bryan and Machen there was a third pa rty --liberal Christians, epitomized by leaders such as Fosdick. The Fundamentalist Modernist battle was simultaneously occurring with the Anti Evolution difficult position amidst the double turmoil be understood. In theological matters, Machen was willing to adopt new tools to defend tradition, which marked him as unique among fundamentalists. His use of higher critical methods in his discussions of Paul and the v irgin birth demonstrated a sense of scholarly etiquette balanced with the heart of Calvinist. In the field of social issues, Machen showed his fiercest side, in defense of liberty. Most interestingly, Machen read reform movements as limits to freedom and as European ideas 205 J. Gresham Machen to George S. Duncan, February 18, 1926, Machen Papers. Quotation cited from Longfield, The Presbyterian Contr oversy p. 69.

PAGE 124

124 invading these shores. His disciples Carl McIntire and Francis Schaeffer will in later chapters mirror his attitudes but in radically new contexts. In the case of science, Machen expressed himself in the most philosophical terms, avoidi ng being cornered like Bryan was by Darrow on the matter of specifics. Regardless, Machen was loosely defined a creationist. His case contemporaries, Harry Rimmer and George McCready Price. The lack of coherence among the antiev olutionists was in one way a strength given that a broad alliance could be created; in another, it prevented a concerted effort with a simple focus.

PAGE 125

125 CHAPTER 3 DIVERSITY AND UNITY HARRY RIMMER AND GEORGE MCCREADY PRICE Staging the episodes of opposition t o Darwinism among evangelicals in the twentieth cases of William Jennings Bryan and Harry Rimmer, two of the three most prominent thinkers of the 1920s and 193 0s who took a stand against evolution as apostasy. But these leaders were primarily satirists and debunkers. George McCready Price, as the third, was one of the first true three represented a unified force that is best understood if their differences stand in the background of the symphonic chord that holds them together. What can easily be exaggerated is the degree and intensity of that unity. There are significant challe nges for those who would argue that a continuous line of anti intellectual bigotry links Bryan and his contemporaries to Henry Morris. First, the diversity of church cultures and differences of personality preclude treating the fundamentalist movement as a monolith. Theological differences produced sharp distinctions among groups. For example, the Adventist movement represented by Price was unacceptable to a dispensational premillenialist ult of episodic shifts in Adventists] and protested against being pictured a s a band of fanatics ready to don ascension 1 Ferenc Szasz also downplays the centralization of the fundamentalist cause around the 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xvi.

PAGE 126

126 World Christian Fundamentals Association, which became the media symbol of the movement strength, egos, and geographical location of the various 2 Secondly, there were sizable differences of opinion over the age of the earth among these earlier antievolutionists even tho ugh the differences were masked by a mysterious lack of public debate. This silence was in part because that issue threatened inter denominational cooperation, which was still a valued activity in what was understood by the fundamentalists in the 1920s to be a Christian nation. Thirdly, the target of those opposed to evolution was moving. Darwinism itself was still under attack from skeptics in the scientific community who could use Mendelian genetics to Genetics and the Origin of Species came twelve years after the Scopes trial and was only the beginning of what came to be known as Neo Darwinian synthesis. In other words, in the Scopes era, for Bryan and the others, there would have been more urgency to questio n Darwinism rather than to try to replace it, as would be done by later creationists. Evangelical hostility toward evolution in the 1920s may not have been unified, but it did reflect the larger spirit of the age. Willard Gatewood describes the anti evol ution movement as in synch with the general attacks on subversive elements that supposedly characterized the 2 Ferenc Morton Szasz, The Divided Mind of Protestant America 1880 1930 (University, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1982), p. 93.

PAGE 127

127 employed the tactic of excluding both ideas and practices which they held responsible for the 3 The major issue that unified Bryan, Rimmer, and Price was apostasy. They sensed a moral drift and intellectual movement away from the certaintie s given in their interpretation of the Bible. Evolution was more than just a biological matter to the anti evolutionists; it was a metaphor of dangerous political and social change. Bryan imagined the Nietzchean militarism of Germany in World War I comin g to these shores through the schools. 4 first concern was the Bible and how the young were influenced by agnostic professors. Rimmer went one additional step by putting himself forward as a credible counter scientist. Price was the mo st scientifically grounded of the three, although he had little in the way of actual, formal training. His work was a blow by blow assault on Darwinism, using Mendel and other means to show the limits of nature standing in the way of transmutation. Gatewo od makes a powerful argument why antievolutionary activity became a cause for fundamentalists generally anxious about the advance of modernism and secularism which all related hostility could be aimed. 5 Togeth er the trio of Bryan, Rimmer, and Price was of one mind regarding the demonic Bryan depended upon other fundamentalists when building his view of science, Rimmer an d Price, the subjects of this chapter, claimed they had experience wrangling with scientific ideas in their purest form. The points of agreement and disagreement between Rimmer and Price outline 3 Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Evolution (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), p. 5. 4 Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial Religion (1997; repr., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 40. 5 Ibid., p. 20.

PAGE 128

128 the diversity of antievolutionist ideas in this early stage and likewise the absence of certain pressures to simplify that diversity. Harry Rimmer (1890 1952): Self Styled Researcher If the story of creationism had an intermediate species of leader, caught between the s and the fundamentalist need to save the young from secularization, that leader would have been Harry Rimmer. Historian Edward B. Davis comments: Of all the antievolutionists between the World Wars, none was more visible than Harry Rimmer, an itinerant e vangelist and pastor who spoke at several thousand churches, schools, auditoriums, Bible conferences, youth camps, labor camps, and military bases across the nation for almost forty years until his death at the age of sixty one in 1952. 6 a blend of the old, the traveling evangelist, and the new, an apologist for Biblical miracles in an age of science. Ever since the Great Awakening catapulted George Whitfield to trans Atlantic fame, evangelicalism had a long history in America of making c elebrities of itinerant speakers. The itinerant provided a means of maintaining the religious do more than evangelize; he had to ensure church control over the jurisdiction of science, which the fundamentalist community. To conservative Christians such a prospect was an assault upon the Word of God. 6 Edward B. Davis, The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer Introduction to the sixth volume of Creationism in T wentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903 1961 ed. Ronald Numbers (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. ix.

PAGE 129

129 From his birth in San Francisco in 1890, the first twenty were marked by extreme hardship and uncertainty, including family violence. 7 The turning point student at the Hahnemann Medical College in San Francisco, a homeopathic school that Davis tells us 8 Rimmer, a boxer, was on his way home from a bout. His confidence in the ring, cultivated after a brief Army stint, foreshadowed his aggressive warring for the cause of fundamentalism. 9 Hahnemann provided an important exposure to the language of science for the sporadically educated Rimmer; in fact, Rimmer himself wanted to make clear that his scientific mind wa s not fundamentally altered by his conversion. Debunking evolution could be defended solely on scientific grounds. 10 Roger Schultz reflects that the were often des 11 However, Rimmer could not be simply categorized as a young earth creationist, despite 12 On the one hand, his absorption of premillenial dispensationalism put him in good stead with many future creationists, 13 but he was far more Edenic world had existed and included unknown eons of time before the creation of Adam and Eve, the so 7 Ibid., p. ix. 8 Ibid., p. x. 9 Ibid. p. x. 10 sm of Harry Rimmer (dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1989), p. 27 and p. 17. 11 Ibid., p. 8. 12 Ibid., p. 112. 13 Ibid., pp. 27 28.

PAGE 130

130 14 Ron ald Numbers demonstrates how the insertion of an immense span of time between the first two verses of Genesis enabled Scofield to argue for two creations separated by a cataclysm and avoid the strictures of a young earth approach. 15 This notion provided a means of avoiding a huge public fight among early fundamentalists over the evidence of geology thus minimizing the focal point of the attack against biology in the age of Bryan. Why later fundamentalists in the 1960s became so adamant that geology also po sed a threat reveals a basic discontinuity between antievolutionism in the 1930s and creationism in the 1960s. 16 After conversion, Rimmer began a journey to national fame. Marriage in 1915 would bring three children, but home life in Los Angeles was not t o be Rimmer's first concern, as he began work for the YMCA as a traveling evangelist. 17 In 1920, Rimmer embraced the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America as controversy in that denomination continued to build. Davis notes, however, that it w as in the period between 1920 and1925 when Rimmer realized that young people were leaving the church fold because of scientific questions. 18 Numbers corroborates this conclusion with a comment about Rimmer's creation of a small laboratory inside his garage at this time. 19 To bolster his defense of the Bible through evidence and the sale of publications, Rimmer founded the Research Science Bureau in 1921. 14 Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets, ti and 15 Ronald Numbers, Creationists, p. 60. 16 Ibid., pp. 7 8. 17 Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets, pp. x 73. 18 Davis, Ant ievolution Pamphlets, p. xi. 19 Numbers, Creationists, p. 77.

PAGE 131

131 PROMOTE RESEARCH IN SUCH SCIENCES AS HAVE DIRECT BEARING ON THE QUESTIO N OF THE INSPIRATION AND INFALLIBLE NATURE OF THE HOLY BIBLE; to desseminate [sic] by means of public lectures, printed literature, and other methods, facts and 20 Despite its grandios e missions statement, Numbers contends that "the bureau existed, primarily, if not exclusively, to underwrite Rimmer's ministry and occaisonal field trips." 21 Nonetheless, decades later its significance would not be missed by Henry Morris, who called it th 22 Rimmer craved respectability as a scientist. However, he had locked himself into Baconian rules of interpretation via observation and description and avoided hypotheses and theorizing about patterns. 23 Therefore, criticism aimed at Rimmer tended toward the sarcastic both for his using science to prove predetermined conclusions and his claims to be a member of the scientific community. 24 Still, the very fact that Rimmer enjoyed success dem onstrated that scientific credentials were still a vague notion for the subset of the public he courted. By the 1940s the Research Science Bureau would boast an international membership, and book sales, 20 Ibid., p. 78. 21 Ibid. 22 Henry Morris, History of Modern Creation ism (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), pp. 111 112. Cited in Schultz, p. 117. 23 116. 24 Numbers, Creationists, p. 80.

PAGE 132

132 Rimmer boasted, hit the two million mark. 25 All of thi having done long hours of field research as a substitute for a traditional degree program. 26 The pamphlets Rimmer produced were sold at his various speaking engagements, and Davis notes that Rimmer boasted sales into the h undreds of thousands. 27 Schultz comments at his famous 1925 Monkeyshines pamphlet. Drawing upon an amassed collection of his own, Rimmer sought to reveal scientif 28 Seeking t o make elite science offensive to the common person, Rimmer employed democratic commonsense as an offensive weapon against specialist theorizing. In an era of populist religion e appeal, but it depended upon the lack of public agreement about the importance of formal training in science. The New Geology high praise. On the 29 Secondly, as if to punctuate his position as a gap theorist, Rimmer debated WCFA founder William Bell Riley. Neither man agreed with Price about the age of the earth since Ri ley held the Genesis days to be ages (day age) and 25 119. 26 Ibid., pp. 121 122. 27 Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets, p. x vii. 28 Creationists p. 79. 29 Creationists p. 117. Numbers points out, for example, that Rimmer enon was that older rocks were placed on top of younger during the Noachian deluge; however, Price actually argued that all of the rock layers were created in the flood simultaneously.

PAGE 133

133 hour periods. 30 belligerent at the Scopes trial, with providing a rationale to attack evolution to save the young, motivating Rimmer to make the topic a focal point in his speaking from 1925 onward. 31 But clearly, Rimmer illustrated how different antievolutionism was from the narrow definition of creationism much later. Like Bryan, Rimmer came into a gradual awareness that something was going wrong with the education of young people. Schooling itself was exhibiting a more secular trajectory. The age of the overt Protestant value system in education was passing away. Rim mer saw his calling not only as a fighter for the Gospel, but to train the defenseless young Christians overwhelmed by a tsunami of modernity and its attendant agnosticism. Leaving without a degree from BIOLA (the Bible Institute of Los Angeles), one of t he most well known fundamentalist early 1920s. As he spoke to Christian young people he confronted for the first time the academic world and its skepticism of the old time religion. 32 For fundamentalists like Rimmer, not to challenge European scholarship was akin to perpetuating a spiritual genocide on an entire future generation of Christian leaders. But evolution was not the first target in the battle for Rim mer. Davis notes that the 33 The new biblical scholarship that in the early 20 th century had come into t he classrooms of American colleges and 30 Numbers, Creationists, p. 82. 31 192. 32 Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets p. xi. 33 Ibid.

PAGE 134

134 hold upon the young mind. 34 Science had attacked the Bible through the vehicle of higher criticism first, and evolution seco nd. Fighting the outcome drove Rimmer against biological evolution while leaving geology mostly untouched. Gatewood points to an irreversible cultural transformation of the goals of education: whereas earlier the target had been the transmission of parents they [parents] desired for their children required an ever increasing amount of formal education 35 smaller than the mainstream view but large e nough to allow the young Christian participation in the mass culture. Bible and science. Firstly, the prestige of science had begun to overshadow both the Bible and Rimm for an old earth. The fourth and fifth principles involved warnings about relying on intellectual abilities and the impact that would have upon Christian civilization. The net impact of these concepts was a far milder version of antievolutionism than tha t George McCready Price and other later creationists called for. As Bryan and others likewise had views of the earth at odds with Price, the foci Rimmer 34 Ibid. 35 Willard Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties p. 27.

PAGE 135

135 chose in his arguments revealed that antievolutionism in its earliest form was in actuality more liber al than Morris might have later wanted to admit. Nonetheless, the spiritual fate of young Defending Supernatural Inspiration: Anticipating Science in a Pre Scientific Age consistent series of convictions about what was going wrong in America because of a biological science untamed by the Bible. But there was also a consistent hesitation about making highly conservative claims about geology. Rimmer was the historical inter mediate between William Jennings Bryan in the 1920s and Henry Morris the Second World War. The fundamentalist public readily accepted him as its foremost as its agent for combat in debate halls. supernatural origin was that its writers, in spite of lacking in education and scientific training, were nevertheless accurate about natural phenomena in such a way as to regulate the formulas and theorems behind modern results. In making the case that th e Bible spoke correctly on matters of science, Rimmer argued that the Bible possessed a supernatural quality that set it apart from all other literature. This statement was an outgrowth of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a commonplace among dispensatio nalists. George Marsden points out that B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary provided an articulation of the concept in 1881: the words of the Bible themselves were divinely given and therefore precise. This notion, Marsden add implied by Scottish Common Sense philosophy, discussed briefly in Chapter 1 and to be treated

PAGE 136

136 further below. 36 Furthermore, he notes that having confidence in the straightforward meaning of the w 37 Consequently, Rimmer took the Bible at its face value when natural phenomena were mentioned. Schultz comments on free and could comment on science, but not the other way around. 38 Modern Science and the First Day of Creation merit as a science textbo ok with its prescience leaving no question as to its author: Is it a literal truth that science is at variance with Moses? Indeed it is not; rather the contrary is true: there is such a magnificent and complete agreement between the established facts of ph ysical science and the first chapter of Genesis that no human explanation of this strange phenomenon is possible. How is it to be explained on any natural basis? Here is a chapter of a book written in the seventeenth century before Christ, in a day of ign orance and superstition. Yet when we examine that book in the light of modern scientific discoveries, it contains the most recent facts of physics, botany, and astronomy; and has maintained this marvelous harmony with scientific truth for ages before these sciences were born. 39 amazing scientific truths, which Moses could not possibly have known from personal at other reasonable explanation of this 40 Rimmer suggested that to Americans science had already displaced the Bible as a cultural resource. But by re situating the Bible as a source of good science its contribution to humanity c ould be restored. 36 Marsden, Fundamentalism p. 113. 37 Ibid., p. 57. 38 39 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the First Day of Creat ion, in Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets p. 115. 40 Ibid., p. 147.

PAGE 137

137 In 1927, in a pamphlet called The Harmony of Science and the Scriptures Rimmer pagan sciences, predicted errors of the future, and foresaw n in just the past twelve months have we read of some marvelous discovery of science that was announced in screaming headlines in the morning of excitement as disproving the old things of 41 Rimmer made an i which contained the entirety of evolutionary theory as idle speculation: So I say while scientific opinion is constantl y changing, we do not have to attempt a harmony of truth and opinion. We make a mistake when we attempt to test Bible truth by science: the reverse should be the process. Test science by the Bible! If the two agree, the science is true: if not, wait. In a varying space of time men will move on again from the wrong theory, and you will not have to change your faith. How often have we laughed at folk who knew so little they gave up their Bible for a scientific theory the scientists themselves gave up in less than one year. Scientific opinion changes. The Book endures! 42 case. First, the Bible was beyond the reach of criticism as it stood outside of historical time. Its teach ings had a living quality that allowed unilateral and infallible comment upon historical events, like scientific debates. But at the same time, the Bible played by scientific rules. By extension, Rimmer coded the religious community he represented as bo th beyond the touch of straddling position allowed him to maintain the internal integrity of the fundamentalist world while acknowledging its continuing relevance t o an outside realm increasingly benefiting from 41 Ibid., p. 435. 42 Ibid.

PAGE 138

138 biblical worldview, which always met the rigor of scientific rules without itself ever being judged by those r ules. Instead, the decision science were intrinsically democratic and by consensus. They were marked by what is now visible, repeatable, and universally replicable beyond the touch of ideology or even religio n. In other words, any legitimate consensus among people concerned things occurring in the present. speculation. This matter of democracy should not be overlooked b eing an antievolutionist was a matter of rights as well as intelligence, for Rimmer and the creationists who later claimed him. hand in hand, for THE WORD OF GOD ANTICIPATE S MANY MODERN SCIENTIFIC 43 This did not imply that the Bible could be examined as the result of a historical process, but reinforced the idea of its supernatural origin through its veiled statements that were oblique to prescientific readers yet meaningful at their proper time during the growth of science centuries later. Rimmer exulted in the ease with which dominant theories appeared to match an exegesis of the Hebrew: ASS caused it to rotate more and more rapidly, until the fluid mass condensed into a explanation science can make. There wa s a FLUID MASS. Genesis 1:2 earth was waste and void, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the (fluid) ry exact IMPART 43 Ibid.,

PAGE 139

139 mass, and THE HOLY SPIRIT imparted mot 44 the ancients aware only of the personhood of God in creation, the meaning was limited to the presence of the spiritual superintending the ordering of the phy sical. Rimmer matched the scientific expression to the biblical expression to demonstrate the continued relevance of the Bible in a scientific age. To Rimmer, what was previously considered a natural event (the motion of the earth) now had a point of cont act with the supernatural. This matching activity was a critical facet of antievolutionism in that there was a tacit admission that science in the twentieth century was winning over the very public the fundamentalists were alienating and Rimmer was attemp ting to recapture. This delicate balancing act reflected the tension between the internal community and contact with the external. On the one hand, there was the matter of the separation of the covenantal community that maintained the supremacy of the B But on the other, there was evangelism, to a new world led by science, not by an antiquated revivalist tradition. The new world was led by Darwin and Dewey, not Whitfield and Edwards. Fundamentalists seeking to maint ain public attention had to give a measured acknowledgment of the growing persuasive power of scientific advances unencumbered by the provincial concerns of conservative Protestants. The means of dealing Christianity back into a game played with secular r ules was to argue for harmony at as many points as possible in the 1920s, including life. As an illustration of how important a broader network of contacts were to 44 Ibid., p. 445.

PAGE 140

140 he had significant contact with the WCFA as well as far right wing activist Gerald B. Winrod, whose periodical the Defender science. 45 According to Leo P. Ribuffo, Winrod harshly cr itiqued evolution and looked to the Moreover, Winrod made a linkage b Darwinism. 46 Clearly, Rimmer stood with co belligerents of varied backgrounds unified by the specter of Christian young people led astray. as Unprovable Speculation While he attempted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible was an otherworldly science textbook, Rimmer had to respond immediately to charges that he was leading an anti intellectual struggle himself. He made a critic al distinction by dividing knowledge into two realms. There is a difference between science and scientific opinion, and it is the latter that absolute knowledge. When knowledge on a subject has been refined and is absolute, the knowledge of those facts becomes the science of that subject. But yet been tested or proved. 47 At the start of this sectio n, he called the academic agreement about evolution a form of 48 This separation allowed for enthusiasm for American ingenuity in the universities without sacrificing 45 Numbers, Creationists pp. 79 and 78. 46 Leo P. Ribuffo, The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983), pp. 89 91. The quotation is from page 90. 47 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Youth of Today., in Davis, Antievolution Pa mphlets p. 461. 48 Ibid.

PAGE 141

141 the socia l and eternal benefits of the historic faith that were becoming the casualties of that embrace. seemed to contradict each other. First, modern science was fraught with di 49 50 However, Rimmer did not go as far as others would much later. His primary goal was to prevent the displacement of the Bible from its central location in America and it was to that end he armed for battle against evolution. But in contrast, he showed an impressive tolerance for an old earth, even though he did not choose to extend the length of cent creation demonstrated that the most famous antievolutionist of the 1930s still desired to maintain a dialogical, evangelistic stance that reached out to a wider culture. But in biology, Rimmer pushed for an instantaneous creation of species. Corollar The Christian public posed a sizable problem for Rimmer, as the realities of educational advances and urbanization required all Americans to acknowledge the powers of science to reshape their civiliza tion for the twentieth century, no matter what religious training might have 49 Ibid., p. 463. 50 Ibid., p. 466.

PAGE 142

142 familial connection between man and animal demanded the most immediate answer, an d Rimmer devised a means for the writer of Genesis to save face. Put simply, he dismissed the indices used to prioritize certain morphological characteristics over others, thereby flattening the evolutionary tree and lateralizing all species to nearly t he same time. This tactic was highly significant because it essentially removed long spans of time from biological history. By making organisms simultaneous, Rimmer also made them separate. The basic approach was to maximize confusion and minimize cert ainty about phylogeny. In Monkeyshines: Fakes, Fables, Facts Concerning Evolution (1926), Rimmer attempted to dismantle common descent as a principle. There is a resemblance between the Ape and the Man but resemblance does not mean relationship. The battl eship looks like the row boat structurally; but we see in that only the fact of design. When the man found a plan that would make a boat float, he built all his boats on that plan. nal resident force from the simpler hen house? Of course not; it simply means that when the man found a working plan for a building he kept that plan with certain modifications, and used it for all buildings. 51 These and other parallelisms served to illust they were designed on the same plan by the same designer 52 Hence the deity was not a distant impersonal force but a divine engineer, creating chimpanzee and human being on the same body plan separately without a common ancestor. T appreciation of scientific observation while exhibiting his disdain for Darwinian speculation about lineage. True science was about observation available to all. Like America and the Reformation g ospel, it was quintessentially democratic 51 Harry Rimmer, Monkeyshines: Fakes, Fables, Facts Concerning Evolution, in Davis, The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer p. 398. 52 Ibid., p. 399.

PAGE 143

143 aspect of fundamentalist reasoning, shaped by Scottish Common Sense philosophy. Marsden makes note of the dominance of Co mmon Sense thinking as part of establishing the American democratic order. He sets Common Sense, with its direct access to knowledge open to all, in juxtaposition to the Lockean concept that ideas were best handled by elites. 53 Furthermore, Common Sense th inker Thomas Reid pointed to the non speculative Francis Bacon as the best guide to organizing scientific thought. Lastly, Marsden claims that by the 1870s Common Sense fell by the wayside in halls of learning in favor of specialization. 54 Assuming that thi s statement is true, Rimmer in the 1920s was speaking to a generation caught between old and new patterns identified as invaders. Rimmer tried to amplify the debate first by painting scientific speculation as a sectarian game. Geologists support the connection of dinosaurs to birds because of the presence of a gizzard i n both. Reading normal scientific debate as a winner take all contest, Rimmer identified a University of Colorado paleontologist who questioned the entire premise of relatedness. 55 Rimmer likewise rejoiced at the enormous skepticism of the anthropologist Ales announce the finding of human relics several million years old!...This noted authority says it is not so: we have no American relics anywhere in the United States much older than three 53 Marsden, Fundamentalism pp. 14 15 54 Ibid. 55 Rimmer, Modern Science and the Youth of Today in Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets p. 464.

PAGE 144

144 56 In an anti elitist vein, the central tyranny to be overcome regarding human ant iquity thus 57 Archaeologist W.H. Holmes came to the rescue of scientific articles on archeologic al 58 a potential link to the apes was clearly based upon a belief that human related deposits could only have appeared very recently and without precedent as the result of gradualis m. Congratulating Holmes, Rimmer drew up a final clash: Then he refers to an article published in the American Journal of Science by F.B. Loomis, who thinks he has proved the Pleistocene ancestry of man! After a geologists in these words: RELICS BELONGING ON OR NEAR THE SURFACE ARE LIABLE TO INTRUSION BY VARIOUS MEANS INTO OLDER, UNDERLYING by sa ying such procedure is dangerous to the cause of science. 59 discussed later, known as the law of conformable stratigraphic sequences, by which geological samples were shuff led and made simultaneous, as Rimmer did with fossils. But that Rimmer was unwilling to defend a young earth demonstrated the accommodating spirit of an evangelistic style that would fall into eclipse after World War II. 56 Ibid., p. 465. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. The article Rimmer mentions was taken from Science September 18, 1925, Volume 62, Number 1603 and 59 Ibid., p. 466.

PAGE 145

145 Where scientists claimed proof o f evolutionary descent, Rimmer sought to create ambiguity by attacking the idea of the ancient emergence of morphological characters. He did so on the grounds that a species must be fully human or not; thus he sought to maintain certainty when defending t species were the road to apostasy, and to the godless seduction of the young. Any claim that even hinted at the legitimacy of a gradual transformation of a population over eons of t ime was essentially coded by Rimmer as anti God. The walls separating Homo sapiens from other species had to be maintained along with special creation. For the antievolutionist Rimmer and so many creationists who followed his lead, biology itself announc ed the limits inherentin life, a fact that seemed to them to destroy the possibility of transmutation. The relatedness of species, if true, meant that life needed no miraculous intervention from the supernatural realm, thus rendering that realm superfluou s. Autonomy from God was therefore expressed through the claim that intermediate species existed as those species made miracles unnecessary. Common descent was in the end a rebellion against dependence upon God. For Rimmer, saving the young meant that th e imago dei had to refer only to humans in that of the university world. like the general acceptance of a new [Kantian] perceptual model took place in both the scientifi c 60 60 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 215.

PAGE 146

146 science to only what could be directly observed wiped out the possib ility of grand theorizing. 61 scope of his aims. Earth The matter of the age of t he earth reveals an important transition from a period of a fundamentalist diversity of opinion in the 1920s to one of apparent unity in the 1970s around a highly conservative option and requires explanation. Three alternatives emerged from the 1920s and all three had their champions, but the lack of urgency to resolve the inherent conflict among them was telling. Day age Theory, held by William Jennings Bryan and by William Bell Riley of the WCFA and the Scopes Trial, interpreted the days of Genesis as s ubsequent eras of time. C.I. Scofield and Harry Rimmer advocated gap theory, in which they interpreted the days as twenty four hour periods in a regular week but assumed a prior creation, cataclysm, and renewal. Flood geology, the view of George McCready Price, assumed the most extreme scenario an earth thousands of years old created within seven days of normal length. According to Edward Larson, the confusion of the prosecution led by Bryan during the Scopes trial was illustrated by n on the stand to a day age position when questioned by defense attorney Clarence Darrow about the length of one day in Genesis. 62 Numbers observes, moreover, that 63 61 Numbers, Creationists p. 81. 62 Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods, p. 189. 63 Numbers, Creationists p. 89.

PAGE 147

147 The actual diff erences in view about geology served to illustrate what David Livingstone 64 He also describes the failure of the fundamentalists to assemble a coherent strategy for assaulting the menace of 65 The trial represented the coming together of diverse parties with differing agendas, even within the fundamentalist side. reveals the absence of concern about an old earth among evangelical elites and academics in the nineteenth century, who often chose either a day age or gap perha continued to believe in a recent creation in six literal days, but these people rarely expressed their 66 l represented a subset of this very populist religion coming against secular learning, but with a very distinct geological perspective. Therefore three distinct stages are apparent in the history of young earth creationism. The ther in the common cause of saving youth. Price, Rimmer, and Bryan in the 1920s rose as advocates of the cause. In this time period, even intellectuals like J. Gresham Machen meshed with populist 64 David N. Livingstone, Evolutionary Thought (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1984), p.160. 65 Ibid., p. 159. 66 Numbers, Creationists p. 30.

PAGE 148

148 voices to fight modernism. The issue of the age of the ear th remained unresolved among fundamentalists. The last stage involved a new and strengthened populism after World War II. 67 Oddly enough, public perception of science had so radically changed by the third stage that even the most doctrinaire creationist had to take on the task of appearing to do good science worthy of publication. Rimmer used biblical exegesis of Hebrew as a justification for defending an old earth. In beginning his discourse on the first day of creation, he addressed the central issue first. There is one question that we are certain to meet in every such discussion as this, and that question is, ARE THE DAYS OF GENESIS LITERAL DAYS OF TWENTY FOUR HOURS EACH, OR ARE THEY PERIO DS OF TIME? evidence that shows also why we CANNOT KNOW. 68 lar living Testament one thousand and four hundred and eighty different times! and is translated into the English in our Bible by no less than fifty four different words. 69 He gave a representative sample: 1181 times as day (this covering several meanings) 67 times as time. 30 times as today. 67 Larson, Summer for the Gods p. 232. Larson puts Rimmer and Price on a similar level of influence until after the war. 68 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the First Day of Creation p. 115. 69 Ibid., pp. 115

PAGE 149

149 18 times as for ever. 10 times as continually. 6 times as age. 4 times as life. 2 times as perpetually. 70 Rimmer could not see this matter of the age of the earth as pivotal to the task of rescuing youth, and so he gave liberty. He d id understand the reality of a slippery slope leading to evolution but even that possible danger was not in his view enough to close the door on debate: Finally, there is no reason to demand an extensive time period in the days of creation in Genesis, exce pt the desire to be in conformity with the contentions and to acknowledge that the days of Genesis are geological ages, but the fact is, it is only necessary if the evolutionists are right! And in view of the fact that they are uniformly WRONG on all their other points, why must we make the Bible conform to their age factor at the cost of reason, and at the price of straining the text? ept the days of Genesis as solar days, as we believe Moses intended them to be understood. At the same time we dare not be dogmatic; and wish to emphasize once more the philological fact, that the word used is susceptible of other meanings 71 neration was not willing to wage war over the idea of an old earth. What had changed between the 1930s and the 1970s was not therefore a matter of more science or new r, in Rimmer flourished between William Jennings Bryan and Henry Morris. His was an age when geology could still be interpreted liberally without consequence. 70 Ibid., p. 116. 71 Ibid., p. 123. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 150

150 But there is the great oddity that the unschooled p opularizer Rimmer would be more amenable to discourse with geologists than the university trained Morris four decades later. nqualified, dogmatic answer either illuminating on this point. 72 73 For Rimmer whenever the author of Genesis spoke to a scientific matter, he supernaturally matched modern standards of the laboratory. But anywhere the Bible maintained ambiguity or silence there had to space for a tolerance and diversity of opinion. No moral harm would result, and no aut omatic descent into social disaster would follow. The Hebrew was the revealed an important distinction between terms: Even at the risk of possible repetition, we must deal here with this objection, and point out clearly that Moses does not state that these heavenly bodies are created on this fourth day of which he now write s. He does not use the Hebrew word rehabilitated place prepared for the reception and life an d of strange and new orders 74 This idea of releasing was not far from the embryological metaphor of unfolding matter with a teleological trajectory. Nonetheless, this notion was a form of developme ntal thinking that 72 Harry Rimmer, in Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets p. 372. 73 Ibid., p. 373. 74 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Fourth Day of Creation in Davis, Antievolution Pamphlets p. 227. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 151

151 avoided the randomization inherent in evolutionary worldview but embraced change over time. Unlike Morris, who later eliminated even the vestiges of cosmological time, Rimmer made an effort to meet modern science halfway. The Bible it self offered a means to escape a prolonged conflict about geological time, according to C.I. Scofield, whose version had deeply affected Rimmer as a young convert. The so h between the first two verses of Genesis, thus making the Edenic creation not an original event at creation ex nihilo ): in the Hebrew text is in the first verse of original creation, the primary constructio This verse and this work of ORIGINATION are not to be confused with the work of the First Week and we must not confuse them, or chaos will result in our thinking. 75 76 77 the characteristic term used in the days of the creation week. It implied not original creation but 78 It was the 75 Ibid., pp. 124 125. 76 Ibid., p. 125. 77 Ibid., p. 124. 78 Ibid

PAGE 152

152 79 Rimmer did not present a novel argument in suggestin g there were two creations in Genesis Chapter 1. More precisely, he argued there was a creation (verse 1), a ruin of that existent matter as well the novel creation o already known. Rimmer merely resurrected the case for a broad audience including the young: antedates the C reative Week with which Moses deals. Indeed, the Scripture carefully states that originally the creation was far different from that described in waste and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God 80 Rimmer referred to later Old Testament writers in keeping with the idea that scripture interpreted scripture as a basis for claiming a ruin, a fall that predated the fall of Adam and Eve. Using the Hebrew, he argued that there had to be a chronological space in the history of the universe for the fall of Lucifer, an event condensed in one key phrase: Let us see what a careful word study of this second verse will yield. this is the sense of the Vulgate as well. The second word to be also has no pluperfect tense, so the past tense is 79 Ibid 80 Ibid. p. 125.

PAGE 153

153 81 ativity of Rimmer who sought to attach its significance to a grand but hidden story he preferred the 82 Who or what was this previous life? Three prophets provided the answer and thereby a means to evolution. The gap theory therefore provided an escape hatch for fundamentalists temporarily with regard to geology. The gap contained a lost episode of incredible conflict i n the cosmos, a ruin and a restoration: Putting together the suggestive references of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, then, we arrive at the reason for the sudden chaos that swept the earth which God inhabited after Genesis created, until iniquity was found in thee! of wondrous beauty and wisdom, rebelled against God, his Creator, an d sought to became 83 Rimmer was quick to 84 The upshot for the relationship of fundamentalists to 81 Ibid., pp. 125 126. 82 Ibid., p. 126. 83 Ibid., p. 127. 84 Ibid

PAGE 154

154 he ruin wrought by Lucifer fell upon the earth, but it may have been an incalculable span of time 85 The result for the young student and the Christian entering the university was that the real e separation of human life from the pre existent material was the only essential conflict with science. In other words, Rimmer was making every possible harmonization with science he could in every discipline that did not directly assault the central beli c 86 The gap theory represented a sincere attempt among evangelicals to avoid conflict controversy about the earth. Autonomy as a Mark of the Devil Nonetheles s, Rimmer imagined dire consequences for walking the evolutionary t of enlightenment to claim autonomy from God. While evolutionists imagined a majestic rising of man from the animal, Rimmer drew exactly the inverse conclusion that this independent act led not to heaven but to hell. 87 Citing Isaiah 14, Rimmer made the de fiance of Lucifer the warning to YOURSELF! 85 Ibid Emphasis mine. 86 Ibid. 87 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Youth of Today pp. 471 472.

PAGE 155

155 ...When I remember that the students of America are fed this soul blasting and Satanic doctrine day after day, my heart fails me because of th 88 Rimmer understood the situation to be a recent calamity resulting from contamination of the minds of teachers and their charges who had given up their old fashioned faith for the new infidelity. Basic doctrines of Christ ianity had come under attack, as illustrated by a professor 89 Unknowing youth would leave the safe outstandi ng and scientific authority testified to them that their Christian faith was simply a 90 Rimmer reflected a widespread concern among fundamentalists in voicing this anxiety about the impact of higher learning. Edward Larson has noted the impact of Ja The Belief in God and Immortality (1916) on the motivation of William Jennings Bryan to participate in the Scopes prosecution. The book documented a direct relationship between extent of university exposure and the loss of faith among students, as well as a similar impact among academics. 91 Unlike his hesitations about the age of the earth, for Rimmer evolution was autonomy generating evil. As evolution forged humanity independent of the supernatural, so now humanity had rationalized its existe nce to be independent from God. The notion of rights was closely linked to the concept of autonomy here as both defied established power structures in determination for 88 Ibid., p. 47 2. 89 Ibid., p. 473. 90 Ibid., p. 474. 91 Larson, Summer for the Gods pp. 40 41. The full citation is James H. Leuba, The Belief in God and Immortality ntists Nature 386 (April 3, 1997): pp. 435 436.

PAGE 156

156 man or fo r devil was linked to the notion of evolution. Evolution led to the autonomous creation of rights, apart from God, and that would lead to the destruction of the nation. This final rdering of the universe. Rimmer understood the teaching of evolution as far more than a matter of philosophical skepticism it caused the destruction of families by conspiratorial forces represented by professors. In his 1925 pamphlet Modern Science and t he Youth of Today Rimmer claimed that called scholarly classes are becoming infidel to the ancient and traditional faith of style: Students in many cases laugh at the church and sneer at Christian faith because it is make shipwreck of their lives as they drift away from every mooring that would hold in times of stress. Without faith what can science do for the soul? The answer startled the world a few years gone by, when two prize students in a famous University killed a lad with brutality and violence, as a scientific experiment! and were defended by an avowed and rank atheist. This was only logical, for a theism and violence always go hand in hand 92 Headquarters Nights, William Jennings Bryan likewise believed that evolutionary teaching lay at the heart of German militarism in World War I. 93 AND SE 94 Evolution represented a destabilizing force in Judeo Christian civilization. 92 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Youth of Today pp. 462 463. Emphasis mine. 93 Larson, Summer for the Gods Headquart ers Nights (Boston: Atlantic, 1917). 94 Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Youth of Today p. 470.

PAGE 157

157 Just as he was schooled in physical combat, so Rimmer was precise in his ideological battles as well. As a Presbyterian and a dispensationalist, he was a product of Re formed culture and a defender of biblical inerrancy. The Reformed creeds, after all, began with the immutability of a sovereign God. God could not therefore evolve, and His words would not evolve either. Nor would nature, the glory of His handiwork. In defending the Bible as the word of God, Rimmer saw antievolutionism as an extension of that project because it prevented a rearrangement of the divine order. In this regard, Rimmer found a broad zone of agreement with other funda mentalists. But in his ope nness to old earth he was unwilling to extend the battle to geology, unlike his contemporary George McCready Price. George McCready Price (1870 1963): Instantaneity in Geology and Biology Born in 1870 in New Brunswick, Canada, George Edward Price saw his mother widowed when he was still a child. 95 His mother then brought the family into the spiritual fold of the Seventh ct that traced its origins back to the 96 William Miller was a New York product of the Second Great Awakening in America and had thrown himself into a mastery of biblical prophecy. Mustering a sizable number of followers, he led those awaiting the imminent return of Christ to believe 1844 would be the moment in which their deepest hopes would be realized. 97 The 98 95 According to Ronald Numbers, Price changed his middle name to McCready as an adult. See Creationists p. 89. 96 Ibid 97 Handbook of Denominations in the U nited States 11 th 98 Ibid

PAGE 158

158 In 1845, however, one successful Adventists because of their belief that worship on Saturday rather than Sunday was true faithfulness to Scripture, was led by a female prophetess, Ellen White (1827 1915), whose visions laid the foundation o 99 Godfrey T. Anderson group, beginning with a vision of hope that the chosen were not forgotten by Christ. 100 Numbers se ts White respectively alongside Joseph Smith of the Mormons and Mary Baker Eddy of revelations from God, and, with her encouragement, accorded her a status eq ual to the biblical 101 Strict rules of diet and drink were part of the Adventist lifestyle, and as a natural extension of this emphasis on the body, hospitals and related philanthropies became a hallmark of the group. There was a direct correspond the church, seen, for example, in an 1863 revelation that White regarded as a divine command to 102 Furthermore, her visions touched upon v arious aspects of science. Of interest to us is her concept of a worldwide flood since it was absorbed by the father of flood geology, George thousand years and elim inated day age or gap theories from consideration. 103 99 Ibid., 100 Adventism in America: A History ed. Gary Land, (Gr and Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), pp. 38 39. 101 Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), p. ix. 102 Ibid., p. x. 103 Numbers, Creationists p. 90.

PAGE 159

159 distinctive Sabbath doctrine, Adventists adamantly opposed any scientific theory that proposed 104 s the secondary school. On an assignment in a remote village on the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Price made an important contact with a local physician that propelled him into an exposure with secular geology. 105 first book, Outlines of M odern Christianity and Modern Science published in 1902. This work geological time. Numbers observes that to out of 106 107 Throug h this act of time compression Price flattened the evolutionary tree much like Rimmer did and would take one step further in his next book. After a series of moves and vocational failures, Price found his way to a teaching post in Southern California. The re in 1906 he published a second book, Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory in which he claimed to prove a complete overthrow of the field of geology. Using evidence from the Canadian Geological Survey and other sources, he stated that so 104 Ibid 105 Ibid., p. 91. 106 Ibid., p. 93. 107 Harold W. Clark, Crusader for Creation: The Life and Writings of George McCready Price (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1966), pp. 17 18.

PAGE 160

160 Price announced a new geological principle, the Law of Confo rmable Stratigraphical Sequence : 108 Rimmer argued that fossils were deposited simultaneously regardless of their apparent evolutionary order; Pric e argued that the very rock layers themselves had been deposited at once. Clark comments that legitimately. 109 succession of life is the product of subjective imagination and can be proved only by assuming 110 He went on to publish a textbook in 1923, Th e New Geology which put forward the concept of a catastrophism to describe not as a cycle, but a single event the worldwide Flood. 111 Though Price had exerted so much energy dealing with geology, he was interested to grapple with biological questions as we ll. In 1917 and 1924, Price published Q.E.D. or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation and The Phantom of Organic Evolution respectively. These two works were similar in their tone in that they were designed to use recent scientific findings to question t he certainty of established evolutionary assumptions. The stated goal of Q.E.D. was to demonstrate that the evolutionary notion of uniform processes continuously at work was inherently false. Creation thinking was radically different: "Forces and powers we re brought into 108 Numbers, Creationists p. 97. Emphasis is Numbers, capital letters Illogical Geology : George McCready Price, The Fundamentals of Geology (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1913), p. 119. 109 Clark, Crusader for Creation p. 24 25. 110 Ibid., p. 27. 111 Numbers, Creationists pp. 98 99.

PAGE 161

161 exercise and results were accomplished that have not since been exercised or accomplished." 112 Price went on to discuss matter, energy, and life, focusing upon the limitations inherent in nature. He noted that the Law of the Conservation of E nergy, the disproval of spontaneous generation theories, and the revelation of genetic limits in Mendelian breeding all pointed to a confirmation of the testimony of Genesis. 113 The purpose of The Phantom of Organic Evolution was to attack the established dogmas of evolution by questioning its defenders and their awareness of the negative scientific and social impacts of their theory. Here Price reiterated his confidence about geological layers being laid down simultaneously and the impact of this realizat ion upon biology: "[W]hat sort of chance would there be left for a theory of organic evolution under such circumstances?" 114 Price repeated many of the arguments from Q.E.D. and earlier works here but added new notes of skepticism and concern. "It is the st andpatters in science who are complaining about these new lines of discovery, that each of these new revelations ... is not contributing in any way to the further development of the evolution theory." 115 This tactic of using new science to subvert the old a t least superficially made Price stand apart from the antievolutionists typified by William Jennings Bryan, who were content to make generalized attacks. As an example, Clark recounts tion for the 112 George McCready Price, Q.E.D.; or, New Light on the Doctrine of Creation In Selected Works of George McCready Price edited by Ronald L. Numbers, vol. 7 of Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903 1961 ed. Ro nald Numbers (1917; repr., New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 102. See also Clark, Crusader for Creation p. 40. 113 Price, Q.E.D ., pp. 136, 149, and 191 192. 114 George McCready Price, The Phantom of Organic Evolution In Numbers, Selected Works of Geor ge McCready Price p. 242. 115 Ibid., p. 325.

PAGE 162

162 Advancement of Science in December 1921, in which the geneticist questioned the confidence of scientists regarding understanding the means for the origin of species. 116 In Phantom of Organic Evolution Price added three assaults, attacking the c oncept of homology as proof of phylogeny, exposing fraud in the use of embryos to prove evolutionary relationships, and examining the Nietzschean political impact of natural selection. 117 Price's conclusion was that modern science actually reinforced the twi n ideas underpinning his all these great ancestral types the great world cataclysm 118 Price added some details about the origin of race that revealed a deep sense of degeneration away from an Edenic ideal. Inherent in this argument was a commitment to order that coded racial mixing as chaos. For his efforts Price achieved brief fame. Numbers comments that William Jennings t the Scopes Trial, only to be warned by an already committed Price to avoid the matter of scientific debates altogether. 119 world at the core of his project to re define science. However, as an Adventist removed not only from secular audiences but also from mainstream evangelicals, the bookish Price was more a the deluge fr om his survey of the latest research. While Rimmer was far better known, Price, by arguing for a young earth and recently created life together, was more grandiose in his purpose. ale necessary for 116 Clark, Crusader for Creation p. 45. 117 Price, Phantom pp. 383, 413, and 419. 118 Ibid., 119 Numbers, Selected Works of George McCready Price p. xiii.

PAGE 163

163 common descent from the realm of proper inquiry. In addition, his facility with scientific vocabulary despite a limited education gave the impression that he appreciated the practice of discourse, when in reality he rejected ongoing debat e. His own denomination did not remain free from controversy either. Already in her called ist leadership. Gary Land recounts that criticism of White seemed to be equated to higher criticism of the Bible in the eyes of church leaders, and although they fought against this implication to some degree, rding the statements of the Bible and those of 120 and a call to stop the flow of evolutionary time. According to Clark, Price left a lasting impression from the 1940s onward upon the leading young earth creationist of the future, Henry in a strategic way in the critical years of the first half of the ce 121 Stopping Geological Time geology rested upon a fundamental falsehood. Hence came his most important contribution the the entire discipline of geology, based as it was on a dating process that Price sought to 120 n Church, 1906 Adventism in America, p.158. In the 1970s, Ronald Prophetess of Health, pp. According to Land, the church essentially Adventism in America, p. 223. 121 Clark, Cru sader for Creation p. 67.

PAGE 164

164 Illogical Geology : The Weakest Point in Evolution Theory It was written well before even Bryan took up the antievolution crusade in the aftermath of the 1914 war: will, in the face of the facts here presented, show on of life is not an actual scientific fact, then sharpest barbs for so modern theory of evolution is about 95% due to t he geology of Lyell and only 122 Simultaneity was therefore the single most important concept in geology and in biology there is no geological epoch whose sedimentary deposits have been wholly s afeguarded from metamorphic changes uniformitarianism, the pillar that upheld Darwinism. 123 can we now go to find those kinds of fossils which we can prove, by independent arguments, to 124 The geological column was thus flattened and made ambiguous and uncertain: Or to state the matter in another way, since the life succession theory rests logically tain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated, it is as clear as sunlight that the life succession theory rests logically a nd historically on a myth,, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first 125 122 Numbers, Selected Works of George McCready Price, p. x. 123 George McCready Price, Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory In Selected Works of George McCready Price 124 Ibid., p. 23. 125 Ibid.

PAGE 165

165 after the First World War leaders. 126 The New Geology The New Geology titled The New Geology appeared in 1923, at the height of anti evolution frenzy. The writer proposed nothing less than an overthrow of modern geological method to make room for the possibility of a single catastrophe, a worldwide flood, as the cause for plants and day treated as the most firmly established dogma of the whole science [of 127 This teaching would be the central target of his polemic, set up as a battle between competing theories: Why should any apology be needed here for bringing in the hypothesis of a great world catastrophe to account for some (an indefinite amount) of the geological changes? Its rival, the theory of uniformity, has so long been in vogue that we are all inclined to forget that it also is only a theo ry ; and that if this ancient alternative, a great world catastrophe, will more satisfactorily explain some of the phenomena, a true scientific induction ought not to have any settled prejudice against it which would continue everlastingly to rule it out of court. 128 126 Numbers, Selected Works of George McCready Price p. x. 127 George McCready Price, The New Geology: A Textbook for Colleges, Normal Schools, and Training Schools; and for the General Reader 2 nd ed. ( Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923), p. 5. 128 Ibid., p. 7.

PAGE 166

166 Price then begins a nearly six hundred page survey of natural and geological history that is largely descriptive in nature; theorizing was reserved approximately for the last hundred pages, and it is that section to which the present study will c onfine itself. much more slowly than some of the other sciences, and has not yet escaped from the period of a priori 129 Central t was a limited willingness to speculate about the details of origins science could only point the way but never answer questions of ultimate cause. 130 Speculation through hypothesis had potential to enslave when improper ly utilized: That is, a theory put to work is a hypothesis And hypotheses are always dangerous things. We put our intellectual freedom at stake whenever we adopt a hypothesis. We can make absolutely no progress in any line of science without using them; y et they are more dangerous to use than dynamite. And the more we use a hypothesis, more hopeless becomes our intellectual slavery, if this hypothesis happens to be really wro ng ; for a cherished hypothesis blinds the eyes of the observer to new facts, just as a gift has been said to blind the eyes of a judge in court. 131 In his approach to science, Price stood in between the purest Baconians ,who valued description only, and tho se who would employ hypotheses on a regular basis. Price saw both continuity among living species and discontinuity among historical forces at work. He argued against uniformitarianism in geology and biology by making a case that the past processes were i nherently different from the present: Certain it is that modern biology, and geology also, for that matter, have simply developed a complete negative demonstration against the easy assumptions of the earlier scientists that plants and animals probably orig inated by a gradual 129 Ibid., p. 587. 130 Ibid., p. 608. 131 Ibid., p. 661.

PAGE 167

167 progression from the lower to the higher types by processes similar to those which 132 different essentially and radically different from anything now going on in ou 133 Without belaboring the point by discussing the miraculous, Price left the door open. But while he would argue for abrupt changes in processes, he also made a case for the simultaneous existence of extinct and living species as part of a flood n a sort of fairy world of the long ago held the key to all the rest 134 Nonetheless, The New Geology would show a theoretical side beyond mere Baconian He sought out anomalies and made these proof of a sudden cataclysm first; then he extrapolated formations in which presumably young and old layers lacked intervening rock masses of an obvious proof that these strata followed o ne another in quick succession with no great time interval in between 135 A more extreme case was the thrust fault, in which the older layer had a position above the younger. Examining this case caused Price ultimately to conclude the geological column was a fabrication as a whole given that every order of serial relationship 132 Price, The New Geology 133 Ibid., p. 606. 134 Ibid., 135 Ibid.,

PAGE 168

168 law of conformable stratigraphic sequence 136 I n the above case, Price utilized two instances problematic for geologists and turned the data to his advantage; however, his actual theory of a worldwide flood expressed his more must have been the direct cause, sounding oddly speculative: a stronomical reason for the establishment of this position is not well under astronomical habit. To bring about any such change would require an external force, and a force of larg e magnitude. But if we may suppose such a change possible its orbit, and some external force had changed the earth to its present inclined position and changed it suddenly there w surface sufficient to do an inconceivable amount of geological work. 137 matching the biblical documents in their severity. This r epresented the climax of The New Geology which added a small section of human evolution seemingly as an afterthought. He demonstrated the desire to be taken seriously as a scientist, but he also wanted to redefine the entire discipline of geology in one f ell swoop, using biblical narrative as a guide and the story of the Noachian flood as a means to his end. He was scrupulous throughout most of the book to use scientific and not theological language, acknowledging the public prestige of science. At the sa me time, he separated historical science as being opinion and speculation apart from the rest of science, lambasting figures such as Buffon, Lyell, and Darwin. 138 136 Price, The New Geology 137 Ibid., pp. 684 685. 138 Ibid., pp. 587 603.

PAGE 169

169 use of 139 Numbers also notes that the reception of The New Geology was quite diverse. Price was charged with photographic plagiarism by a Yale geologist, Charles Schuchert, fo textbook illustrations without permission. 140 On the other hand Price was praised by antievolutionist leaders including Rimmer and Bryan, who invited him to testify at the Scopes Trial. 141 The latter fact demonstrated that despite the diff erences among them regarding the age of the earth, co belligerence ruled as a theme. Finally, Price would be attacked by a former Adventist disciple, Harold Clark, but much later admired by the Baptist Henry Morris, whose 1961 Genesis Flood resembled Price 142 Geology and Genetics: Limiting Time in simple prejudice. But in view of this purely artificial character of the geological series, what a strange sight which evolution has taken place, such for instance as the use made of the graded just how organic development has oc curred. One might just as well arrange the modern dogs from the little spaniel to the St. Bernard, for the geological series is just as artificial as would be this of the dogs. 143 the Scopes era. 139 Numbers, Creationists p. 99. 140 Ibid., p. 109. 141 Ibid., pp. 115 116. 142 Ibid., pp. 145, 219 and 22 7. Morris will be dealt with in Chapter Seven below. 143 Price, Q.E.D ., p. 216.

PAGE 170

170 The secular idea of catastrophism he employed enthusiastically for spiritual purposes. It contrasted to uniformitarianism as Mendel did to Darwin in biology. Just as catastrophism had a quality of suddenness, gen etics showed species capable of rapid but limited change. Price sought to demonstrate that Mendelism prohibited the gradual transformation of one species into another ally. of the puzzles of variation and heredity some thirty discovered that living things contained a limited number of tr ansmissible characters such as color and shape that manifested in offspring in predictable ratios. 144 Frederick Gregory notes that in the debate over Darwinism in the decades surrounding 1900, during which one of the key questions hinged on whether evoluti on involved only gradual scale change),Mendelism supported the idea of jumps. The Dutch plant physiologist Hugo de Vries emphasized discontinuous variation as a facet o f Mendelism, which showed the possibility of 145 While discussing artificial breeding, Price comments that in his belief mutants were not something trul y new, however: The kinds so produced are termed mutants and at first they were hailed by publicity to this idea; for he thought he had really produced a new kind comparable in every respect to a true species as produced by nature among wild plants. But the with certain traits] was at first hailed by biologists has gradually subsided; for it has been found that though these new forms will breed true under certain conditions, they are nevertheless cross fertile with the original forms and thus the circle can be 144 Ibid., p. 178. 145 Frederick Gregory, Natural Science in Western History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008), p. 475.

PAGE 171

171 completed back again can a gain be produced at will with the same mathematical exactness as before. 146 the parent form possesses more potential characters than it can give expression to in a single ind ividual form, some of them being necessarily latent or hidden, and that when these latent ones show themselves they must do so at the expense of others which become latent or hidden in their 147 Price cited the champion of Mendelism, William Bateson, on this point, claiming that the parental generations always contained the fullest range of genetic possibility in their cells. 148 Thus no true novelty could erupt in nature. To Price, Mendel seemed to deny to natural selection the infinite variation upon wh ich time could act. Furthermore, Price therefore at least appearance of living things. In addition to using Mendelism and geology to attack evolution, Pric e, like Rimmer, fossils, Price claimed that any family tree constructed via homologous organs was bogus, going to an extreme unusual even for a fundamentalist of the day. Price virtually compressed the entire to be specif ic, there is no adequate evidence that the dinosaurs lived before the elephants, or that 146 Price, Q.E.D. p. 89 147 Ibid., 148 Ibid. p. 92.

PAGE 172

172 149 The result made a farce of Thus it would appea essential characters often duplicated by other animals which are not at all related to it by descent. Or, if we should follow out all the lines of descent suggested by all the various structures o f any particular animal, we should find that this animal has had far too many possible ancestors; he literally has ancestors among the mollusks, or among the reptiles, or among the fishes; and this multiplication of possible lines of genetic descent seems to me one of the most serious objections to the whole scheme of organic evolution as commonly understood. 150 gleaned from geological evidence denied evolution over time. Finally, Harold Clark points out that Price displayed no willingness to accept the compromises other evangelicals had entertained with regard to the age of the earth. He resisted both the gap theory and the day hat God brought the world into existence by a different method than He is using to operate it, and therefore man cannot interpret 151 an inscrutable event essential ly shut down the ability of scientists to evaluate it. Stopping Biological Time Resetting the geological clock gave Price his basis for attacking the assumptions of biology. At the center of these certainties he endorsed stood the physical sciences and t heir laws. Here was the model for all credible investigation in the biological world. Chemistry in particular 149 Price, Phantom of Organic Evolution p. 445. 150 Ibid., pp. 357 358. 151 Clark, Crusader for Creation pp. 57 and 60.

PAGE 173

173 drew his attention for its regularity, controlled variety, and immediate observability. He saw a parallel between the recipe like mindset of Men delian genetics and chemical activity: once we can always be sure of producing the very same mutants again in the very same way as surely as we produce a definite chemical compoun d; and when we have made it we can always resolve it at will back into its original form just as we can a chemical compound. And so, where is the evolution? or how do these facts throw any light on the problem of the origin of species, any more than chemi cal compounds throw light on the origin of the elements? Obviously in biology as in chemistry we are only working in a circle, merely marking time. 152 In other words, there can be no true innovation; rather, due to Mendel, in biology one saw an extension o 153 Given that he spoke in the decades between the Scopes Trial of 1925 and the public success of the Ne o 154 He limited the species of the tree of life by removing transitional forms. He al so denied that transmutation could result from the possibility of genetic novelty. sion of natural 155 science by means of which new factors can be originated which were not potentially latent in the 152 George McCready Price, Q.E.D.; pp. 184 185. 153 Ibid., p. 125. 154 Numbers, Selected Works of George McCready Price, p. ix. Numbers is citing Science 63 (1926): p. 259. 155 Price, Q.E.D ., p. 188.

PAGE 174

174 156 The conclusion struck at the heart of the other supposed foundation for biological evolution, by showing that small variations cannot be accumulated into large differences equal in value to a unit character or a new species 157 The retrievability of ori ginal forms had erased for Price the possibility of common descent, and the evidence appeared to come from the most up to date science. In 1924, Price exulted in identifying the fundamentalist worldview with the Mendelian camp, in contrast to evolutionis ts And it is surely an interesting phenomenon to note that the friends of the Bible, s progressives in their attitude toward modern science; while the so 158 In other words, Price read the latest information from genetics to mean th at a shrinkage of evolutionary time was called for. 159 The limits for change were set by the Creator in the beginning, and only a momentary wandering from an ancestral center would be allowed before the original characters would re the origin of matter, of energy, of life, and from the laws of the reproduction of cells, indic ate 156 Ibid., p. 189. 157 Price, Q.E.D ., p. 190. Emphasis mine. 158 George McCready Price, The Phantom of Organic Evolution p. 251. 159 Price, Q.E.D. p. 189.

PAGE 175

175 160 The very notion of unlimited biological creativity and spontaneity was profound ly offensive to Price: One of the assumptions made by Charles Darwin in building up his theory of organic evolution, was that plants and animals naturally tend to vary in all directions and to an unlimited degree. He recognized no law in connection with va riation, for in his day no such law was known. But Mendelism is now showing us quite definitely how plants and animals vary. Just as definitely the new science of heredity is showing us the precise limits of these variations, and the limits of the possibil ities in the way of the hereditary transmission of characters. 161 Limitation to variation was directly connected to the interpretation of evolutionary relatedness; Price was setting up another roadblock to common descent, using Mendel. eativity, Price also had to redefine the significance of variations not yet discovered: The other difficulty with which we are confronted by Mendelism is even more serious, when we attempt to use these facts regarding heredity to explain the origin of gen era, families, orders, classes, and phyla. For we soon find that there are very definite limits to the kinds which we can produce in this fashion. We find that we are merely working around within a limited circle; for by back crossing we can always work back to the original forms with which we started, just as the chemist can always work backwards and get the original compounds with which he began his experiments. And just as the chemist finds that he can never get out of his retorts and test tubes any ne w element which was not already contained in the compounds with which he has been working, so does the Mendelian find that, no matter how wide a variety of types he may succeed in producing, he is still within the charmed circle of the original type of lif e, beyond which it seems impossible to carry any organic changes by either natural or artificial methods 162 Therefore the created order could never be transmuted or truly go extinct, only be rearranged. The sense that creation depended on this maintenance one act of 160 Ibid., p. 192. 161 Price, Phantom of Organic Evolution, p. 259. 162 Ibid., pp. 270 271. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 176

176 creation which may easily be supposed to have included all of those ancestral types from which our modern varieties of pla 163 As evidence that this approach 164 But Price was also able to capitalize upon history. In using Mendelism to counter gradual evolution, Price benefited from a crisis and mechanism of natural selecti on as the primary engine of change came under heavy fire at the end selection 165 Mendelism, mutationism, and neo Lamarckism were just some of the challengers. Bowler takes other historians to task for not recognizing the seriousness of this moment, stating mble the crisis state 166 The possibility of a reconciliation between Darwinism and Mendelism was temporarily hindered in part by the state of isolation of biological disciplines until the 1920s, when Price was a ctively attacking evolution. The modern synthesis of genetics and natural selection was still them from the problems of traditional natural history, allowing them to oversimplify the complex 163 Ibid., 164 Ibid., p. 339. 165 Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Dec ades Around 1900 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), p. 5. 166 Ibid., pp. 5 and 11.

PAGE 177

177 167 Therefore, what Price imagined as a permanent warfare between Mendel and Darwin was actually merely part of the completion of what Thomas w paradigm (Neo Darwinian evolution) emerged to supplant the old (special creation). 168 In essence, Price capitalized on the momentary lack of interdisciplinary communication within biological fields. Certainly the intellectual work required to arrange the se works was no small feat, particularly since George McCready Price was essentially self taught. As a result Price saw 169 As Bryan and others did, Price coded evolution as the sy mbol of chaos and of an indifferent deity. Nietzsche of the most outspoken in his bald glorification of the bloody ladder of natural selection as the only means o 170 subordinated humans to other humans in a caste like and nearly evolutionary sense. This final point bears special mention since it lurked in the background during this perio d. As the later ideological descendants of Price, Machen, Bryan, and Rimmer in Reformation churches saw, their concept of America as a covenantal nation was crumbling. The Anglo Saxon facet of creationism reared its head with renewed force. 167 Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea rev. ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 280. 168 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3 rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). 169 Price, Phantom of Organic Evolution p. 251. 170 Ibid., p. 419.

PAGE 178

178 Coding Race M ixing as Evolution, Autonomy and Apostasy the biblical story of the Fall to defend separation as God ordained. The Fall accounted for the existence of a degenerative force that created races who did not measure up to the Edenic ideal. After the Fall, the white race was presumed to be closer to the original Adam than other rac es, whose distance put them closer to other primates. Price argued that Darwinism actually celebrated what moral people ought to abhor: The merest tyro in the study of organic evolution can see that the doctrine of e most morally objectionable characteristics manifested by animals and men the ladder by which all true progress has been attained. In other words, those qualities among the lower races of een made by Darwin and his followers the chief factor in their scheme of organic evolution. 171 Price went further, identifying the force responsible for apes and nonwhites as simultaneously degenerative and creative: Many arguments have been adduced to prov e that man is a developed ape; yet not a single one of these arguments but would just as logically prove that the apes are degenerate or hybrid men. There are no clear and positive evidences from paleontology which would prove that the existing anthropoid apes existed before the great world cataclysm, or the Deluge. These present day anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind. 172 And there could be no question that the movement from the order of Eden to the decadence of the present had nonetheless left vestiges of past glory in certain parts of the earth: 171 Ibid., pp. 416 417. 172 Ibid., p. 446. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 179

179 Similarly when we compare the best of the modern races of men physically with the Cro Magnards of the deposits of Western Europe, we also see a degeneracy, although we cannot be sure that these Cro Magnard men, the finest race the world 173 Man was originally created on a higher plane structurally and anatomically th an he is at present 174 Thus the moral descent brought physical changes to certain members of Homo sapiens. By this means the races of men came to be, with moral content hidden inside their visible differences. Using the story of the Tower of Babel, Price believed a long term separation had been legislated by God to prevent autonomy from God: The believer in the Bible will also point out a moral and social reason for the differentiation of mankind into distinct races. He reads in the early record of the po st diluvian world that all of mankind were of one speech and one race; but that designing men started to make capital out of this fact, and attempted to consolidate all under one rule and one system of worship, which evidently was an apostate system. The record is that God again interfered, and broke up the scheme, scattering the fragments of the race abroad upon the face of the earth. 175 Price referred here to the claim that a diversity of languages was the divine means for the significance: And just as artificial barriers of language were interposed to keep them from again blending into one world embracing despotism, so we may well suppose that the barriers of race and co lour were also interposed at this same time, these racial barriers assisting in segregating the people of the world into self contained groups, thus most effectually preventing them from ever again uniting. And there is no doubt that if human beings had al ways been as true to natural instincts as are the species among the higher animals, there never would have been amalgamation 173 Ibid., p. 446. 174 Ibid., s. 175 Ibid., p. 342.

PAGE 180

180 among these races which had thus been set apart from one another by a special intervention of Providence. 176 Therefore, if moral de pravity were especially understood to be part of the nonwhite races, and God Himself separated the world into races, it stood to reason that the white race descended from ng to degenerate groups. Living and writing in the early decades of the twentieth century, Price was no doubt aware of racial tensions in the United States and glob al attempts to increase cross cultural communication. Price believed that the Bible provided the answer to maintaining order segregation. For Price, America, as the city on a hill and a light to the nations, had to preserve its Reformational, Anglo Saxon, and covenantal identity if it was to retain its leadership role. For both Rimmer and Price, evolutionary time had to be stopped in the field of biology. But the fact that Rimmer could tolerate an old earth demonstrated the lack of urgency among antievolu tionists trying to re orient themselves to science and the public in the years between historical moment but prophetic of what was to come. It could be said he was Ameri creationist writing at a time when antievolutionism as a broad and nondescript movement was fading away. gregariousness caused him to see a diversity of opinion s daily, the bookish and insulated Price organized his assaults from the security of isolation and with people who already agreed with 176 Ibid.

PAGE 181

181 movement. On the other, Rimmer followed in the tradition of the itinerant evangelist. Theirs was a period where antievolutionism came first, and young earth views had not yet become the pre eminent concern. Both men were concerned about the philosophical implications of Darwinism, bu t Price followed his conclusions to the point of advocating a separation of the races. The tumultuous state of America after the Second World War would give both men an opportunity to leave an enduring mark Price with the methodical analysis illustrated i n The New Geology and Rimmer with his modeling of an antievolutionist institution in the Research Science Bureau. The future of antievolutionist protest, embodied in the engineer Henry Morris, would take lessons from both Rimmer and Price. However, the external context the receptive audience was something that neither Rimmer, Price, nor Morris could of themselves create. Evolution, as previously mentioned, was a tangible entity vulnerable to attack when fundamentalists were generally distressed about the trajectory the country was taking. A subset of the Northern Presbyterians Machen and Rimmer represented will, in the next chapter, set the stage for the le ft became entangled with the interests of antievolutionists.

PAGE 182

182 CHAPTER 4 CARL MCINTIRE AND THE CHRISTIAN BEACON APOSTASY IN CHURCH AND STATE The death of Machen in 1937 and the end of the Great Depression marked a significant decline in the social status of evangelicalism because of two events. First, evangelicalism was not yet distinct from its militant cousin, fundamentalism, which scarred both movements with an anti intellectual label. According to George Marsden, the myth that attended the Scopes trial had popularized a divide between two forces: The central theme was, inescapably, the clash of two worlds, the rural and the urban. In the popular imagination, there were on the one side the small town, the backwoods, half educated yokels, obscurantism, cra ckpot hawkers of religion, fundamentalism, the South, and the personification of the agrarian myth himself, William Jennings Bryan. Opposed to these were the city, the clique of New York Chicago lawyers, intellectuals, journalists, wits, sophisticates, mo dernists, and the cynical agnostic Clarence Darrow. 1 Media and academic elites would use the trial as a reference point for extremism in religion that [fundam 2 The second event was the engagement of liberal churches with the immediate social problems and a concomitant turn away from the controversial theology fundamentalism embodied. Furthermore, by the 1960s even the legal traces of the Scopes era were vanishing. The laws of Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi banning evolution had gone the way of the dodo, with the Mississippi statute falling last in 1970. The South was entering the modern age at last, 1 George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 185. 2 Ibid ., p. 184.

PAGE 183

183 or so it app Epperson decision of 1968, which overturned the Arkansas law, revisited the legacy of the Scopes trial. 3 With such rejections by clergy and intellectuals alike, the fading of evangelicals and fun announcement of his Within days, news media that seldom paid serious attention to religion were abuzz with questions: What precisely, did it mean to claim that one The terminology, while perhaps alien to many journalists and others outside religious circles, could hardly have been more familiar or less controversial to 4 In addition, antievolutionism was on the rebound in a form that even William Jennings Bryan and Harry Rimmer would not have espoused. Ronald Numbers has proposed that in the 1970s a surprising constriction had taken place: During the early decades of the twentieth century, few creationists, even among h ard shell fundamentalists, insisted on a young earth or a fossil producing age and gap theories to Genesis 1, even the staunchest defenders of biblical inerrancy could accommodate the claims of historical g eology. But by the end of the century, through the efforts of men such as George McCready Price, John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, the very word creationism had come to signify the recent appearance of life on earth and a geologically significant deluge. 5 3 Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods pp. 255 256. 4 William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America rev. ed. (New York: Broadway Books, 2005), p. 149. 5 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists, p. 368.

PAGE 184

184 during the height of the anti evolution movement evaporated so much later, and what did that late disappearance signify? Numbers asserts that Morris and a small host of allies singlehandedly persuaded fundamentalists and evangelicals to refute not only biological evolution, but to go much further than the earlier generation had by refuting the concept of an old earth as anti God, anti Bible and anti what it meant to be a good creationist occurred in a period where the prestige of science among Americans had grown tremendously. Edward Larson points out that in the 1920s during the height of a nti evolution frenzy scientists had neither the numbers nor the financial clout to as the American scientific community gained size and public support during the thirty five years following Scopes 6 Henry Morris confronted a different society willing to give scientists the cultural microphone. Larson states that firstly the number of scientists had increased to the hundreds of thousands by 1960, and that secondly funding for science had ballooned from tens of 7 support for science mounted steadil y during the Depression and exploded during World War 8 The reason for the turnaround was that William Jennings development of an atomic b omb in 1949 and the first hydrogen bomb in 1954 created this fear, 6 Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 89. 7 Ibid ., p. 90. 8 Ibid

PAGE 185

185 but the real shock came in 1957, when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite [Sputnik, four The Genesis Flood 9 Changing geopolit ical power arrangements on the large scale had elevated the social position of science relative to Anglo Saxon Protestant theology in America. provide a sufficient expla nation of the rise of creationism. While he notes engineer Henry Adventist, George McCready Price, for a wider fundamentalist audience in The Genesis Flood, he menti ons that the Morris Whitcomb arrangement fit neatly with a broader battle over the flood geology demanded too much speculation and interpretation by the reader. 10 But why would such tolerance for interpretation be present among even fundamentalists in the 1930s but not forty years later? The larger context pressing fundamenta lists requires elucidation. This larger context --one of national emergency --provides a rationale for the evaporation of compromise options like old Of four groups to emerge in the 1930s, one became the spearhead for the fu ture creationist cause and eventually to what became the Religious Right. First there were the liberal 9 I bid ., p. 91. 10 Numbers, The Creationists p. 371.

PAGE 186

186 churches of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ (later the National Council of Churches), which, with the World Council of Churches, worked for so cial justice using ecumenical means and political alliances particularly in years after 1945. These foci were abhorrent to the second group, separatist fundamentalists, who came from many diverse denominations but possessed a common commitment to the iner rancy of Scripture and of the U.S. Constitution. This second group provides the focus of this chapter. For the present study the Presbyterian fundamentalists led by Carl McIntire will take center stage. The third group was made up of evangelical moderate s, or accommodating fundamentalists, who, although they hailed from the same lineage as the separatists, sought to shed stereotypes inherited from the Scopes era by engaging liberals and modernists thoughtfully. The Billy Graham New York Crusade of 1957 s erved as a dividing separatist comrades, who did not. The last group, Southern isolationists, demonstrated far more militancy in the 1970s than they did in the 1930s. La rgely conservative, many white Southerners shrank from the controversialism of the Northern Presbyterians like McIntire initially. However, in 1979 the Southern Baptist conservatives rose up to wage a war on behalf of the inerrancy doctrine and joined hand s with Presbyterians such as Francis Schaeffer, a former McIntire ally. It is the second group --the separatists --that attacked court interference with family life and public education, and therefore it is this group that serves to illustrate why the u rgent need to the history of fundamentalism provides important insight into the development of a rights oriented mentality among conservative Protestants.

PAGE 187

187 Carl McIntire (1906 2002): Separatist Pastor and Rights Advocate Carl McIntire was born in Ypsilanti, Michigan i n 1906 and grew up in Oklahoma in a and decided to pursue ministerial studies at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1927. There he would become involved in the F undamentalist Modernist controversy and come to side with J. Gresham Machen against the liberal faction. 11 The allegiance to Machen would cost McIntire dearly. When the PC USA leadership ceton Seminary] through conservative faction in a marginal position. 12 Longfield notes that a climate of division grew at the Seminary within the first two decades of the twentieth century as those leaders who valued practical ministry began to clash with other faculty, such as Machen, who esteemed doctrine first. Machen assumed that tolerance for liberal thinking contributed to the demotion of doctrine. 13 Tensions at t he school reached such a fever pitch that the General Assembly of the PC [Calvinist doctrine in the tradition of Hodge and Warfield] or tolerate divergent theological 14 Longfield adds that a committee assigned to investigate the state of the seminary 15 Hart comments that ultimately t he 11 Twentieth Century Shapers of American Popular Religion ed. Charles H. Lippy (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), p. 256. 12 Ibid ., p. 257. 13 Longfield, The Presbyter ian Controversy pp. 130 132. 14 Ibid ., p. 163. 15 Ibid ., p. 168.

PAGE 188

188 implementing administrative reforms that encouraged greater centralization and at the same time 16 One of the casualties of the new press f freedom to question the trajectory the school was taking theologically. 17 Rather than accept this outcome, Machen left with a number of faculty and students, including two future leaders of note, Carl McIntire and Harold Ockenga (later of the National Association of Evangelicals), to found Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia in 1929. 18 Robert J. Mulholland notes McIntire, who graduated from Westminster in 1931, chose to be ordained in the PC USA denomination. He served a s pastor at an Atlantic City church for three years before accepting a call to the church at which he would remain for decades, Collingswood Presbyterian Church in Collingswood, New Jersey. 19 Machen sought an additional level of purity in his denomination by attacking between conservatives and liberals and among conservatives. To stem the tide of modernism, Machen helped organize the Independent Board of Foreign M issions, free of denominational 20 Machen then led the effort to 16 Hart, Defending the Faith p. 126. 17 Ibid ., p. 128. 18 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism p. 156. 19 ., Bowling Green State University, 1984), p. 19. 20 Thunder on the Right: The Protestant Fundamentalists (Chicago: Nelson Hall Company, 1974), p. 70 71.

PAGE 189

189 found the Presbyterian Church of America (lat er known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) in 1936. However, Machen had led two groups of separatists out of Princeton, and irreconcilable differences about the use of alcohol, premillenialism, and church government drove these two factions apart. Afte Presbyterians, who opposed the use of alcohol and held strongly to pre millenialism. 21 From this base he built a small empire that included a new seminary, Faith Theological, two colleges, a radio ministry, and a weekly newspaper, the Christian Beacon 22 Gary Clabaugh comments that the Beacon reprinting articles from various sources, frequently without permission, and then subjecting them to comment or rebuke. But even the casual reader would not interpret this style as an attempt at 23 First of all, he held the common fundamentalist view that the Bible was not only divine revelation but the basis of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, he was opposed to collectivist ideas such as ecumenism and Communism. Thirdly, and linked to the other two, he staunchly defended free ente rprise as biblically based. Chief among his oppositions was a strong animosity for the ecumenical movement. Baranowski ment smacked not only of socialist internationalism but also of modernist inclusivism of the sort that could only dilute the historic 21 Russell, Voices of Fundamentalism, p. 157. Also see Clabaugh, Thunder on the Right, p. 73. 22 23 Clabaugh, Thunder on the Right p. 75.

PAGE 190

190 24 Imagining the threat of one world church, McIntire took denomi national diversity among Protestants to be a sign of strength. In Twentieth Century Reformation (1944), he set up an antithesis between the ecumenical organization known as the Federal Council of Churches of Christ and his own American Council of Christia Gospel, which has robbed us of our terminology, is actually endeavoring to rob us of our 25 For McIntire, church life was healthiest when it possessed a free marke t aspect. Erling Jorstad referred to Twentieth Century Reformation economic system as it hindered the advance of the Gospel. 26 McIntire considered ecumenism and Communism to be co conspirators in the attack of orthodoxy. In a 1949 work, McIntire used the image of the Tower of Babel to suggest the degree of confusion liberal churches had created through a policy of inclusion of diverse views; he deni ed task of the Spirit to harmonize contradictions and opposites, truth and error, belief and unbelief, 27 This concept of maintaining antithesis was a cornerstone of the fundamentalism McIntire and later Presbyterians represented. By 1955, McIntire was arguing for the direct Communist infiltration of the ecumenical movement. 28 24 258. McIntire reserved a special attack for the Roman Catholic church. 25 Carl Mc Intire, Twentieth Century Reformation 2 nd ed. (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1945), p. 8. 26 Erling Jorstad, The Politics of Doomsday: Fundamentalists of the Far Right (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 49. 27 Carl McIntire, Modern Tower o f Babel (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1949), p. 5. 28 Carl McIntire, Servants of Apostasy (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1955), p. 131.

PAGE 191

191 Instead of uniting den ominations for social ends, McIntire uplifted a common theological of the Bible and the deity of Christ. 29 Creedalism was naturally anathema to the ecumenical ly minded, who permitted doctrinal diversity so as to facilitate common cause for social issues. This concept McIntire found profoundly offensive. He attacked the Federal Council for promoting social revolution on the level of the church. 30 For him ortho dox doctrine and social action were inversely proportional to each other in church life. McIntire condemned the liberal Presbyterians who created the 1924 Auburn Affirmation document for endorsing a statement of unity while simultaneously denying doctrina l agreement as a necessity. 31 enabled McIntire to conclude America was under t heological and economic danger simultaneously. His 1945 book, The Rise of the Tyrant: Controlled Economy vs. Private Enterprise 32 McIntire sought to prove the cas e: The problems that face us in America today --the enjoyment of our democracy, the maintenance of private enterprise, the preservation of a free economy, and the security of our liberties --are, at bottom, religious issues. These realities came out of the abiding faith of our forefathers who believed certain things about God, about man, about the Bible Because they believed these things they gave us the land in which we dwell, a land of liberty. 33 29 McIntire, Twentieth Century Reformation p. 14. 30 Ibid ., p. 156. 31 Ibid ., p. 20. 32 Carl Mc Intire, The Rise of the Tyrant: Controlled Economy vs. Private Enterprise (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1945). The question was printed on the dust jacket. 33 Ibid ., p. xi. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 192

192 A controlled economy of any kind McIntire understood as t he fruit of a godless worldview. In cause of the present threat. 34 The result was a clash of the authentic faith with a counterfeit one: --a 35 He also attacked language about the universal Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man as products of a collectivist worldview instead of a biblical one. 36 He imagined a related catastrophe to be the recent ecumenical emphasis on the ability of the state to cure all ills rather than the true church: What is actually happening, so far a s the Federal Council is concerned, is that when it sees exploitation and similar sins of society, it turns to the State to remove this condition by controlling the whole of society, instead of emphasizing more vigorously the preaching of the Gospel and th e fundamental principles of society. 37 abetting the whole communistic pr 38 bind American history and free enterprise to the Bible. He was clear that the urgency of the cut presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which gave us 34 Ibid ., p. 199. 35 Ibid ., p. 201. 36 Ibid ., p. 205. 37 Ibid ., p. 211. 38 Ibid ., p. 215.

PAGE 193

193 our economy. 39 In Author of Liberty (1946), McIntire demanded recognition of the fact that traditional liberties and a controlled economy were contradictory. 40 Baranowski commen ts that McIntire succumbing to the demonic influences of creeping socialism and social engineering [that had 41 Historically unpreced ented events were not part of his conception; rather, he treated freedom as a mathematical result requiring only a return to divinely 42 Here McIntire revealed th e biblical basis for his view of private property: The eighth commandment, of course, is the one that concerns us pre eminently in this particular study because it has to do with the right of property --blishes upon divine authority the right of private enterprise. A man is entitled, according to God, to hold property, to use that 43 The redistribution of wealth McIntire assumed was an overthrow of this com mandment, in effect 44 Concluding that capital accumulation could happen in an unjust environment was impossible for McIntire because the method of accumulation was understood to be divinely constructed. These beliefs would later form the 39 Ibid ., p. 249. 40 Carl McIntire, Author of Liberty (Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1946), p. xiii. 41 42 McIntire, Author of Liberty p. xv. 43 Ibid ., p. 101. 44 Ibid ., p 102.

PAGE 194

194 consistency as an anticommunist, including a strike first policy with the Soviet Union, emerged from his books, namely, Twentiet h Century Reformation Rise of the Tyrant and Author of Liberty, and from his Beacon articles. 45 ministry, and in this realm he actually marked himself as a crusader for ce rtain rights of expression. McIntire treated radio as a sphere in which the principles of democracy ruled. By the middle 1930s, on WPEN Philadelphia, he had, using perceived rights of free speech, already offended members of the Christian Science church b 46 formation of Philadelphia Gospel Broadcasters to protest the elimination of the opportunity to purchase time for religious ends. enterprise, and if there was a demand from the public for certain religious programs then the 47 Mulhollan discrimination. McIntire would soon discover that recourse to the legal system, even to the U.S. Supreme Court, revealed quite a different conception of radio: the co urts ruled that the broadcasters had no legal obligation to sell airtime to the religious community. 48 McIntire continued to attempt to hinder the advance of other religious bodies. Using WCAM, a Camden, New Jersey station, he angered Catholics when he at tacked the New Jersey 45 Martin, With God on Our Side p. 37 38. 46 47 Ibid ., p. 47. 48 Ibid ., pp. 64 65.

PAGE 195

195 49 Though his opponents sa w the issue as an assault upon their faith, McIntire understood it as a violation of the separation of church and state. 50 McIntire also battled against what he considered to be the misuse of Christian language. He called for equal time on the air to resp ond to the rhetoric behind Brotherhood Week, a celebration of ecumenical and cultural unity in America. Responding to Reverend Clayton the presentation of an o pposing point of view: McIntire protested at this use of radio time and asked for equal time for his s true basis of broth all men, but that rather only those saved in the Fundamental sense were brothers. 51 Eventually, due to the furor he created, McIntire was forced off the air at WCAM. His controversialist way s, however, would not be curbed by this and other discouragements. McIntire essentially expected freedom over the air as if radio were an open microphone in a public debate. Mulholland comments on the free speech position of the American Council of Chri stian Churches, the interdenominational fundamentalist organization McIntire founded in 49 Ibid ., p. 74. 50 Ibid 51 Ibid ., p. 86. Mulholland cites a letter written by McIntire and four other pastors to the manager of W CAM and dates the letter as 1941 --however this is likely misdated as the rest of the narrative follows a 1949 timeline. The full February 21, 1

PAGE 196

196 time for religion was sold [by broadcasters], that no restrictions should b e imposed by networks or stations in its use. They granted that there may be some abuses, but believed that the greater 52 One of the greatest hurdles McIntire faced was the fact that broadcasters tended to parcel out time usi ng mathematical proportions --the size of a religious equal access to the airwaves regardless of proportions. 53 With CBS radio, McIntire tried unsuccessfully to count all the small denominations of the International Council of Christian Churches, founded in 1948 to counter the World Council of Churches, and the American Council as one denomination. 54 Mulholland claims that those biased against him, such as members of the Federal Council, were making equally potent countermoves to silence him when he campaigned for time for the American Council on an NBC station. 55 Power relationships mattered in the new Century Reformation 1955 and made McIntire well known as a right wing radio personality, he had established himself as a controversial fundamentalist willing consistently to talk about extra religious topics over the air. 56 Heather Hendershot docu use of radio. Initially, McIntire had to participate in a competitive environment to gain access to a radio audience, but with the 1965 purchase of his own station for the broadcast of the 52 Ibid ., p. 103. 53 Ibid ., p. 180. 54 Ibid ., pp. 205 206. 55 Ibid ., p. 242. 56 Ibid ., pp. 243 244.

PAGE 197

197 issues without any check to his extremism. 57 That is, he was free until 1973, when the Federal Communications Commission application of the Fairness Doctrine challenged his freedom. Hendershot explains: To prevent abuse of the airwaves, in 1949 the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine, which stated that to operate in the public interest, broadcasters were expected to provide commentary on controversial issues of public impo rtance. If one perspective was given on a controversial issue, time would also be given, free of charge, to the opposing point of view. 58 Ultimately McIntire lost his license. Hendershot notes that a major force of opposition to ch was ecumenism in a Cold War environment --the notion that was the word of the day, and the liberal cold war understanding was that America was a Judeo Chris tian nation where denominational differences should be minimized. In principle, the goal 59 Such an attitude created udes by saying that, by being politically engaged as a religious conservative, McIntire predated the Moral Majority by decades but ultimately served as a cautionary tale because his extremism made him politically unviable. 60 While radio represented McIntir Christian Beacon newspaper presented the most thorough account of the development of his worldview from the 1930s onward. McIntire and the fundamentalists who were his allies saw their role in America n life challenged and transformed by the 1960s. As their self concept 57 Wing American Quarterly 59 (June 2007): p. 379. 58 Ibid ., p. 376. 59 Ibid ., p. 383. 60 Ibid ., pp. 384 and 388.

PAGE 198

198 changed, so did their understanding of their own rights. The Christian Beacon recorded the forces that brought about the greater marginalization of fundamentalism, with ecumenism and ne o evangelicalism pre eminent among those forces. With that push to the periphery and the rise of the civil rights movement, fundamentalists would confront the rights revolutions in their own way. Backdrop: The Ecumenical Movement, Neo Evangelicals, and th e Worldview of The Christian Beacon Newspaper The ecumenism McIntire despised --cross denominational cooperation with tolerance for doctrinal diversity --was an outgrowth of a major event: the rise of the Social Gospel, a strongly this worldly oriented ap the success among the ecumenically minded of a modernist focus upon unity compared to the fundamentalist emphasis upon declaration of the Gospel during the twentieth century. 61 Fundame ntalists tended to call for salvation first and social action second. George Marsden toward social action, which became associated with theological liberalis m: explaining its timing and exact shape, is the fundamentalist reaction to the liberal Social Gospel after 1900. Until about 1920 the rise of the Social Gospel and the decline of revivalist social concerns correlate very closely. By the time of World and was viewed with great suspicion by many conservative evangelicals. 62 In the United States the Fed eral Council of the Churches of Christ in America, created in 1908, had a direct connection to the Social Gospel emphasis. 63 On an international scale, the 61 William Martin, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story (New York: William Morrow Company, 1991), p. 326. 62 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p.91. 63 New 20 th Centur y Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 2 nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), s.vv.

PAGE 199

199 Edinburgh World Missions Conference of 1910 was a pivotal moment for the beginning of an inter denomi national dialogue. Martin comments that the conference represented a turning point: 64 A s a result winning evangelism had all but disappeared 65 Theology and practical service were the two facets of partnership that would take decades to hammer out, with success achieved in 1948 at the Amsterdam founding of the World Council of Churches (WCC), one of the emphases of which would be social justice. 66 Increasingly from a fundament membership in the WCC, and for this reason fundamentalists, according to George Marsden, the latest part of a satanic Marxist conspiracy to form one church and 67 The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ would later merge with a plethora of other organizations to form the National Council of the Churches of Christ (NCC) in the United States of America in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1950. Eventually the NCC would confront the civil rights problem directly. But first the Council would seem to fulfill by producing the Revised 64 Martin, A Prophet With Honor p. 326. 65 Ibid 66 New 20 th 67 Geo rge Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), p. 98.

PAGE 200

200 68 However, the perceived threats to fundamentalist separatism came not only from without, but from within the ranks. The parties that represented American evangelicalism in the twentieth century struggled with an interminable tension between separation from mainstream culture for the purpose of purity and engagement for the purpose of outreach. I n the Scopes era, caricatures of the fundamentalist preacher abounded in the popular press, fueled by images of Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan and others, as the epitome of anti intellectualism. But even then, Marsden notes, the Presbyterian Chu rch in the U.S.A. and its crown jewel, Princeton Theological Seminary, maintained a respect for worldly wisdom. 69 When McIntire and Harold Ockenga joined J. Gresham Machen in his departure in 1929 from a liberalizing Princeton to found Westminster Semina ry, they followed quite different trajectories. Ockenga became president of the National Association of Evangelicals and of Fuller Seminary, both oriented toward re engagement with American culture. He coined the term ally of Billy Graham. 70 McIntire became a champion of separatism and a vocal opponent of Billy Graham, particularly in 1957 when Graham decided to work alongside modernists for an evangelistic crusade. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was f ounded in 1942 and was modeled on the highly successful, cross denominational New England Fellowship. 71 According to 68 Ibid ., pp. 136 137. 69 Ibid ., p. 31. 70 Ibid ., p. 167. 71 Ibid ., p. 48. For example, two prominent funda mentalists, John Rice and Bob Jones, were NAE members.

PAGE 201

201 signified a form of conservative Christianity that consciously marked itself off from old line Fundamentalism in several crucial respects. Its adherents clung loyally to such basic tenets of Fundamentalism as the inspired and fully reliable nature of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the sinfulness of humanity, the substitutionary atonement, the Resurrec tion, and the Second Coming, but tended to be tolerant of minor theological differences among denomination..that was acceptable, perhaps even desirable, since they might count eract tendencies toward liberalism in those bodies. 72 He adds that neo ultimately reject evolution, but it would address the same evidence secular scientists considered and n ot simply declare that evolution could not be true because it differed from the Genesis 73 The NAE sought to dispel popular notions of the angry, bigoted fundamentalist that had saturated the media. 74 Confusion was rampant, for at thi not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were inter 75 Nonetheless, storm clouds were already on the horizon. McIntire had already formed a competing body, the American Council of Churches, in 1941. Also, several members of the NAE maintained links to the Federal Council of Churches. 76 The lack of differentiation between fundamentalists and evangelicals came to an end as social issues with theological implications drov e a wedge between the parties. As we will see below, the ministry of Billy Graham became a decisive issue. John Rice and Bob Jones were two particularly important figures with ties to Graham. According to David Beale, John Rice 72 Martin, Prophet with Honor p. 206. 73 Ibid ., p. 207. 74 William Martin, With God on Our Side p. 23. 75 Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism p. 48. 76 Ibid ., 49.

PAGE 202

202 was known for his evangeli stic conferences and his paper, The Sword of the Lord 77 Marsden estimates The Sword 78 Bob Jones was known as an evangelist and institu tion promote high academic standards and to emphasize both culture and a practical Christian 79 (By 1947 the college would expand into a university in its pre sent location in Greenville, South Carolina.) Together Rice and Jones added their voices to the NAE chorus, at Modernist controversy alienated fundamentalists generally. Graham stood at the interface between past and present. Educated in the fundamentalist world of Bob Jones College and Wheaton College, he became known for his worldwide crusades, including a sensationally successful Los Angeles revival in 19 49, under the auspices of Youth for Christ. 80 But his later organization, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, along with the National Association of Evangelicals, Fuller Seminary, and the periodical Christianity Today served as the four pillars on creating a non belligerent contrast with their fundamentalist forefathers. 81 The backlash from the fundamentalist camp was inevitable. Nonetheless, the Christian Beacon nd more consistent against ecumenical agencies like the 77 David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity : American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, South Carolina: Unusual Publications, 1986), pp.253 254. 78 Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism p. 159. 79 Beale, In Pursuit of Purity p. 91. 80 Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism p. 51; Martin, With God o n Our Side p. 29. 81 Though the focus of Reforming Fundamentalism is the seminary, the convergence of all four and the symbiotic Protestantism after the excesses of the Scopes era.

PAGE 203

203 WCC. Graham and the neo evangelicals found themselves characterized as prodigal offspring and betrayers. The Beacon served literally as a warning that apostasy loomed and that its forms threatened t connect the dots for unaware Christians. For the writers and McIntire himself, Communism, o fundamentalist religion and free enterprise. The perspective of the Calvinists McIntire led in the Bible Presbyterian Church had a daily interpretive impact relative to n ational and world events. This fact found its most practical manifestation in the Christian Beacon newspaper. The worldview of the Christian Beacon was all inclusive --it touched upon every facet of life, from the individual to the nation. Secondly it wa texts, the Bible and the Constitution, the latter emergent from the former via the bridge of the Reformation. Third, the Beacon judged civilization if it wandered away from the biblical law. There were two choices --to be divinely restored through repentance or to leave the orbit of the apostasy was deeply rooted in the Old Jews. Even Israel had over time become apostate, leaving only a faithful remnant. Finally, individual as sovereign while the state legislature as a vehicle of popular representation was the proper realm for enacting change. Just as each individual was accountable in the matter of salvation, so the people were accountable for the civilization they created. Nonetheless, in matters of national import America was the faithful remnant culture compared to an apostate

PAGE 204

204 Europe. Both the Old and New Testaments had relevance in The Christian Beacon Compromise with the godless was morally adulterous and led to apost asy; a people of a revealed book need have no dealings with theological or other innovations. At each point in this universe of beliefs --revealed text, the covenantal view of history, and the revealed political order --a changing America would challenge fundamentalist presuppositions after World War II. Ecumenism and modernist readings of the Bible called for a individual; civil rights with its supposed redistributi on of wealth presumed to accomplish the fundamentalist groups, The Christian Beacon was poised to give an answer to its opponents by providing a fascinating record of of security contrasted with a chaotic world, this universe of meanings provided the context in which a conception of fundamentalist rights would emerge. Containing Revolutions On Many Fronts: The B eacon The first issue of the Christian Beacon of February 13, 1936 promised to maintain a traditional message of fundamentalist separatism within a turbulent society. But the themes that t materialized. The Beacon was in a state that affords a valuable opportunity to retrace the development of new themes that spurred the political involvement of a previously detached community in the decades surrounding the Second World War. As the 1930s transformed into 1960s, certain topics dominated, in a unified int o a new social location --holy and apart, yet engaged with political reality to redeem a drifting nation.

PAGE 205

205 The Beacon appealed to fundamentalists to be a spiritually separated people, keepers of a revealed covenant and witnesses to a wayward humanity. Di scourse with outsiders leading to internal transformation of the covenant community was understood to be antithetical to purpose of this newspaper. A light set upon a hill, a signal warning and guiding men --broadcasting the Gospel of Jesus Christ f rom the Collingswood Presbyterian Church. 82 The shadow of modernism threatened to destroy orthodox faith; the impact of the Funda mentalist are being turned back four hun 83 But the apostasy of the church was only the beginning. The apostasy of the American state which had grown from the Reformation was, in the era of Ro Our civil and religious liberties, written into the Constitution of the United States of America, come from the Bible to be the Word of God. Many of t he things which historical sense. Some of the proposed social reforms advocated in the name of the church today are not reforms at all, but in principle are simply a camouflag ed Communism. We shall contend for these liberties. 84 This statement also illustrates a key assumption of the paper: the rejection of a pluralistic 82 Introduction, Christian Beacon February 13, 1936, p. 1. 83 Ibid 84 Ibid

PAGE 206

206 composed of equal gr oups, but an outflowing of a blueprint, the Bible, applied on a national scale by a believing community born of the Reformation, without constructive input from the Enlightenment. The inaugural issue also displayed another assumption: that in the midst of human chaos, one certainty would outlast every human effort to deny the sovereignty of God. Premillenialism, with its accompanying rejection of contemporary culture, was the ultimate insurance policy against doubt and fear. The Christian could take solace from the fact that present day apostasy book of Revelation and other bib lical sources that God, like a referee, would call his faithful 1930s premillenialism w as a word of reassurance that God had not lost control of human events: being fulfilled among us. The return of the Jew to Palestine, the conditions in Russia, Germany, Italy, a nd the setting of the stage in Europe, point to the fulfilling bringing tyranny to man. 85 Hence the Beacon promised to live up to its namesake, as a light to a lost world. The c ovenant To apply an old Calvinism to sort out new problems was the Beacon central mission, and its patron saint was J. Gresham Machen, who was eulogized in a subsequent issue. group. By glorifying Machen the Beacon 85 Ibid

PAGE 207

207 On his death in 1937, the newspaper editorial page affirmed th at Machen was a guide in a time 86 in the formation of an independent missions board given the modernist leanings of many Presbyterian missionaries was part of an episode that to the Beacon and doxy led by the denomination imposing the inclusion of modernist views on the unwilling). 87 Theology came first above historical nuance, and this narrative building style would be increasingly important to ultiple denominations as they sought to incorporate the legacies of leaders like Machen. Ecumenism as Spiritual Adultery/Apostasy The postwar world posed a very serious challenge to fundamentalists as international cooperation --understood as satanic in premillenialist thought --became commonplace. Among the Beacon social justice at the cost of doctrinal purity. The February 12, 1948 edition of the Beacon linked togeth them r 86 Editorial, Christian Beacon January 7, 1937, p. 4. 87 Ibid

PAGE 208

208 Council [of Churches of Christ] as a sponsor of the bill along with other communist 88 God. The Beacon There is no doubt in our mind but that fundamental Christianity is the main obstacle to the accomplishment of this program. The purveyors of the brotherhood of man and the modernist leaders in the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, as well as the communists, know that, so long as men believe that the Bi preserved, they cannot put into effect their program because the people will not stand for it. 89 Modernism represented the synthesis of historical sciences with the Bible to cre ate a new theology. Ecumenism represented the synthesis of churches for a common cause. Civil rights represented the synthesis of races. Communism represented the synthesis of economic classes. difference, beginning with the elect and the lost. Hence separatism was an important element of the preservation of the faithful, and the Beacon did not differentiate often between church and country. The inversion of the term ecisely how the Beacon rejected synthetic language, no matter how affirming on its face. The Beacon concerns. In 1948 important ideological statements defined the mentality. Written after competing conferences occurred in the Netherlands, an August piece delineated the major points 88 of Civil Rights Congress: Attacks Christian Beacon February 12, 1948, p. 1. 89 Editorial, Christian Beacon February 12, 1948, p. 1.

PAGE 209

209 colossus, the World Council of Churches. 90 While acknowledging m any conservative churches might be part of the conglomerate, the Beacon nonetheless painted a dark picture of the World organizations, is anti Biblical, anti evangelical, and un 91 At the root of the conflict were theological statements: An organization which is led by men who call the doctrine of the d eity of Christ blood, cannot, in the Biblical and historical sense, truthfully be called Christ ian. On the other hand, the International Council of Christian Churches exists to protest against the tenets of modernism and to proclaim the doctrines of the faith of the 92 Furthermore, the WCC was attacked for extending the hand of fellowshi p to both the Greek 90 The two organizations were virtually antithetical to one another, one celebrating unity and inclusiveness among Christians and the other separatism for the sake of doctrinal purity. A.J. Van Der Bent calls the WCC an the Faith and Order movement born at the Edinburgh World Missions Conference (1910) and the Life and Work Committee formed by the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship i n 1919 --merged at the constituting assembly of WCC at Amsterdam (1948). The third stream, the missionary movement, organized in the International Missionary Council (IMC), was integrated into th Century En cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 2 nd ed., liberalism of the World Council of Churches (WCC) which held its first postwar conference in regime. It has also opposed the policies of the United N th Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 2 nd 91 Christian Beacon August 26, 1948 p. 1. 92 Ibid

PAGE 210

210 93 Here again the ICCC stood in contrast as Reformation inspired, linking the Old World and the New: An d here on the soil of the Netherlands, of glorious Protestant history, red with the blood of the martyrs, and in the very church building in which the Pilgrim Fathers worshiped when on the first lap of the journey of escape from Roman Catholic and reaction ary tyranny, we highly resolve that we will have no fellowship with the 94 motives. Seeking to maintain a stark antithesis, the Beacon held to a language of separation, quoting Scripture: The International Council of Christian Churches, therefore, calls upon all Bible believers and true Protestants throughout the world to separate themselves from this aggregation of religious negatives a nd conglomeration of ecclesiastical opposites known as the World Council of Churches, that they may receive the blessing of 95 In September 1948, somewhat r and responding to a Princeton Seminary speaker who served with the Federal Council of Churches, McIntire prophesied a coming doom should new regulation of the economy ensue. Collectivism in church life would promote collectivism in economic life. Thus this oracle was a 96 Reflecting o n British experiment with socialism as a slippery slope, he allowed for no shades of grey: 93 Ibid ., p. 8. 94 Ibid 95 Ibid 96 Christian Beacon September 16, 1948, p. 2.

PAGE 211

211 destroy capitalism, and their methods and approach are practically synonymous. The s ocialist thinks that he can combine individual freedom with the controls of the economic order, but it is impossible. Freedom vanishes in the degree to which the 97 One particular document and its rebuttal served to illus trate the antithesis of the fundamentalist Beacon and for its strong collectivist message became the target of k. Critiquing a section discussing economic systems, McIntire foresaw nothing but the overthrow of capitalism: and promises that justice will follow as a by product of free enterpr ise. That too is an ideology which has been proved false. It is the responsibility of Christians to seek new creative solutions which never allow either justice or freedom to destroy is world freedom. 98 onale for resistance to ecumenical crusaders but also to civil rights activists, as both made arguments for the redistribution of wealth. An argument coming from an economic conviction that essentially free enterprise was God ordained thus bypassed uncomf ortable questions about race relations and institutional evil long entrenched, by removing the historical element of the story altogether. For McIntire, America was less a historical entity and more a set of principles --a covenant --to be enacted, of wh ich free enterprise was one. Thus any presupposition by the WCC that argued economic injustice had a link to past capitalistic activity was absolutely incomprehensible. 97 Ibid 98 Christian Beacon Septembe r 23, 1948, p. 8. The original report of the WCC was reprinted on the September 16, 1948 edition of the Beacon 5.

PAGE 212

212 horrific for image. Anticommunist sentiment was not of course the sole domain of McIntire and the Bible after the Second World War, namely, the advance of Communism was understood to be in part decided that most if not all A merican foreign policy making had been dominated for several years by highly skillful Soviet espionage agents and their willing dupes working within this 99 The entry point of Communism into the heart of the American system had already occurred whe n the nation was most vulnerable --during the Great Depression, during which an al reform 100 The result Beacon This tampering [i.e. New Deal measures] created an atmosphere of pragmatism, flexi bility, and indifference toward the traditional governmental duty of protecting the historic ideals of individualism, self discipline, free enterprise, and isolation from global involvement. Since these qualities were expressions of a divinely inspired nat ural law, universally true for all men, then it must follow that the deviations since 1933 would explain accurately the failure of America to recognize what the liberals socialists Communists had accomplished within its government. 101 99 Erling Jorstad, Politics of Doomsday p. 46. 100 Ibid 101 Ib id

PAGE 213

213 Jorstad situates McIn tire within this conspiracy theorist framework and demonstrates the linkage Nonetheless, to face so many churche s united under the World Council banner was a formidable problem for the much smaller International Council of Christian Churches. However, the former body had grown out of modernist movement. Far more shocking would be the turning of some trusted fundame ntalists to a moderate position, embodied in the National Association of Evangelicals. The Seduction of the Brethren, Part One: The NAE The fundamentalist version of the Reformed worldview did not allow for the negotiation with culture that the NAE sough t to foster. In 1948 McIntire was quick to pounce on of separation when he declared that Fuller Seminary, of which he is president, would repudiate outis 102 The separation McIntire demanded was a total divorce from the liberal and ecumenical parties embodied in the World Council. Another past presid ent, R.L. the Federal Council and its larger denominations, and argued that it made no difference so far as co 103 This was the very kind of ambivalent statement McIntire 102 Christian Beacon October 7, 1948, p. 4. 103 Ibid

PAGE 214

214 predictable conclusion: Let us see the statement of Dr. Paine. It reads: denominations sometimes reaches that final apostasy when the only proper course for Evangelicals is to withdraw in loyalty to the Scriptures, but the NAE does not presume to decide when that point has been reached, recognizing at this point the them. The f irst half cannot possibly be said to be a statement which supports the position of the maintenance in the visible church of purity of life and doctrine. 104 The rest of the editorial represented an inversion of what had previously been stated in the field o declarations, but in theology and ecclesiastical life, the conscience of the one submitted without evangelical moderate position, standing in between fundamentalism and modernism, would continue to be highly problematic for the Beacon As we shall see below, tensions reached a high point with the Billy Graham New York Crusade of 1957. Many fundamental ists had earlier baptized Graham as their champion. acceptance among conservatives. The Battle Fully Joined: Codings and Antithesis in 1954 Revealing the language of s ubversion and trickery was quintessential in the Beacon mission in 1954. However, the year of the Brown v. Board of Education decision produced little target. It would be only in the 1960s that the Beacon would address civil rights matters as the 104 Ibid

PAGE 215

215 nation did; the Brown decision in its early impact was still too abstract to be worth the trouble. However, the vocabulary of brotherhood so popular among liberal religiou s leaders came under immediate assault in the Beacon man is not taught in the Scriptures, and 105 The hidden agenda the Beacon assumed to be not realize it, the kind of 106 The Beacon served as a fundamentalist parallel to Senator Joseph McCarthy; i.e., it acted like a fa ther figure decoding stealthily introduced language designed to lure away the unsuspecting. The key risk becoming the frog in the kettle. The Beacon also had ample opportunity to go on the attack in the Eisenhower years. The writers --the Soviets could only be confronted, never welcomed to dialogue. Billy James Hargis, an ICCC evangelist, chose aerial assault, literally. A March story detailed a follow up launch of --Scripture sent behind the Iron Curtain --after an earlier success with ten thousand balloons stirred an awakening. 107 Furthermore, for th e Beacon the antithesis had to be total --every group on one side or the other in a Cold War frame. In one critical protest, Russian clergy invited by the World 105 Editorial, Christian Beacon February 18, 1954, p. 1. 106 Ibid ., p. 8. 107 Christian Beacon Marc h 4, 1954, p. 1.

PAGE 216

216 Council of Churches were automatically coded as agents of the Kremlin. Thus, in the March 18 issue, the Beacon joined Chicago civic organizations in resisting the visit of such clergy: Here are two questions: Should communist agents from Iron Curtain lands be admitted to the U.S.A. for the express purpose of preaching communism? The Legion in Ch icago says, No. Should a council of churches that includes these communist agents in its fellowship and leadership have the confidence of Christians? The American Council of Christian Churches and the International Council of Christian Churches say, No. 108 Furthermore, the World Council of Churches was complicit in the successful spread of Communism, according to the Beacon In reporting the state of Baptist life in Czechoslovakia, rence to the 109 The editorialist assumed the reason was to make possible this communist contact with the West and the continuation of these communist leaders in acceptable church 110 The Beacon portrayed the dissemination of Communist ideas as terrifying in both rapidity and scale by repeated front p age stories detailing their spread around the world. In 111 that it would not flinch at holding other American Presbyterian missionaries suspect. James P. Alter of the PC USA, whom McIntire documented as a WCC affiliated individual, was taken to 108 Editorial, Christian Beacon March 18, 1954, p.1. 109 Editorial, Christian Beacon April 1, 1954, p. 1. 110 Ibid 111 Editorial, Christian Beacon May 27, 1954, p. 1

PAGE 217

217 page 112 Ultimately, the worldview of the Beacon held that the World Council of Churches walked hand in hand with Communism, and there could be no other choice but to fight back. A resolut ion issued at the ACCC spring convention was clear: Since we expect our government to maintain a rigid barrier against all enemies who would invade our country; therefore we, the delegates of the American Council of Christian Churches, oppose the entrance of such in the name of religion or under the guise of World Council representation, to spread communistic propaganda and secure information that would be helpful to them in accomplishing their aim to destroy our democratic form of government and our freedo m to preach and to practice the doctrines of our Christian faith. 113 the collectivist view, in the Beacon critique. Addressing the desire of the World Council of wship, the warning was direct. 114 communism, but they [the World Council] think it should be accorded every privilege, honor, 115 It was the Beacon implied homogenization to this group of Reformed minded Christians. To join with the WCC 112 oting Social Revolution in India, and Christian Beacon April 29, 1954, p. 1. 113 Christian Beacon May 6, 1954, p. 5. 114 Christian Beacon July 15, 1954, p. 1. 115 Editorial, Christian Beacon July 15, 1954, p. 1.

PAGE 218

218 implied joining to Communists, so total s eparation from the WCC was called for. However, the aspiration of the Beacon was not only to save the church but the country; hence, the Bible Presbyterians and their compatriots (such as Grace Theological Seminary and the General Association of Regular Ba ptists) were oddly theologically and socially separated but politically engaged. 116 According to the Beacon even President Eisenhower could be seduced into modernist tendencies. In the March 25 Beacon r Christian Century the ACCC for criticizing the President. 117 The central issue was that the Nati onal Council leaders only be some form of persecution of fundamentalists: We think he needs to set a good example to the country, and to practice faithfully w hat he believes to be right before God. But, when the leaders of the National Council, who have access to him, use him to promote their particular projects and their movement, and they praise him and he praises them, a situation is developing in the countr y which is most perilous for religious liberty and minority groups. 118 with the NCC. To be committed to separation, therefore, meant in some sense to claim to ho ld friendship toward the NCC while ignoring the ACCC implied a degeneration from the conservative upbringing of his childhood. 116 The February 18 th 1954 Beacon includes a Bible discussion offered by the President of Grace Theological Seminary; the April 22, 1954 edition of the Beacon promotes the GARBC cause. 117 Christian Beacon March 25, 1954, p. 1 118 Ibid ., p. 8.

PAGE 219

2 19 The coming battles over civil right s had only the slightest foreshadowing in 1954, despite the Brown v. Board decision. One note was made of building cooperation between the World Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the race questio recommending the role ecumenical groups could fruitfully play in future reconciliation. 119 The ICCC itself presented itself a truly interracial body, as a scan of the schedule for the Th ird Plenary Congress in August attested; Asia, Africa, and South America were well represented in the delegate count along with Western European countries. 120 Furthermore, the Beacon later enting Africa, Asia, and South America, among others, and bringing the total number to fifty four. 121 The ironic result was that a multi ethnic and somewhat ecumenical organization emerged, but with tight doctrinal controls. With Carl McIntire in charge of so much of the operations of the ICCC and the ACC (the August 19 th Beacon records his election to another term as ICCC president by unanimous vote), the range of creative action was limited. 122 The key issues to come would not only be race and wealth, but t he type of change that rebalanced the scales of justice. In the thinking of McIntire and his allies, the only biblical form of change was legislative and according to the will of the majority. 119 Christian Beacon June 24, 1954, p. 2. 120 Christia n Beacon July 8, 1954, pp. 2 and 4. 121 Christian Beacon August 12, 1954, p. 1. 122 Elects McIntire Pr esident; Next Congress in Brazil; WCC Assembly Opens in Christian Beacon August 19, 1954, p. 1.

PAGE 220

220 The Beacon offered several major statements to buttress thi s argument. In April a multi Warfield, to show that the Reformed position reflected authority from the vantage point of reverence for an unchanging text emanatin g from an unchanging God. From the Bible, Warfield assumed, stemmed the most humane governmental forms the world had ever seen: The legislation of civilized nations is profoundly affected by its teaching; the social habits of cultured people are largely determined by its scheme of life; the Still further, where it most dominates, there is most life It is the great Protestant enterprising energy, the most impressive on the destinies of man. 123 with particular nationalities that came into contact with the Reformation most directly. In this sense, Warfield bound to a religious tradition. Carl McInt ire would build upon this foundation. McIntire elucidated the basis for fundamentalist political activism. These articles were a pivotal revelation by the leader of the Bible Presbyterians and the paragon of Northern fundamentalism. The concomitant growth of federal power appeared to McIntire to be an apocalyptic message. He inh 123 Christian Beacon April 1, 1954, p. 2. A subtitle indicates the Sabbath

PAGE 221

221 124 made our fathers believe that it was intolerable for the State to assu me responsibility for the individual --125 The fate of civil rights was coded as economically subversive to capitalism. The purpose at the present moment was to frame the situation in theological terms. For McIn shift occurred that elevated anthrolopology at the expense of theology. It was this of our most 126 McIntire believed the shift had nationally catastrophic results: The surest way in the world for man to lose his liberty is to quit thinking about God and focus his attention upon himself. There was a time when theology was called the queen of sciences; but it most assuredly has abdicated in favor of a satanic imposter. The Devil is the one who has always played with the pride of man. 127 The difference in severity between J. Gresham Machen and his disciple McIntire was stark. comment about the Devil and sense of a life and death struggle at hand found no echo in c issues such as suffrage and alien registration. In the 1930s, the Cold War was still years away; by 1954, with a general national hysteria about atomic war and spies among average Americans, a message that linked collectivism to the plotting of the Devi l was a seed likely to fall on fertile ground. 124 --Christian Beacon June 10, 1954, p. 3. 125 Ibid 126 Ibid 127 Ibid

PAGE 222

222 128 McIntire for all practical purposes could neither see the full meaning of the separation of church and state nor the fact that grow ing religious and ethnic pluralism in the country demanded a shift away from the narrow concerns of conservative Protestants. The narrative he chose to write instead 129 This dichotomizing of the universe and its inhabitants allowed for simple calculation 130 The means by which this disaster unfolded were made abundantly clear to the reader living under a government purporting man has taken over the ordering of the world for his own material and social security, and in doing so it completely ignores the spiritual ordering and well 131 The state had presume d to create controls over facets of American life where the Bible denies such controls r security and material provision. But the improper elevation of the State paralleled the aspirations of Lucifer to be like God in the book of Isaiah. 132 This endpoint and narrative context stood in stark contrast 128 Ibid 129 --Christian Beacon June 17, 1954, p. 3. 130 Ibid 131 --Christian Beacon June 24, 1954, p. 3. 132 --Christian Beacon June 17, 1954, p. 3.

PAGE 223

223 to the image of the philanthropic Roosevelt and the beneficent New Deal. A controlled economy and true freedom could not co exist. McIntire feared that totalitarianism would win the debate in America due to fear of the atomic bomb. 133 In one of the later essays in the series, McIntire delineated th e proper zone of control for the State. It was right to restrain evils, like murder; it was wrong to legislate matters of choice, or matters of the heart acting in freedom. 134 He further pointed out that the Bible did provide for the right of revolution whe n the State overstepped its bounds. 135 Noting the Westminster works and Scripture, McIntire reiterated the true source of governmental authority --God Himself. 136 Noneth collectivist society is so 137 It was this clash --between liberty and se curity --that --and this 138 The final essay contains some harsh words for collectivism seen on a smaller scale --in the power of unions to silence individual freedom. 139 133 Ibid 134 --Christian Beacon July 1, 1954, p. 3. 135 Ibid 136 Ibid ., p. 6. 137 Ibid 138 Ibid 139 --Christian Beacon July 8, 1954, p. 3. (A continuation of the previous week.)

PAGE 224

224 By depicting America in such stark, all or nothing terms, McIntire imagined an arena of nearly endle ss struggle for the soul of the country between the forces of the Reformation and of collectivism, with the shadow of international Communism in the background. The use of academic expertise had already advanced the cause of Satan and the growth of the Sta te. Only an awareness of deceit --in vocabulary and in practice --could undo the organic evil McIntire believed already had brought the nation to its knees. In certain ways, much of this scenario was the seduction of youth; however, in the 1950s the Cold War was a very real backdrop, spies were known to have infiltrated America, and the readers of the Beacon were likely part of a much more receptive and much broader audience than the Commoner enjoyed in the feel A Moment in the Sp otlight The times were right for those who propounded a simple good versus evil frame for world events. Anticommunist hysteria reached a high point with the investigations of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, who sought help from all quarters in rooting out Communists and who found himself as a Catholic receiving help from the Presbyterian McIntire and his allies. But anticommunism was not just a fundamentalist priority. In the 1950s, Carl McIntire was hardly alone in raising the alarm of a Communist t hreat, but he stood out for his willingness to evangelical, Billy Graham, warned publicly of the menace of Communism as early as 1947. 140 In 1949, at a Los Angeles revival Graham h ad noted that the Russians had just acquired nuclear weapons and 140 Martin, Prophet with Honor pp. 100 101.

PAGE 225

225 immediately proceeded to preach an apocalyptic scenario. He depicted the world situation that pub result of the Los Angeles meetings. 141 Furthermore, at the beginning of the Korean conflict Graham wired Truman urging a showdown to rescue the multitudes of South Korean Chr istians from slavery. 142 Graham would eventually meet Truman personally to express his concerns. Amidst these international events, blessed superiority of the free 143 The conflict touching every sector of life. Graham was not beyond suspecting an infiltration as well, in the style of McCarthy. 144 Among other areas, Graham pinpointed the spheres of education, entertai nment, and religion as all at risk of contamination. Finally Graham went on the record as late as 1953, at the height of interests. 145 In addition, two years ea rlier Graham had voiced a commonly heard objection to 141 Martin, With God on Our Side p. 29. 142 Martin, Prophet with Honor p. 131. 143 Ibid ., p. 139. 144 Martin, With God on Ou r Side p. 34. 145 Ibid ., p. 35.

PAGE 226

226 organized protests in the name of civil rights: he was skeptical about such activities because he suspected Communists to be leaders of the revolt. 146 ked the direct and personally was rooted in treasonous activity. Jo rstad identifies also J.B. Mathews, who cooperated directly budding anti Communist movement by stating that some seven thousand Protestant clergymen in America se 147 Along with McIntire, Mathews later attacked the loyalty of the newly constituted National Council of Churches (which incorporated the Federal Council) in a tract entitled How Red is the National Council of Churches? 148 In addition belligerent Billy James Hargis as well as for help from the International Council of Christian Churches. 149 Clabaugh highlights the appeal McCarthy held for McIntire: by aiding both Senator McCarthy and the House Un ICCC achieved more respectability than they had ever had, while simultaneously gaining a nation wide forum 150 Finally, as a crowning achi evement of short duration, Mathews was 151 146 Martin, Prophet with Honor p. 169. 147 Jorstad, Politics of Doomsday p. 48. 148 Ibid ., p. 51. 149 Ibid ., p. 52. 150 Clabaugh, Thunder on the Right p. 85. 151 Jorstad, Politics of Doomsday pp. 55 56.

PAGE 227

227 Events reached a high point with the investigation of Methodist Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, an instance of direct cooperation betwee n a fundamentalist organization and a political witch hunt: Churches] in 1953 furnished the House Un American Activities Committee with considerable information alleging that Bishop responsibilities, a vigorous proponent of ecumenical cooperation, and a pungent critic of the work of Senator McCarthy and HUAC, Oxnam had come to personi fy the ideals McIntire found obnoxious in American church life. 152 Oxnam volunteered to submit to questioning by HUAC and ten hours later the charges were dismissed. Oxnam served as a powerful and effective counterpoint to McIntire in his ecclesiastical v declined quickly after the Oxnam hearings, and the ultrafundamentalists could not restore reader 153 confidence surged. A symbiotic relationship had developed between right wing politicians and right wing pastors. Jorstad claims that politicians sought popularity with voters without risk and hence let the pastors do the witch hunting since the pastors c raved the immense publicity that followed their actions. 154 fundamentalists assurance: Clearly the ultrafundamentalists were constructing a political ideology on th e foundations of their theology. Verbal inerrancy informed them that only they pure enough to fight the satanic triad of liberalism socialism communism. 152 Ibid ., p. 56. 153 Ibid p. 56 57. 154 Ibid ., p. 52 53.

PAGE 228

228 Apocalyptic premilleniali sm assured them that their call for war with Russia was not really warmongering; since only God could destroy this planet and since that would not happen until after the Final Judgment, Americans need not fear any form of nuclear warfare. 155 Clabaugh adds th had articulated in the book Author of Liberty in 1946 --Americans could not afford to forget that ordaine d. 156 lived. The one final event that signaled the eclipse of fundamentalist fortunes on a nationwide scale. The American Council of Christian Churches attempted to use the State Department to prevent the entrance of suspected Communist clergy into the country for the August 1954 Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Evanston, Illinois. 157 (The Christian Beacon version of this episode, involving, among others, Josef L. Hromadka, was noted above.) 158 Having successfully persuaded the Cook County, Illinois chapter of the American Legion to call for the State opinion of the national executive committee of the American Legion. This crusade failed, and the fundamentalists were left only with the option of picketing the WCC assembly, which they did. 159 fighters of Communism for the time being. 155 Ibid ., pp. 50 51. 156 Clabaugh, Thunder on the Right p. 84. 157 Jorstad, Politics of Doomsday pp. 58 59. 158 See pages 34 36. 159 Jorstad, Politics of Doomsday, p. 58.

PAGE 229

229 Nonetheless, all was not lost. The medium of radio was still a potent force among receptive audiences. Nancy Ammerman comments that as early as 1958 broadcasters such as Billy James Hargis and McIntire found encouragement from a new group of conservative theories and active in secular politics 160 Clabaugh comments that McIntire helped in the careers of other prominent anticommunists such as Fred Schwarz, whose Christian Anti Communism Crusade arranged traveling schools that were nationally successful. 161 Aided by send scripture into the Iron Curtain via hot air balloon in 1953 gave him national publicity, and he developed a persona independent of McIntire that eventually in some ways outshone him. 162 Hendershot believes that Hargis may actually be the most importan t bridge between old fundamentalism and the era of the Moral Majority: only one who has been readily acknowledged by the New Christian Right, probably because he was an inno vator in direct mail, laying the groundwork (and creating address lists) for mechanized mass mailings focused on specific political issues and candidates. In the 1960s, Hargis was also a major agitator against sex w many conservative Christians into politics, creating a base that could later be tapped into to pursue other political goals. 163 Important precedents had been set as fundamentalists began to categorize the components of the outside world. An illustration o f the worldview of the Beacon will serve to highlight how the 160 Fundamentalisms Observed ed. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 35. 161 Clabaugh, Thunder on the Right p. 88. 162 Ibid ., p. 87. 163

PAGE 230

230 The Ecumenical Monster Cartoon ray of the Ecumenical forces the Beacon considered destructive of a Reformed vision of America. 164 At the center of a large, two page diagram stood a demonic figure labeled scattered along the margins. Interestingly, the Communist manifesto of Karl Marx was depicted as empowering two communities seeking to join hands with each of the two arms --with additional pair of hands extended between the modernists and the Communis ts through the Russian Orthodox Church. In the cartoon, the WCC was particularly guilty of receiving individuals tainted with Communist teaching, depicted by lines of communication among numerous parties on the left side to the WCC leadership on the righ t. The goals were symmetrical and sinister: both sides of the picture are wrestling to 165 The WCC was also associated on the bottom right side to its affiliate, the National Council of Churches. As a product of the NCC, the Revised Standard Version was 164 Cartoon, The Christian Beacon July 22, 1954, no page numbers given. 165 Ibid

PAGE 231

231 groups. A small cartoon figure w alked away symbolically from the entire set of associations, 166 A caption expl 167 In other words political was ultimately about the redistribution of wealth, and in th is context everything else fit like stars in a galaxy --from a translation of the Bible, to the cause of civil rights, to the Soviet agenda. And presumably, the blood of the martyrs was indeed spilled to maintain free enterprise and capitalistic systems as Several striking features were noteworthy. First, the National Association of Evangelicals did not have a conspicuous presence in the picture, though some of its denominations were associated with the NCC. Second, evolution as a w orldview was missing altogether, as if it was not threatening enough in 1954 to earn a place among the culprits. The difficulty of articulating Darwinist thought in a context dominated by economic concerns may have been part of the cause for omission. La stly, the economic interests of every American appeared on the surface to be defended by the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and the move to separate, all this the meaning of the diagram to elevate the ICCC as champion of laissez faire economics The 166 Ibid 167 Ibid

PAGE 232

232 bifurcation of the universe was quintessential in this arrangement, and the Beacon could not have easily come to grips with the idea of a plurality of interests. As a result, the cartoon made the fundamentalist cause appear not only he roic, but fundamentalism a protector of wealth. Soon challenges from within the fundamentalist cause and on the field of race relations would shake and alter these certainties. A Year of Transition: 1957 1958 Nineteen fifty seven was a momentous year fo r the Beacon as many of its prophecies about the evils of collectivism appeared to be fulfilled. Two major shifts were underway. The neo evangelical faction led by the NAE and Billy Graham, although originally rooted in fundamentalism, came closer to a m iddle ground with modernism. Secondly, civil rights activists began to provoke a broader response. Deep in the background was concern about evolution and apologetics: clearly no immediate threat compelled action. Though the launch of Sputnik spurred scie nce education, including the reintroduction of Darwinism into textbooks, resistance remained high, and antievolution statutes still were on the books in three Southern states. Nonetheless Communism, ecumenism, and the rights revolutions later became the ma trix in which antievolutionism was re organized. One cannot overlook the significance of how fundamentalists aligned themselves against these three forces. A Matter of Vocabulary: Unveiling the Deception of the Middle Steps into Apostasy January 1957 beg an with a blast against the public face of modernism. It was directed broadcast on behalf of the National Council of Churches. 168 outs 168 Editorial, The Christian Beacon January 3, 1957, p. 1.

PAGE 233

233 e paper concluded that Fosdick 169 Fosdick represented the militant arm of modernism and the Beacon the fundamentalist counterpart. The writers of the Beacon then revealed that they were reali gning their opponents in order to make clear to their readers exactly who the enemies were. They deemed it particularly important to distinguish between themselves and one time allies who were compromising with the enemy. What previously had gone by the n Beacon Deciphering the gradualness of a trend away from orthodoxy was all important. James Bennet, a leading Bible teacher for the Beacon explained the partnership with modernists: This trend develops into a deviation [referring to the process of manipulative it is transformed into a departure, and the person who merely follows the popular trend is misled and does not know that a definite departure has occurred, and he never gets to be saved. 170 Earlier, Carl McIntire had called out the United Nations for its un certain stance on the Soviet Union in much the same terms. A bullfrog, when dropped into a kettle of hot water, will jump out; but the same frog, put in a kettle of cool water with the water being slowly heated to the boiling point, will cook to death. H e cannot make up his mind at which point to jump out. All the policies of the Western world should be designed to undermine, to expose, coexistence with an aggressive Communism bent on world domination as an 169 Editorial, The Christian Beacon January 3, 1957, p. 1. 170 The Christian Beacon, April 25, 1957, p. 2.

PAGE 234

234 ingredient and necessary evil of our present shrinking sphere is to toll the death knell of freedom. 171 This process of departing from a God given norm, a static point, perfectly illustrated the revulsion fundamentalists felt about partners. The Beacon promised to delineate zones of safety and danger in a new world. sm guaranteed that there were many ways to fall into apostasy. A --Roman Catholicism and the historic Christian faith (fundamentalism). To the Roman Catholic the re are two main enemies --Communism and the fundamentalists. To the fundamental Protestant, there are three main enemies --Communism, Roman Catholicism, and 172 Nonetheless the general tendency of the paper was to lump rather than to split, and perhaps the betrayal of the cause by one of the favorite sons of fundamentalism was an impetus. Revolution as Seduction of the Brethren, Part Two: The New York City Crusade of Billy Graham The May 1957 Billy Graham crusade signaled a parting of the ways b etween the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and the traditional fundamentalists. The latter could not or the social disconnection of the earlier crusades from modernist involvement dictated the degree of orthodoxy in fundamentalist eyes. 171 The Christian Beacon January 17, 1957, p. 8. 172 Editorial, The Christian Beacon Feb ruary 21, 1957, p. 6.

PAGE 235

235 This moment indicated a greater degree of marginalization culturally for the fundamentalist as well. A February editor ial listed the charges against Graham, in an unforgiving tone: 1. In specific violation of the commands of God, he puts unbelievers, modernists, committee. 2. He directs his converts, all o f them, to churches of their choice, including modernist, fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, and even Jewish synagogues. 3. His own message in its content, ignores and temporizes with the major sin of the hour in the house of God --173 174 The column identified Carl Henry and Christianity Today letter directed at Carl Henry, James Bennet singled out th ree prominent fundamentalists who were up in arms: both Bob Joneses, father and son, guiding lights of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, which Graham had attended briefly, and John Rice, editor of The Sword of the Lord newspaper, who had endorsed Graham in the past. In addition Bennet referred Graham. 175 173 Editorial, The Christian Beacon February 28, 1957, p. 1. 174 Ibid ., p. 8. 175 Christian Beacon March 21, 1957, p. 2.

PAGE 236

236 Graham appeared to conservatives to be siding with the enemy. The title of an April 4 stated the proble fundamentalists: if in any large city anywhere in the world would agree on what constitutes a sound ms, fundamentalism and liberalism, are now pass. The situation has radically changed, since the days of Machen, Riley, and other 176 Graham Protestant, Catholics, Jews, everyone. There are no statements made against people in other 177 changed since the days of Machen, [Willi As a man who has been in evangelistic work for more than fifty years and who has known all of the great evangelists in Europe and America who have lived for the last fifty years, I would like to say tha t the terms fundamentalism and liberalism are not pass on Bob Jones University campus. We are still religious fundamentalists and not religious liberals. 178 176 Editorial Christian Beacon April 4. 1957, p. 8. 177 Christian Beacon, April 11, 1957, p. 1. 178 Christian Beacon April 11, 1957, p. 1.

PAGE 237

237 group th e trending toward apostasy they abhorred. The same edition of the Beacon opposed calls firm in their convictions while America was changing ethnically and reli giously. 179 Beacon why he had distanced himself from old friends such as John Rice, wh o had asked Graham to sign a statement of faith, or Bob Jones, Sr., who had called for a separation from apostasy. 180 Approximately two weeks before the 1957 Crusade, the ACCC declared its refusal to endorse the 181 Unfortunately no amount of public relations efforts from the neo evangelical camp could shake fundamentalist certainty. Edward J. Carnell, president of the neo evangeli cal bastion, Fuller Seminary, depicted Graham as taking a orthodoxy, but the Beacon was singularly sponsoring committee, and all his power and influence, his shield, his sword, his armor, are at 182 But perhaps the most potent criticism came from John Rice, who had prai 179 Editorial, Christian Beacon April 11, 1957, p. 4. 180 Christian Beacon April 25, 1957, p. 2. 181 Christian Beacon May 2, 1957, p. 4. 182 Editorial, Christian Beacon May 30, 1957, p. 1.

PAGE 238

238 and innuendo but to come and see the campaign, which had begun May 15 th 1957, for himself. Rice was quick to side with the fundamentalist critics: A nd I say to you frankly that the kind of language which I quote from your letter seems to be unbecoming to a servant of God, particularly when you speak of the wrong to go under the sponsorship of the modernist Protestant Council in New needs that kind of language and that kind of slanderous characterization of good men to support your cause, then either your cause is wrong or you are too carnal in supporting your cause, in my humble judgment. 183 For Rice, it was clear that Graham and the neo by steps; the frog was calmly awaiting a slow boil. Evangelicalism was evolving, and partnership with modernists --in an effort to maintain cultural relevance ---was hastening the divergence from fundamentalism, with its doctrinal focus. In Oct 184 The break would become permanent Jones many failed to catch the significance of a new category of Christian emerging into an independent life despite fundamentalist beginnings: These same, gullible Bible believing fundamental Christians, strangely enough, as they have been blind to his fawning attitude toward modernists, infidels, and 183 John R. Rice, Editorial, Christian Beacon June 6, 1957, p. 4. The column is a reprint of letters between Graham and Rice from a May 24, 1957 The Sword of the Lord issue. 184 Bob Jo Christian Beacon October 10, 1957, p. 2.

PAGE 239

239 Unitarians. Slowly but surely these folk are becoming less gullible and the scales have fallen from the eyes of many. 185 Graham and the neo evangelicals had developed an autonomous existence, and 1957 wa s the moment of departure from fundamentalism. The dilemma remained. To what extent was outreach to a lost world fraught with danger to doctrine? For fundamentalists, doctrine ruled over concerns for community. For modernists, this worldly issues put shoe leather on the Gospel. For neo evangelicals like Graham, there was a third way. As if confirming that revolution had come, Carl McIntire concluded that both Graham and the NAE had come to occupy uncertain ideological ground. Graham satisfied neither the extreme right because of his cooperation with modernists nor the extreme left because of his message. Further, the NAE sat in a middle position between fundamentalism and modernism with connections to both. In January 1958, McIntire responded to a Carl Henry editorial in Christianity Today : separatist movement as it has developed, but particular ly the emphasis of the Scriptures on separation from unbelievers, and, instead, are advocating --entrance into the World Council of Churches. 186 The concept of penetration was intended to reverse the marginalization that had beset funda mental ists ever since the Scopes era. However, for McIntire, success at such contact came at 187 Two simultaneous attempts to maintai n both a distinctive identity and satisfy modernist parties had a disintegrating effect, and McIntire 185 Christian Beacon, January 9, 1958, p. 5. 186 Carl Christian Beacon January 30, 1958, p. 1. The cover page is misdated. 187 Ibid ., p. 2.

PAGE 240

240 188 McIntire was certain that the NAE was becoming a bridge into apostasy, and only the traditional fund amentalist could see past the lies to the truth. Beside Billy Graham, the most prominent neo evangelical was Harold Ockenga, and his reputation figured heavily in the relationship of fundamentalists to neo evangelicals. Marsden observes that as early as 1951 McIntire attacked Ockenga on the grounds that apostate teaching saturated his message and his leadership as a pastor of a prominent evangelical church. 189 po sition stood in contrast to the increasingly popular neo orthodox view which had lured some neo evangelicals into de emphasizing biblical literalism. Marsden comments that Francis the World Council of Churches and that both he and the NAE had praised neo 190 But the division between McIntire and Ockenga had a perso nal side as well. Following Machen out of Princeton Seminary along with McIntire in 1929, Ockenga had created animosity in the 1940s by attempting to lure the star of Faith Seminary, Professor Allan McRae, to Fuller Seminary. 191 but other fundamentalist leaders were slow to distance themselves from the successful evangelist Graham. The eventual separation between fundamentalists and neo evangelicals was no more 188 Ibid 189 Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism p. 135. 190 Ibid ., p. 111. 191 Ibid ., p. 28.

PAGE 241

241 painful than i n the break of Billy Graham with evangelist and publisher John Rice, whom others were attacking Graham for his associations with Ockenga and his lack of militance to ward some modernists, Rice still backed Graham and helped keep most of fundamentalism solidly in 192 and evangelicals. 193 Ultimately, as one of their favorite sons, Billy Graham became the chief Jones and McIntire in attacking Graham publicly. 194 Fundamentalists and neo evangelicals simply could not agree about how to orient to main New York Crusade. 195 Hendershot agrees that Graham himself became the f ocal point of the fundamentalist evangelical battle: The separatists [fundamentalists] and the neo evangelicals would do battle throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and Graham became the symbol of the new approach. He collaborated with mainline churches during his crusades, which infuriated the hard class, modern, and far from the old fire and brimstone stereotype. 196 She offers a striking contrast betwee example of what neo evangelical engagement could be. McIntire provided a negative example 192 Ibid ., p. 159. 193 Ibid ., p. 166. 194 Ibid 195 Ibid ., p. 162. 196

PAGE 242

242 of what neo evangelicalism was not and, in doing so, inadvertently contributed to neo 197 certainly not change on the scale Graham and the NAE sought. In this sense, the fundamentalist view stood outside the flow of historical time. World events did not deter or alter the sense of certainty, only fulfill biblical revelation. But to Graham and the NAE, neo evangelicals had a hand in making history with others, and such was the will of God. The Beacon stood strong against this view, continuing to use familiar ca tegories like the National Council of Churches, Communism, the redistribution of wealth, and civil rights as compasses for understanding the sixties. Revolution as Civil Rights The Beacon from its inception attacked error in ecclesiastical terms first. U ntil the civil rights controversies pushed the National Council of Churches into activism in the 1960s, the relations, Communism, and the overthrow of local rule persi sted. Apostasy was once again to blame. Church life was the point of connection to the larger questions. A March 1957 editorial confirmed as much with regard to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 198 The article noted the immense church strifes, tensions, hatreds, and all sorts of situations are being created, which are what the 197 Ibid ., p. 388. 198 Editorial, Christian Beacon March 21, 1957, p. 1.

PAGE 243

243 Communists desire an 199 This kind of narrative building removed the topic of race relations from its historical context, so that social stability, not a legacy of injustice, was center stage. Two reprints suggested how strongly the Beacon supported the side of segregation. Both national organizations of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church in the United States struggled with regional bodies and local churches over the topic. The (South) Carolina Baptist Fellowship p rotested against the national pro integration discussions of its 200 Revolutions in race and in church required a similar response from conservatives. The First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi attacked its denomination, the PCUS, for commenting on the desegregation within the province of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to determine the basis on 201 At the base of all the turmoil once again --so went the assumption --was Communism: The rep ort [made by a PCUS council] appears to be oblivious to the fact that Communism is an enemy of freedom; it seems to ignore the ruthless methods employed by the Communists of turning people against the existing form of government and of pitting class agains t class and race against race. The report encourages us to relax our guard gainst [sp] Communism and to cease trying to uncover it or its sympathizers in our schools and churches. 202 199 Ibid ., p. 8. 200 Christian Beacon June 13, 1957, p. 4. The article is a reprint from The Greenville News of June 6, 1957. 201 Christian Beacon June 20, 1957, p. 5. The article is a reprint from the Jackson Daily News Jackson, Mississippi, of June 6, 1957. 202 Ibid

PAGE 244

244 The battle over civil rights will be addressed more fully in the next cha pter, but it is clear that the Beacon as a social evil. Amidst the turmoil surrounding Communism, ecumenism, the NAE, and civil rights, the topic of evolution was virt ually invisible in the Beacon Topics more pressing than the old controversy that had once defined fundamentalism dominated. Brotherhood language in the age of ecumenism had to be exposed as a deceptive trap from the f Christian Beacon jumped on the opportunity to participate in a national witch hunt, along with American Council of Christian Churches and the International Council of Christian Chu rches. For fundamentalists, the 1950s were the last time they could sit peaceably with their evangelical cousins. Rights became the new buzzword; Carl McIntire participated in protest several times for science was not an issue of concern in this era. Four forces were needed to make evolution important to fundamentalists again. Academic and judicial activism plus the turbulence of the 1960s were three of them. A fourth was the voice of Francis Schaeffer. A student of Machen at Westminster and a disciple of McIntire, Schaeffer created an emergency sly associated. Atheism, communism and evolution became one in this framework. As the Beacon denounced the evils of civil rights in America, Schaeffer raised questions about science, government, and culture in the 1960s in Europe. This unknown missionar y would skyrocket to fame in the Christian world for his oracles about the trajectory of Western civilization.

PAGE 245

245 CHAPTER 5 THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FUNDAMENTALIST WORLDVIEW All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdicti on thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, li berty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of r eligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. --from the First Amendment The 1920 s and 1930s were a period of greater diversity among fundamentalists than their label as reactionaries would suggest. Some, for example, defined themselves as anti evolutionists. But, as we have seen in earlier chapters, antievolutionism was a secondary concern for J. Gresham Machen and Harry Rimmer, whose major focus was denominational battle against Darwinism did not include a young earth, unlike George McCrea dy Price, who warred for the preeminence of a worldwide deluge in shaping the fossil layers. Fundamentalists resolve those differences. In this sense, these crusader s were differing cobelligerents. What linked these early fundamentalist, however, was the absence of a concern that later marked the movement. Nowhere did Machen, Rimmer, Price, or even William Jennings Bryan, as leader of the Scopes prosecution, mention fears of expanding federal power as a sign of the secular worldview Darwinism promoted.

PAGE 246

246 Machen of course did comment about the expansion of governmental power in areas such as child labor and suffrage. He foresaw and feared state intervention in family affairs. For this cause, he also fought against a federal department of education, arguing that education was not to general way, and nowhere does he make a case for a worldview anchored in evolution driving philosophical objections. George McCready Price did seek to prove a vital link between Darwin and Nietzsche, b warnings did not intimate that Darwinism had yet (by the 1930s) conquered America and i ts politicians. The Scopes era therefore represented a period of profound denominational chaos between the conservative and liberal wings of several denominations, with antievolutionism being a secondary concern. But clearly Bryan, Machen, Rimmer, and P rice were united against the philosophical impact of Darwinism just as they stood together for the promotion of democratic knowledge. In Presbyterian terms, this promotion meant the preservation of Common Sense reasoning, advancing the notion of access to declared autonomy of an individual or of an academic specialty from conservative Christian concerns was coded as a threat by these leaders. Because of its promotion of secular specialization, Enlightenme nt expertise in science and biblical studies was a cornerstone for the construction of evolutionary theory and higher criticism. Except for Machen, who was willing to use higher critical tools in the defense of a supernatural Bible, the Enlightenment becam e the object of fundamentalist fury. By the end of the 1930s most fundamentalists were making the

PAGE 247

247 argument that the particular fields of biological science and textual criticism had grown autonomous from God, but they were not yet saying that their gover nment had. 1950s) Francis Schaeffer, Marsden notes, but his description and 1970s, with a spotlight thrown on films Schaeffer made after Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. 1 Marsden also cites Rousas J. Rushdoony as a major influence on the Religious Right, albeit one whose (described in Chapter 5) were far too radical for most Christians. 2 Marsden does not discuss the impetus for the feminist and gay rights movements that the civil rights movement provided and added fue l to the fire known as the culture wars. Furthermore, Marsden does not explore how the rulings of the Supreme Court had a cumulative effect in the decades between Scopes and Schaeffer. The present chapter will attempt to summarize the impact of changing judicial assumptions of members of the Supreme Court in the period immediately before and during the heyday of fundamentalist activity in the culture wars of the 1950s and 1960s. The Beginnings of Judicial Revolution An important aspect of the creation ev olution controversy is the revolutionary behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1931 to 1973. In this 42 year span, which was directly experienced by all the major fundamentalists of the 1950s, the Supreme Court claimed authority to regul ate the states in five domains in which citizens demanded their rights, namely, 1 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 245. 2 Ibid proposals of Reconstructionists are so far out of line with Am erican evangelical commitments to American

PAGE 248

248 domains will be addressed in a later chapter.) With regard to evolution, the Cou position since the Scopes era had a dramatic national impact. Writing in 1985 Edward Larson state establishment of religion] has undergone a comp lete reinterpretation by the Supreme Court 3 estimation, what constituted an establishment of religion, a violation of the separation of church and state, included anti evolution laws put in place by states such as Arkansas. This revolution --a new linkage made between the Fourteenth Amendment and the First: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, added in conn ection with ending incorporated many of the federal rights contained in the Bill of Right s into the 4 Bypassing majoritarian democracy and the acts of legislatures, the Fourteenth Amendment gave infringed. Because eventually fundamentalists who argued for creationism complained about the secularization of America partly based on new rights the Supreme Court had granted by the 1970s, a history of the Fourteenth Amendment and its initial and later their governments both national and state to a much greater degree than had been the case in the 3 Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution 3 rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 93. 4 Ibid ., p. 94.

PAGE 249

249 level encroachment is the product of three phases of American judicial history. This protectio n was a general principle initially put into action through the Fourteenth Amendment under a particular circumstance, namely the need to secure equality for the emancipated slaves after the Civil War, but later broadened to balance the scales of power in o ther situations such as the arenas of free speech and religion. To understand the import of the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1960s, one must consider the initial state of the Constitution and later developments that altered the jurisdictions of federal and state power. The first phase involved the Founding Fathers and the establishment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and extends to the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In this 77 year block of time, very little federal power was exerted to defend the rights of citizens against the authority of the states. Noting that the Bill of Rights included the first eight amendments to the Constitution, that it w as intended to restrain the power of the national government to interfere with basic 5 The Bill of Rights protected individuals only from infringement by the federal go vernment until the Civil states, Americans were required to look to their state constitutions and state bills of rights and 6 In other words, until the nation became engulfed in the conflict that transformed the rights of blacks, all Americans understood that anyone complaining that a state impinged upon individual liberty ultimately had no access to appeal beyond state law. 5 Richard C. Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1981), p. 4. 6 Ibid ., p. 5.

PAGE 250

250 Civil War attitude --Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the central question was whether the Fifth Amend requirement that compensation be made for private property taken for government use was a limitation upon the states. The Supreme Court voted that such a stricture could not be placed upon the states. 7 In Permoli v. New Orleans (1845), a Catholic priest, under the claim of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, demanded the right to bury dead in a Catholic chapel despite a city ordinance mandating otherwise during a threat of yellow fever. 8 The thus confined to being a limitation only upon the power of the federal government and played a very lim 9 Cortner forcefully depicts the transformation: The Civil War, however, led to the adoption of the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution --the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments --and as a consequence, the federal system was significantly altered. This alteration was most forcefully symbolized by the Fourteenth Amendment, which w as ratified in 1868. Unlike the Bill of Rights, the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was rivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person --the Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses, 7 Ibid ., p.4. 8 Ibid ., p.5. 9 Ibid

PAGE 251

251 respectively --opened up broad new avenues of potential appeals to the federal Constitution against exercises of power by the states. 10 Thus began the second phase of constitutional d evelopment, a sixty three year stretch from 1868 to 1931. reflected an unwi Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Dona ld Lively demonstrated a deep reluctance to use the Constitution to question the social custom of perspective, however, did not imply inferiority. Rather it reflected the reasonable exercise of a 11 In the ruling the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had no bearing in the Plessy case: The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it coul d not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. 12 10 The Fourteenth Amendment : A Century in American Law and Life (New York: New York Universi ty Press, 1970). 11 Donald E. Lively, Landmark Supreme Court Cases: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), p. 99. 12 Plessy v. Ferguson, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 163, 537 (1896), p. 544.

PAGE 252

252 Furthermore, the feelings of inferiority of which Plessy complained were deemed to be solely the consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferior ity. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but 13 Speaking of Justice Henry Billings Brown who wrote for the Court, Walter F. Pratt, Jr. comments: It was eq ually fundamental to Brown that laws could not alter the long established customs of society. For the Court to mandate that the races be mixed would be futile in the face of strong public sentiment as manifested by statutes requiring separation of the race s in educational facilities. 14 Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment was rendered ineffectual for the purpose for which it was created the equalization of African Americans to whites. Nonetheless, the seed for a judicial revolution had been sown. Cortner ack nowledges the organic principle the Amendment Fourteenth Amendment, which ultimately became a guarantee of individual liberty second only to the Bill of Rights its 15 After 1896 the first authentic reinvigoration of the Fourteenth Amendment took place in 1925, not in the area of race but of free speech. It came about with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Clarence Darrow, who later became famous in the Scopes trial. 13 Ibid ., p. 551. 14 Walter F The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions ed. Kermit L. Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 239. 15 Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights p.11.

PAGE 253

253 government. 16 Despite an initial defense by Darrow, Gi tlow was ruled guilty by the New York justice system. 17 This case, which went on to the Supreme Court, illustrated the centrality of the ACLU to the story of rights in America. Edward J. Larson details the history and significance of the ACLU in his reco unting of the Scopes trial. The organization in part resulted from the agitation of a religious community, namely the Quakers, for their right to object to the First World War. The ACLU became known as the champion of free speech rights. But the defense of those rights meant opposition to the opinion of the masses, including the parties rallying to the antievolution cause in Tennessee in profoundly influenced the AC 18 Larson also reflects on the impact of a sudden reversal in the influence of the Fourteenth Amendment upon judicial In fact, at the time of the Scopes trial in 1925, the ACLU was still looking for its first court victory. From a legal standpoint, the problem was twofold: states and municipalities imposed many of the objectionable restrictions on speech and assembly, particularly against labor unions, but First Amendmen t guarantees for freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion only applied to restrictions by the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, forbade states from protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the basic freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment and other provisions within the Bill of Rights. The full Court did not begin to adopt this position until 1925. 19 16 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 106. 17 Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights p. 50 53. 18 Edward J. Larson, Science and Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 63. 19 Ibid ., p. 65 66.

PAGE 254

254 freedoms of speech and the press in the First Amendment under the umbrella of the Fourteenth --bu beyond mere words, nor did it have a practical impact upon the fate of John Scopes in his quest for academic freedom. 20 21 Stromberg v. California (1931 ). The real world application of the Fourteenth Amendment as a federal means to defend the rights of a minority against the will of a state stood a mere six years away from Gitlow again in the issue of free speech. In this third period, which for the p urposes of the present work extends to 1973, one judicial revolution after another occurred in multiple domains of concern to the Protestant fundamentalists who led the charge against evolution in the 1970s. Further complicating matters are the simple fac ts that overlapping with this 42 year burst of change in jurisprudence were both the Cold War and the event in academic biology known as the Neo Darwinian synthesis. Yetta Stromberg was a staff member at a summer youth camp in California accused of prom oting subversive activity and arrested for violating a state law banning the use of a red flag. (She later admitted using the flag of the Soviet Union in a flag raising ceremony with children.) 22 Ultimately the case reached the Supreme Court led by Chief Ju stice Charles Evans Hughes. 20 Ibid ., p. 66. 21 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 106. See also Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights p. 59. 22 Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights pp. 73 75.

PAGE 255

255 23 The wording of the mined that the conception of liberty under the due process 24 Therefore incor poration of the First Amendment rights as protected by the Fourteenth immediately gave the federal judiciary authority to overthrow the California law. A revolution in rights as part of the Stromberg opinion is considered a milestone in First Amendment constitutional law, for it was the first ruling in w hich a Court majority extended the Fourteenth Amendment to include a protection of First Amendment substance in this case symbolic speech 25 Cortner, in trying to pinpoint the moment of the judicial revolution in thinking about t he included the Stromberg ruling, were pivotal. The freedom of speech as well as freedom of the lization of First protections guaranteed in the Fourteenth] occurred during this period. 26 Therefore the principle behind the Fourteenth Amendment --of the federal ri ght to overrule the states from hindering the rights of any citizen --which had been intended to solve racial inequality, had actually been reinvigorated in the First Amendment context. 23 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 296. 24 Stromberg v. California, Unite d States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 283, 359 (1931), p. 368. 25 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 296. 26 Cortner, The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights p. 87.

PAGE 256

256 er, did not become practically apparent to the mass of Americans until the arena at stake shifted from speech to race and then later to religion (with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954 and then the Engel v. Vitale ruling of 1962 respectively). empowering the Supreme Court did not figure to be a large concern of white Protestant a place of negation during the Ples sy ruling to gradual prominence with the Gitlow and Stromberg cases can be easily overlooked in relation to the creation evolution controversy, related to the Es tablishment Clause of the First Amendment. Setting aside smaller scale events on the local and state levels, the period from 1925 and creation science concurrent in 1980 appears at first glance to be a period of relative inactivity for the creationist cause, at least on a nationwide level. But the context of change in American culture responsible for had been established between the Scopes fiasco and the 1960s Fundamentalists repeatedly watched as interest groups championed the rights of minorities, ethnic a nd otherwise. But it was only in the late 1970s that these conservative white Protestants find their own voice in the new national discourse of rights. After the ACLU, another rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), pushed for federal power to control state abuses in the 1930s. In 1938, the Supreme Court case Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada was the spark for

PAGE 257

257 the campaign, launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1930, to challenge the separate but equal principle that required racial segregation in public 27 The Supreme Court ruled that by denying Lloyd L. Gaines admission to its all white law school, the University of Missouri had violated his Fourteenth Amendment all of state law school as inadequate to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 28 The Amendment had already restricted state power on the grounds of free speech; now the principle was being extended to race questions. However, the harbingers that the separate but equal doctrine neared collapse did not level. In Sweatt v. Painter Heman Mar ion Sweatt had been denied admission to the University of Texas law school. The Supreme Court voted unanimously with Fred Vinson speaking as Chief the Fourteen white state university law school. The decision made clear that statutory segregation was doomed, whether 29 At the same time the Court showed hesitation at the idea of a sudden overthrow of the Plessy ruling even at this late date. 27 Augustus M The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 195. 28 Ibid ., p. 196. 29 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 298.

PAGE 258

258 Plessy v. Ferguson should be reexamined in the light o f contemporary knowledge respecting the 30 Apparently the Court was not then ready to embrace the total set of revolutionary implications that a generous application of the Fourtee nth Amendment to modern problems would have ignited. Nonetheless, the Sweatt case was decided concurrently with McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education et al. (1950), in which George W. McLaurin complained the forced segregation that acco school denied him his basic rights. The Supreme Court agreed: We conclude that the conditions under which this appellant is required to receive his education deprive him of his personal an d present right to the equal protection precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. Appellant, having been admitted to a state supported graduate school, must receive the same treatment at the hands of the state as students of other races. 31 the Plessy ruling, historical events were about to force a moment of confronta tion. Still funda mentalists seem to have ignored the legal precedents that built up to the climactic moment the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education. According to Dennis J. Hutchinson, the Brown schools was 32 But again the legal precedents involving a revitalized Fourteenth Amendment re vealed a 30 Sweatt v. Painter, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 339, 629 (1950), p. 636. 31 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 339, 637 (1950), p. 642. 32 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 34.

PAGE 259

259 cumulative impact over time rather than a sudden reversal in Supreme Court decision making with Brown The domains of free speech and freedom of the press fell under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment before race. With the most controvers ial issue of the era at stake, the Court went about its task with caution. In one sense it set aside the debates over the initial intent of the framers of the 33 But the Court none theless ad dressed the doctrine laid down by Plessy v. Ferguson fifty eight years earlier in its on of the laws [guaranteed 34 But instead of wrangling over the past, the Court looked to the present and the future: In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools depriv es these plaintiffs of the equal We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe it that it does. 35 The Court sought to prove the case that segregation caused permanent psychological damage to Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is 36 A new era of rights vocabulary in American life had begun. 33 Brown v. Board of Education, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 347, 483 (1954), p.489. 34 Ibid ., p. 488. 35 Ibid ., pp. 492 493. 36 Ibid ., pp. 49 4 495.

PAGE 260

260 From Free Speech and Race to the Rights of Religious Minorities The impact of the Fourteenth Amendment upon rights in the religious arena caused a national frenzy only in the 1960s when the Court outlawed school sponsored prayer; however, as in the matters of speech and race, there were precedents to the prayer decision. Faced with religious minorities seeking the protection of their freedoms, the Court had historically struggled in its interpretation of the First Amendment. The upshot was that it strove first to protect the free exercise of religion and then to prevent the state establishment of religion. In the arena of religion, as with speec innovative extension of Fourteenth Amendment protections was the activism of an interest group. How these developments eventually affected creationists seeking their own rights requires a careful tracing of ev ents. The earliest complaints for the rights of religious communities came from a little Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Connecticut could not demand t welfare. The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment was at stake. The Court directly assaulted the state of Connecticut for violating an individua again the incorporation of the First Amendment into the rights protected by the Fourteenth was We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecti ng an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. 37 37 Cantwell v. Connecticut, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 310, 296 (1940), p. 303. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 261

261 Likewise, in 1943, the Court again ruled in favor of the free exercise of religion, as it overruled a tected the free exercise of religion which the tax impeded. 38 Neither one of these rulings appear to have made much impression among the Protestant visi edged sword that eventually had significance for the first part of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause. Fundamentalists in the 1940s assumed that the clause had little to do with Thomas Jefferson had argued for. Writing in 1985, Edward J. Larson discussed the changing reputation of the First Amendment: The Bill of Rights begins by guar During the past two decades, the legal controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and creation in public schools have f ocused on the interpretation of these two clauses of the U.S. Constitution, with the Establishment Clause becoming a bulwark for evolutionary teaching, and the Free Exercise Clause invoked for teaching creationism. That neither clause figured prominently e arlier bespeaks a changing interpretation of the Constitution. The Establishment Clause has undergone a complete reinterpretation by the Supreme Court in the past forty years. During the heyday of the anti evolution crusade in the twenties, no court would have seriously considered a legal argument that state anti evolution statutes violated the Establishment Clause. The clause traditionally barred only an American state church, like the Anglican Church in England. 39 38 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 319, 105 (1943), p. 108. 39 Edward J. Larson, Trial and E rror: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution 3 rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p.93.

PAGE 262

262 Therefore the Establishment Clause was interpreted by fundamentalists as a nonthreatening statement in the early 1940s. That sense of assurance was about to change. The first significant test of the Establishment Clause came in 1947, in the Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township case. At the center of the controversy was a New Jersey statute that allowed Catholic parents to be reimbursed for the cost of using public school transportation to get their children to parochial schools. A local citizen complained that this law was a violatio n of the prohibition against state establishment of religion. Ultimately in a close decision (5 to 4) the Supreme Court ruled that the mere transportation of children without state funding to the parochial school directly did not violate the separation of church and state. Because this articulation of the idea in the modern era deserves some extended attention. Though the outcome of this case left fundamenta list concerns untouched in a direct way, the foundation for a revolution in the domains that religion could lawfully inhabit was created at this point. Therefore the future restrictions placed upon creationist teaching have their root in the doctrines the Court expounded in this decision. Writing for the Court, Justice Hugo Black denied that the New Jersey statute established a state religion. He reviewed the intention and the history of the Establishment Clause. He outlined three stages. First was the c onstant warring over religion that characterized Europe before the creation of the United States: The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholi cs, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one

PAGE 263

263 shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these from time to time persecuted Jews. 40 He then noted that Great Britain repeated the mistake of wedding church and state in its initial 41 The second stage came with the American Revolution. The colonials awakened to the need for authentic religious liberty, wi th two leaders and the state of Virginia leading the way. No one locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of us liberty. But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention, provided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as else where, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious ind ividual or group. 42 Black celebrated the work of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. In the mid 1780s, both wrote against a Virginia tax that aided a state established church: The movement toward this end [religious liberty] reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in 1785 86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew James Madison led the fight against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstranc e against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society requir ed that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government established religions. Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax measure until its next session. When the proposal came up for consideration at that session, it not only 40 Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 330, 1 (1947), pp. 8 9. 41 Ibid ., p. 10. 42 Ibid ., p. 11.

PAGE 264

264 43 Thus Black sought to establish a segregation of religious concerns from those of the state as a value embraced by the Founding Fathers. This view proved to be in substantial contrast to the Reformed position on government championed by Carl McIntire, Francis Schaeffer, and R. J. Rushdoony as the evidence of the following chapter will show. Chapter Seven will extend the story to reveal how fundamentalists sought a rights revolution of their own, as they felt by the 1970s that their rights had been infringed whi le the nation acknowledged the rights of other parties. Black began a third and final stage by making a direct comparison between the Virginia provisions of t he First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same 44 Thus innovation; instead, they rested on precedent. What did not obtain in the time of the Founding Fathers, however, was the existence of the Fourteent h Amendment of 1868 and its potential to revolutionize the relationship of the federal government to the states. Black now argued for an organic connection between the First and Fourteenth Amendments that gave the federal government authority to prevent t he state level establishment of religion: 43 Ibid ., p. 12. 44 Ibid ., p. 13.

PAGE 265

265 The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been seve ral times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretatio n to the 45 was the foundation for attacking the creationist cause and supporting the teaching of evolution for the next forty years The principles elaborated by the Court proved to be multivalent and living forces that eventually came to press upon the interests of fundamentalists. But in the initial stage represented here, the threat to fundamentalist Protestant interests was not ye t a clear and present danger. Fundamentalist leaders appear to have ignored the wide reaching consequences First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and 46 The Court had taken a position on a matter of doctrine, but that position had no practical consequence as far as altering concern about impacts upon them would have been minimal. The Court set in place principles that could have rocked the fundamentalist boat, but in 1947 the threat was not yet actual. The th reat became real only in 1962. Larson adds to his reflections about the Establishment Clause and makes a direct connection between the story of Catholic rights and the creation evolution battle: 45 Ibid ., p. 15. 46 Ibid ., p. 18.

PAGE 266

266 Since the federal government never established a state churc h, the Supreme Court did not directly encounter the clause until the Everson case questioned the constitutionality of providing public transportation for parochial students in 1947, and it did so then only by interpreting the clause to preclude aiding reli gion generally rather than simply establishing a particular denomination. Even more ominous for the anti evolution statutes [still in place for three states since the 1920s], the Everson decision, written by Justice Hugo Black, applied this newly recognize government to the states. The Establishment Clause expressly limited only federal action --states were left free to establish state churches, and many states did so during the first half century o f the republic. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, added in connection with ending slavery in the 1860s, barred states ally incorporated many of the interference by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first used this mechanism to apply the Free Exercise Clause to the states in 1940, foll owed by the Establishment Clause seven years later in Everson Only then were the constitutional principles in place for the federal judiciary to address the issue of evolutionary teaching, but the full impact of that new interpretation of the Constitution did not become apparent until the early 1960s 47 evolution controversy into a legal context adds color and detail that supplements the analysis of Ronald Numbers, which is primarily limited to a description o f the scientific and religious issues at stake for both sides. Larson sees that there is legal context which touches upon the struggle between science and religion, and thus by sy that on the surface appears to be merely a contrast between sets of ideas. Although fifteen years passed before fundamentalists realized the revolutionary and creative use of the Fourteenth Amendment generally and its particular impact upon the church state relationship, the Supreme Court justices had laid the groundwork for a rearrangement of power well before the controversial school prayer ruling of 1962 that finally grabbed 47 Larson, Trial and Error pp. 93 94. Emphasis is mine.

PAGE 267

267 pplied the Establishment Clause against a religious tradition in a very public way --but it reflected a trend in Supreme Court decision making that fundamentalists had overlooked. Religious Minorities and the Beginnings of Organized Culture War In 1962 t pluralism when the Supreme Court sided with the pluralists by constructing a public domain into elevation of evolution in the public consciousness over time, and so the Engel v. Vitale decision requires careful detail. In a Cold were heard from the halls of Congress to the milit they had to separate themselves from the godlessness of Russia. The New York State Board of acknowledge our depende nce upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our 48 As in the aforementioned cases in which the ACLU, the NAACP, majority, so in the case of school prayer, interest groups played a critical role in the turn of events. The story of evolutionary teaching in the public schools later turned upon the principles these interest groups championed. On the other side stood those insis ting on the separation of church and state. Engel case] but it also contained the badge of modern constitutional litigation: substantial interest group presence. Pushing t he strong separationist line it had drawn since Everson the American Civil Liberties Union joined the parents of ten 48 Engel v. Vitale, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 370, 421 (1962), p. 422.

PAGE 268

268 public school students in a suit claiming that a state unconstitutional establishment of religion. Supporting the A CLU position were amicus curiae briefs filed by the American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee (joined by the Anti Synagogue Council of America (joined by the National Community Relations Advisory Coun cil). 49 In making their argument, Joseph F. Kobylka notes that the separationists drew heavily ominent role in the Everson decision. 50 Clearly the separationist group was depending on the Court to be consistent with its recent interpretation of the First Amendment and its use of the Fourteenth to defend minority rights. Working alongside the main c ounsel for the defendants and defending the use of New York, but there were also other powerful allies: Appearing as amicus curiae in support of the prayer were the Board of Regents of the State of New York and twenty state attorneys general. Essentially, they contended that the prayer, because it created no Establishment Clause problems, facilitated free exercise values, was not coercive, and involved no expendit ure of public monies. 51 practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Cl 52 part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American 53 The Court then 49 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions pp. 84 85. 50 Ibid ., p. 85. 51 Ibid ., p. 85. 52 Engel v. Vitale, p. 424. 53 Ibid ., p. 425.

PAGE 269

269 gave another history lesson on the importance of the separation of church and state. It pointed religious freedom was a central part of the founding of America. But then when those who were po werless in Britain gained prominence in their new country, they dictated to others: It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently i n control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies. 54 The Court, as with the Everson ruling, put the Virginia Bill for Religiou s Liberty as well as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison into the spotlight. The American Constitution was unique in that it protected religious liberty from the tyranny of kings, legislature, or even local let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let 55 Noting the hibition against the establishment of religion, the Court asserted its right to connect the First to the Fourteenth and thus overrule the State of New York. 56 The Scopes trial of the 1920s had involved a perceived attack upon God, but it did not involve th e reinterpretation of constitutional amendments. Scopes remained on the state level, and left no residue more substantial than a few anti evolution statutes in Southern states. Moreover, the Supreme Court was not involved, and an impact of racial and cultu ral diversity was not yet felt in what was commonly understood to be a Judeo Christian nation guided by 54 Ibid ., p. 427. 55 Ibid ., p. 429. 56 Ibid ., p. 430.

PAGE 270

270 Anglo Saxon culture. But the environment after World War II showed significant potential for changes that, to fundamentalists, appeared as a frontal as sault on conservative sensibilities. sponsored prayer violated the rights of certain citizens. For the first time, unlike the Scopes scenario, the federal government seeme d at war with Bible of one kind or another, including reading from the King James Bibl e, baccalaureate services, and spoken prayer. Such devotions had aroused little controversy until 1958 when the Herricks public school district in New Hyde Park, Long Island, 57 Accordin 58 rights created an immediate backlash among eve ranking and experienced politicians. Opposition was widespread, including the president of the American Bar Association and 79 percent of Americans cited in a Gallup poll. 59 In addition major newspapers such as the Wall Stre et Journal the Los Angeles Times the Boston Globe and The New York Daily News former presidents, Hoover and Eisenhower, were similarly shocked. 60 In other words, the simplistic charact erization of the fundamentalist as a marginalized extremist did not mesh with 57 e to Engel v. Vitale Collection, 422 17841 935058 (accessed January 17, 2011). 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 60 Ibid

PAGE 271

271 the widespread fury over Engel The Supreme Court also taxed the sensibilities of many Americans repeatedly, according to Dierenfield: And the Court repeatedly stirred the const itutional pot. Major decisions concerning obscenity, communism, and reapportionment preceded Engel and others concerning Bible reading ( Abington v. Schempp 1963) and the rights of the accused would soon follow. A cry arose from the right wing that Chief Justice Warren must be impeached. Candy manufacturer Robert Welch and his anti communist John Birch Society paid for hundreds of billboards across the country bashing became a national pastime. 61 fiat, the relationship of minorities to majorities of various kinds underwent revolution in the 1950s and 1960s. African Americans, like Engel and his group, had been denied their basic rights and the Supreme Court led by Earl Warren addressed the compla ints of both. Furthermore, civil rights leaders positioned themselves with the high Court on the matter of school prayer: Dierenfield comments that both Martin Luther King and the NAACP favored the Engel decision. 62 Likewise, the pro civil rights National C ouncil of Churches, the ecumenical body attacked fiercely by fundamentalists, sided with the Court as well. Supporters of segregation opposed the decision, such as Senator James Eastland of Mississippi; Dierenfield quotes Representative George Andrews of 63 It should be noted that Prescott Bush and A. Willis Robertson, the senator fathers of two prominent future leaders of the Republican Party, President George H.W. B ush and televangelist Pat Robertson, also went on the record as opposed to Engel 64 While the forces of tradition stood arrayed against Engel and the 61 Ibid 62 Ibid 63 Ibid 64 Ibid

PAGE 272

272 forces of change, it is often overlooked in analyses of the culture wars that race and religion were relat ed issues at the beginning, as illustrated by the following statement from Dierenfield: Engel provided conservatives with a heaven sent opportunity to attack the Warren Court. The anti Warren billboards that had sprouted after Brown v. Board of Education ( public demands to denounce Engel 65 The reaction to Engel brought some surprises. As might be expected leading vo ices against Engel came from the Roman Catholic church. The church wished to counter what it saw as disturbing trends toward secularism, materialism, and atheism. 66 But Baptists, though many were theologically conservative, had in their history a memory of being a religious minority and, government. The Joint Baptist Committee on Public Affairs, a prominent lobbying organization for 17 million members, endorsed Engel 67 Further, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Herschel Hobbs, also supported the ruling, a sign of how liberal the Convention was prior to the fundamentalist takeover of the late 1970s. Hence fundamentalist Presbyterians found themselves i n an odd alignment of players in the fight over Engel. They were joined by Catholics, whom fundamentalists identified with the Antichrist, while Baptists stood in opposition. The upshot of these realities was that Engel touched the interests of various g roups in unpredictable ways. Finally, despite their apparent drift toward liberalism from the Christian Beacon opposed the Engel decision. 68 65 Ibid 66 Ibid 67 Ibid 68 Ibid

PAGE 273

273 hool sponsored Bible reading, known as Abington v. Schempp Engel and Abington was to alienate fundamentalists. Nonetheless, the rights language of the day became, as we will see in the next movement and a proposed amendment, McIntire and his allies would contend for a counterrevolution to restore local majoritarian power in America. Dramatically, the Court def ended its position on the Establishment Clause by claiming that government and religion need to be considered as separate spheres for the survival of the nation. 69 The Court defined the Establishment Clause as a statement about separation to prevent the pe rsecution of religious minorities: Its first and most immediate purpose rested on a belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect, and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. 70 The Court celebrat ed the foresight of the Founding Fathers even as it attempted to defend itself from the accusation of being anti religious: These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not writte n to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled vernment 69 Engel Everson case, the state of New Jersey in that matter had was one other important precedent to Engel : according to Kent Greenawalt, Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education offer religious instruction within school buildings. The tenor of the majority and concurring opinions was strictly The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions pp. 134.) But the Engel case got nat ional attention for the church state issue like no other cases before it. 70 Engel v. Vitale, p. 431.

PAGE 274

274 wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. 71 The Court has created a tool for disentangling historically imbalanced situations which disadvantaged religious minorities by using its Fourteenth Amendment prerogative to enforce the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It reiterated the doctrine of separation of church and state a year later when the issue of school sponsored Bible reading came to its notice --but the principles used were the same as with Engel The ACLU led the charge against Bible reading in the schools in two cases, one involving a Unitarian family in Pennsylvania and the another in Baltimore, where an atheist r) and her son made complaints about the use of the Bible in the classroom. A Pennsylvania district court had ruled in favor of the Unitarian family, the Schempps, and against the Pennsylvania statute mandating Bible reading, by using the Fourteenth Amendm ent to apply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 72 That these constitutional issues were still a matter of debate became clear reading. 73 A striking as pect of this case was that testimony was included which dealt with the likelihood that Jewish students would be persecuted and ridiculed for their faith because it did not include the teachings of the New Testament. 74 The interests of religious minorities a gainst the Protestant majority appeared to be bound up together. 71 Ibid ., p. 435. 72 Abington School District v. Schempp, United States Supreme Court Reports Series, vol. 374, 203 (1963), p. 206. 73 f Appeals affirmed, the majority of four justices holding the exercise [mandated by the city Ibid ., p. 212. 74 Ibid ., p. 209.

PAGE 275

275 The Court had turned a corner with the Engel decision that essentially made the outcome with the Schempp Schempp was essentially a r Engel v. Vitale 75 He adds that 76 First Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, as applied to 77 The Court reviewed the American scene and judged it as both historically religious and pluralistic. Citing Cantwell v. Connecticut the Court reaffirmed its right under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the requirements of the First. 78 Citing the Everson v. Board of Education case, the Court stated that the intentionality of the First Amendment was to establish separate spheres between church and state. 79 Although the Court has alluded to its basic neutrality before, in this instance it stated clearly its position. recognition of the teachings of history that powerful sects or groups might bring about a fusion of governmental and religious functions or a concert or dependency of one upon the other to the end that official support of the State or Federal 75 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions p. 1. 76 Ibid ., p. 2. 77 Abington School District v. Schempp, p. 205. 78 Ibid ., pp. 213 215. 79 Ibid ., p. 217.

PAGE 276

276 Government would be placed behind the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies. This the Establishment Clause prohibits. 80 The Court then announced a simple test to measure the constit utionality of a law in the realm of church and state: The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislativ e power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. 81 Strikingly, the Court --neither to give Asses being antireligious by applauding the study of the Bible in an academic context while noting that ses here do not fall into those [academic] categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding 82 Therefo domain when the Scripture was used in a religious way in a public school context. Finally, the Court addressed the issue of majority rule in matters of church and state. Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to 80 Ibid ., p. 222. 81 Ibid 82 Ibid ., p. 225.

PAGE 277

277 83 Agreeing with the Pennsylvania court and overruling the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court ended with a reiteration of its commitment. The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individua l heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religio n, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. 84 In developing the two doctrines of separate spheres and neutrality, the Supreme Court had effectively displaced the Judeo Christian tradition from its place of cultural prominence in order to m ake room for religious minorities and those with no faith at all. But those groups that benefitted relied upon the steady accumulation of rulings that reinvigorated the Fourteenth Amendment which gave the Court its authority to rebalance the scales in gene ral for minorities against the will of a majority. The backlash to these church state rulings was immediate. Kobylka summarizes the public fury: Schempp came in the wake of a hostile response to Engel which raged throughout the summer of 1962 and into t --they never adjudicate --with one eye on the very heart of the Godly tradition in w Engel later, the Schempp ) decision. According to the Ga llup Poll, 76 percent of Americans supported this approach. All told, 150 such amendments were offered House of Representatives. 85 83 Ibid ., p. 226. In support of this statement, the Court cited West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), in which a flag salute law in West Virginia was ruled a violation of the free speech of Jehovah Witnesses. (Leo Pfeffer, The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions pp. 330 331). 84 Abington School District v. Schempp, p. 226. 85 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Deci sions p. 1.

PAGE 278

278 Clause were understood by many Christian generated more lasting resentment against the Supreme Court and stirred more concern among conservative Christians than the 1962 and 1963 decisions banning officially sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The Court claimed such practices violated the historic First 86 Suddenly fundamentalis ts had cause to look at themselves as an interest group, much like campaigned for their rights. Martin describes how the tumultuous sixties stimulated fundamen talists to express their rights as a culture in the form of building a new network of Christian schools. But the schools were symbols of a search for rights in a general sense in a transforming America. Jerry Falwell, a Lynchburg, Virginia pastor in the 1 960s later to become famous as the de facto leader of the Moral Majority that propelled Ronald Reagan to the White House and creationist Henry Morris to new levels of influence, was suspected of attempting to create a whites only environment in his foundin g of Lynchburg Christian Academy. This charge he refuted just as public school integration accelerated in Lynchburg in 1967. 87 Falwell claimed it was not Court ordered desegregation that motivated him but rather the perception of Court ordered secularizati Supreme Court decisions that banned school 88 In other h for their 86 William Martin, With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway Books, Christianity, a convi 87 Ibid ., p. 70. 88 Ibid ., pp. 70 71.

PAGE 279

279 own rights revolution. As we will see, understanding the later resurgence of antievolutionism, light of a new rights mentality of which Presbyterian s such as McIntire, Francis Schaeffer, and Rousas J. Rushdoony were each contributors as they responded to the new legal and political realities of the 1960s.

PAGE 280

280 CHAPTER 6 As fundamentalists set about to foment the ir own rights revolution, they also began to establish new alliances with like minded conservatives. The aforementioned Becker Amendment symbolized a much wider frustration with the Court than was evident merely among Protestant conservatives. Carl McInti to exempt school 1 A fore shadowing of the future embrace between fundamentalists and the Republican turn in mo 2 This manner of cause a building culture war the young away from God and the German people to militarism in World words were echoed later in future assaults upon evolution that increased after the Supreme Court Epperson v. Arkansas decision, based again upon the Establishment Clause. 3 Fundame 1 Martin, With God on Our Side p. 78. 2 Ibid ., p. 86. 3 Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error p. 114. See the following chapter for the culture war contextualization of the new c reation evolution controversies of the 1970s.

PAGE 281

281 unpleasant surprise eventually settled on evolution. 4 Ample evidence seemed to sugges t that evolution was making a comeback in the 1960s, as the world had eyewitnessed the celebration and apparent unity of biologists around Darwinism in the Darwin Centennial at the University of 5 In the meantime the focus of fundamentalist leaders was on the implications of secular government on rights. The present chapter endeavors to show that fundamentalists in the 1960s agitated for their rights, as they had four decades earlier in the Scopes confrontation. Hence this period is critical for understanding the 1970s, when evolution once more stepped into the public limelight. That decade will form the subject of the Chapter 7; here we focus on three fundamentalist leaders of the 1960s. The first to command our attention is Carl McIntire, whom we met in Cha pter 3 in the context of his struggles against communism and ecumenism. Among the intellectual leaders of the fundamentalists was Francis Schaeffer, who had been a student of J. Gresham Machen and, until the mid s view of America was affected in turn 4 Larson claims that the 1947 Everson decision was the decisive moment for the eventual legal battles over the issue of evolutionary teaching, but the full impact of that new interpretation of the Constitution did not become apparent ( Trial and Error p. 94) neut ral with regard to religion) as a means of enforcing the Establishment Clause was critical as it later became the criteria for the eventual dismantling of the remaining anti evolution statutes. (p. 95) A noteworthy aspect of the the word be taught or allowing both to be taught. (p. 95) The Court in Schempp argued that its neutrality was based upon neither advancing nor inhibiting religion s noted in Chapter 7, strong who have failed to secure equal time for their ideas due to the obstacle of the Establishment Clause. Ove r eighty ring true for many. 5 Smocovitis, Unifying Biology p. 23.

PAGE 282

282 at Westminster Seminary, Cornelius Van Til. As social upheaval and rights movements collided vigoration of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Reformed triad of McIntire, Schaeffer, and Rushdoony encountered a transforming America in the early 1960s. Together these three articulated the rights of fundamentalists in the midst of the rights revolutions, even if their warnings and exhortations only later took root. Carl McIntire: Forerunner of the Religious Right As the Cold War and the civil rights movement intensified during the early 1960s, so did the convictions of the Bible Presbyterians led by McIn tire. A vocabulary of rights dominated the pages of his weekly newspaper, the Christian Beacon between 1963 1965, and McIntire led the way as fundamentalists sought a counterrevolution to the civil rights movement and the Communist network they assumed pr omoted the cause. Three entities conservative politicians, fundamentalist churches, and anticommunists united against liberal politicians, ecumenical churches, and civil rights activists. By launching his youth group, International Christian Youth, as a Court rulings of 1962 and 1963 had declared to be religiously neutral sp heres. with the powerful conservative wing of the Republican party and understood the significance of Southern segregationist sentiment embodied by such stalwarts as S outh Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. The engagement between clergy and politicians to rescue America from internal revolution foreshadowed the marriage of Ronald Reagan and Southern rooted Moral Majority in

PAGE 283

283 1980. Though unsuccessful on many points, McInti for the fundamentalist cause. The perceived sudden expansion of federal power after World War II shocked fundamentalists into action. Alarmed like many other Americans to see the rejection of school sponsored p rayer and Bible reading in the early 1960s, McIntire and the Bible Presbyterians Constitution. Morris Udall, an Arizona congressman in 1964, articulated the shift clearly: Since 1940 the high court has taken jurisdiction in a number of such cases [such as school prayer], ruling that the 14 th Amendment extends the provisions of the First Amendment to acts of state and local governments. 6 As we have seen in the prev ious chapter, since the 1940s the Supreme Court had begun to interpret the rights stated in the First Amendment as included among the rights states were instructed not to deprive citizens of in the Fourteenth. By making rights absolute, this connection re presented a revolution in judicial decision making as now legal rights were not only a matter of federal but state protection, thus making jurisprudence not only concerned with preservation of the law but with its living quality as an entity capable of ada ptation and change. Most importantly, the states were suddenly made accountable to the federal government in a new way regarding the treatment of minorities and diversity related issues. America after World War II was primed for change. African American soldiers hoped for victory in civil rights at home just as they had brought victory against Hitler overseas. The desegregation of the military and the racial integration of baseball were, in fact, harbingers in the 1940s of what was to come. The highest C ourt in the land soon made its contribution. The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren became known for its radical reinterpretation of 6 Do We Want Another Bi Library,, (accessed January 17, 2011).

PAGE 284

284 Brown v Board of Education decision struck down the separate but equal doctrine of its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. By proving that separate schools meant inherently unequal schools, the Supreme Court applied the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amen dment. the use of the Fourteenth Amendment with Brown The Court had decided that the rights of atheists and non Christian religious minorities also deserved equal protection in the arena of the local public school. But Carl McIntire would hardly be alone in expressing shock and outrage over a perceived expulsion of God from the schoolroom and the introduction of a new dynamic in American law. The Christian Bea con The Christian Beacon against school sponsored Bible reading: The decision is sweeping beyond all words. Never did the founding fathers believe that God should b e separated from the state. The establishment of religion to them, in the context of the Constitution, was simply that we were not to have a State Church such they have in certain countries in Europe of which the early Americans came. The Court, in its de sire to protect what it calls liberty for all and no discrimination, Court and the land for this rejection of Him. 7 The writer was quick to offer practical solutions, such as amendi ng the Constitution and the to elect a conservative President who will replace the members of the Supreme Court with 7 Christian Beacon June 27, 1963, p. 1.

PAGE 285

285 conservative 8 The ruling set t he American judiciary into a publicly oppositional stance relative to the fundamentalist churches. The paper featured a cartoon that declared the high Court had violated the boundaries of its sphere and moved into the role the legislative branch occupied. these Presbyterians, the language of diversity was not far from the language of adulteration and apostasy. Hence on a domestic front, defending the rights of minor ities appeared to be a serious threat. The narrative of revolution was profoundly offensive to the editorialists of the Beacon Therefore discovering that Communists supported the civil rights March on Washington slated for August 1963 seemed to confirm God conspiracy. On August 8 th the Beacon 9 The paper also noted the joining of ecumenical forces with the cause of civil rights as the National Council of Churches saluted the March. The Beacon denounced the March as an expression of as been inherent 10 A cartoon proclaimed openly that civil rights brought the dynamite of revolution to the country, guided by Communist and NCC leadership. 8 Ibid The Beacon called Chr istians to a new kind of battle on a domestic front. In the same issue Carl McIntire ent. An accompanying cartoon suggested that the President contaminated Christian America by mingling it with the corrupt Soviet empire for the sake of respecting Ibid. 9 U Christian Beacon August 8, 1963, p. 1. 10 Ibid

PAGE 286

286 The perceived relationship among rights, secularis m, and Communism demanded from fundamentalists a continued response and eventually a rights movement of their own. The September 5 th issue of the Beacon declared in its banner headline that the March had been openly of Christian Churches. The edition described at length the deficiencies in the civil rights cause. Carl McIntire rejected the narrative of the civil rights free t o work, to labor, to improve himself, and to get ahead in life, just as any other American 11 McIntire held fast to the belief the civil rights movement was a veil for Communist subversion, citing a report by J. Edgar Hoover. 12 He justified his opposition using the Bible: Of course, a direct assault was made upon the rights of property. The director of the march actually said that civil rights were above property rights. This is of course contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Property rig hts are a divine 13 He continued: The question of segregation has become a minor matter indeed compared to the over all revolutionary program to change the United States of America, to destroy capitalism, to establish socialism, and to bring about a bureaucratic regulation of the lives of the business leadership of the country and of all the people. 14 11 th March on Washington Opposed by American Council of Christian Churches: Ch ristian Beacon September 5, 1963, p. 8. 12 Ibid 13 Ibid 14 Ibid

PAGE 287

287 Denying a long history of injustice which the African American had endured McIntire rejected the idea that the federal government could assume a caretaker role instead he held the advance of the Christian Gospel would suffice. The Beacon thus began an antirevolutionary crusade, against civil rights but also for fundamentalists attacked. The paper began to draw allies from the South, chief among which was segregationist senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The Beacon p atriotism and faith in its October 17, 1963 edition. Thurmond simultaneously claimed to uphold the separation of church and state and maintain a connection between God and America as indivisible. 15 changing therefore movement, had to be stopped as a means of social change. These sentiments formed the foundation of the Beacon 1964 1965: Antirevolut ionary Fervor Peaks The Beacon began 1964 by declaring proof that a working relationship existed between the World Council of Churches and Russian Communists the World Council in February convened its executive committee in the U.S.S.R for the first time. Domestically, in discussing the future of youth ministry, the National Council of Churches in the Beacon parental authority on the matter of race relations. Revolution seemed everywhere. 16 As champion of all the paper held dear, Strom Thurmond was celebrated for attacking 15 Christian Beacon October 17, 1963, p. 3. 16 Ame Christian Beacon February 13, 1964, p.1. The cartoon about youth is on page 8.

PAGE 288

288 Thurmond is a great American, a great senator, and a great Christian; and men of his integrity and courage are needed in the 17 International Christian Youth, a rights organization shepherded by McIntire and his son Carl Thomas, gave Thurmond the spotlight at its second annual leadership conference, held in June 1964, along with Allan MacRae, the president of Faith Theological Seminary, and Dr. Bob Jones III, the descendant of the original Bob Jones, evangelist and university builder. Thurmond was described 18 But amidst what appeared to be an Anglo Saxon dominated leadership, the conference panel of African students discussing the future of Ch ristianity and liberty in the face of the 19 Hence the question of International Christian Yo uth represented a union of fundamentalists North and South with Southern segregationists like Thurmond. But the Christian emphasis created an impulse to label both white Southern anger embodied in Thurmond as the same instinct held by Christian Africans fo the public schools for prayer and Bible reading gave ICY an offensive side. 17 Christian Beacon M arch 12, 1964, p.7. 18 Christian Beacon March 19, 1964, p.4. 19 Ibid

PAGE 289

289 A Movement for Fundamentalist Rights Congressman Frank Becker of New York proposed an amend ment to the Constitution in of the proposal came forth in September 1963). 20 The proposed amendment read: Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohi bit the offering, reading from, or listening to prayers or Biblical Scriptures, if participation therein is on a voluntary basis, in any governmental or public school, institution, or place. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit making r eference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place, or upon any coinage, currency, or obligation of the United States. No thing in this Article shall constitute an establishment of religion. 21 In 1964, Congressman Morris Udall noted that to become an amendment, the Becker proposal faced a steep challenge as an approval by two thirds in both House and Senate was required, fo llowed by ratification by three quarters of the states. 22 Nonetheless, the CQ Almanac many, included Southern politicians already angered by judicial activism by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court de cisions were sharply attacked by some Members of Congress, including many Southerners who had often denounced the Court since its 1954 decision against school segregation. During the 88 th Congress, through Sept. 21, 1964, 151 measures proposing constitutio nal amendments to reverse the 23 20 Almana c Online Edition, 1304697 (accessed January 17, 2011.) 21 Ibid 22 23

PAGE 290

290 The Almanac likewise recorded the immense public support for the Becker amendment, with International Christian Youth leading the charge: Those favoring a constitutional amendment exerted pressure on Congressmen with Probably the largest national group pressing for mail to Cong ressmen was Project America, which was based in Collingswood, N.J., but claimed to have local groups throughout the country. Project America was an offspring of the Liberty Lobby, which was founded in 1955 to present the right wing point of view. In its May and urge him to sign discharge petition No. 3 (the Becker petition) as the only realistic means to insure that Congress be allowed to vote for religious free signatures had been gathered in support of the constitutional amendment. Miller mbers of the Judiciary Committee will expedite signatures, Project America solicited mail to Congressmen, largely by providing the writer with a form letter or a post card which he was asked to sign and address Christian Youth constituents, respectfully request you to sign discharge petition No. 3 for the Becker amendment to return the Bible to our schools. Please let me know whether numbers not only by Representatives but also by several Senators. 24 Furthermore, the Almanac recorded the views of many religious leaders. Carl McIntire 25 Robert Cook of the National Association of Evangelicals gave a less sarcastic but 26 Clearly on the matter of religious exercises the Supreme Court had created substantial 24 Ibid 25 26

PAGE 291

291 matter was twofold: restoring prayer in schools was a basic right while the civil rights movement demanded a counter response International Christian Youth would become a symbol of this twofold emphasis. a were reprinted in the Beacon : It is encouraging to see International Christian Youth, through their sponsorship of ight to be won for all, it must American with the means to join in this struggle. 27 The April 2, 1964 issue set civil rights and school prayer side by side, as Carl Thomas McIntire, the son of the Bible Presbyterian leader, spoke as Chairman of International Christian Youth the less spectacular news of efforts to guarantee freedom for prayer 28 His against atheistic Communism, political and ec onomic considerations are secondary to the overriding spiritual considerations. The Becker Amendment would help place first things first in 29 Congressman Becker celebrat ing hearings to be held in connection with his amendment and, in 27 Chri stian Beacon March 26, 1964, p.1. 28 Christian Beacon April 2, 1964, p. 1. 29 Ibid

PAGE 292

292 Lyndon Johnson condemning the Civil Rights Bill. The elder McIntire reiterated some familiar t hemes, such as the notion of the universal brotherhood of man as being in contrast with the biblical notion of only the converted being brothers, and the idea of civil rights as an assault on property rights. He criticized the President for opening the do or to the National Council of Churches but not the fundamentalist American Council that McIntire founded. But McIntire added that civil rights had consequences in the streets: A spirit of lawlessness and even riot has been stimulated in this country in or der to obtain the civil rights legislation, and we have waited in vain for word from your lips as the Chief Executive to discourage and denounce such a fundamental assault upon civil order itself. 30 regarding school prayer and Bible reading: Why is it, may I ask, that you have not lifted your voice in behalf of the return of Bible reading and prayer to the public schools? The greatest crisis facing this Republic is our departure from the Word of God equality and non discrimination between our peoples. If we are to be free, our relations with our neighbors must be of mutual respect and love which I say your legislation cannot produce! 31 30 Christian Beacon April 2, 1964, p. 4. 31 Ibid

PAGE 293

293 minor ity element in this country and it carries with it definite political advantages for you and 32 Continuing with the theme of the abuse of federal power, the Beacon published a speech by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, under the h page cartoon depicting the Civil Rights Bill as a violation of rights rather than the fulfillment of them. 33 The c artoon showed a disproportionately large white caveman with a sinister grin 34 simpler narrative about power. By depicting the vi olation of private property as a male female struggle, the Beacon used the theme of rape as a metaphor for the impact that the Civil Rights Bill would have. The calculus of rights was little more than an act of bullying a weaker party innocent, fair, whit connection to make was that a bill benefitting black Americans allowed them to violate the private property rights of white Americans hence the familiar Southern anxiety of the black male sexually assaulting the white female was part of the overall coding of the cartoon. 32 Ibid 33 The headline appeared in the Christian Beacon May 7, 1964, p.1. 34 The cartoon was on page 1 of the Christian Beacon, May 7, 1964.

PAGE 294

294 The image was a particularly violent turn for the Beacon which had previously demonstrated at least a willingness to negotiate with the President of the United States about the bill. The cartoon suggests therefore a hardening of the Beacon In the same issue of the Beacon the Mississippi branch of International Christian Youth (ICY) vowed to challenge the incursion of ecumenical forces into the sta te for the purposes of question of the invasion by the National Council of Churches of the Delta area of the The National Council has announced tha t it plans to send a number of youth social both the NCC and the World Council of Churches. 35 In response ICY Mississippi planned to address civil rights head on, beginning with a discussion of the NCC churches at the ICY national leadership conference. In this struggle the ICY was attempting to have its wishes both ways. On the one hand it advanced the cause of rights while, on the other hand, it sought to hinder the advance of rights. It demonstrated that it could campaign for fundamentalist rights to pray in the public s chools as well as against the advance of civil rights. The leaders of ICY, Carl Thomas McIntire and Larry Miller, went to Washington to testify for the Becker Amendment before the House Judiciary Committee on May 7, 1964. The younger McIntire spoke of th e impact of removing the Bible from the school as removing part of 35 Mississippi Challenge to NCC Christian Beacon, May 7, 1964, p.1.

PAGE 295

295 m 36 Yet despite these protracted efforts, neither ICY nor other interested parties were able to move Congress to act. The CQ Almanac records that neither the House Judiciary Committee nor its counterpart in the Senate chose to act up on recommendations made by the end of 1964. 37 Morris Udall made a striking observation about the ways fundamentalists and others viewed their government both as a hindrance and a help simultaneously: It is strange that many of the people writing in behalf private affairs and individual freedoms. Yet they seem to believe that home and church can no longer be depended on, and that government must save r eligion by compulsory instruction. 38 Nineteen sixty four marked the end of the Beacon issue aggressively, although it continued its attack on civil rights. One of its first concerns was the openness of many Baptists t o the civil rights cause, as evidenced by the embrace of Martin Luther King by both Baptists of various denominations and by Billy Graham at the Baptist evangelic als and fundamentalists regarding civil rights. A cartoon in the May 21, 1964 Beacon an indicator of denominational differences between Baptists and Presbyt erians that continued to cause problems for those who wished to form alliances. Co existence with civil rights was equivalent to apostasy, the caricature declared. As the cartoon mentioned, the only answer the Beacon could support given these divides was a maintenance of the separatist position. 36 Christian Beacon May 14, 1964, p. 1. 37 38

PAGE 296

296 Furthermore, in July International Christian Youth issued a statement on segregation and integration that seemed to attack both and affirm both. At first the writer appeared to show humility: Thus Christians atte mpt to avoid absolutizing and declaring infallible their various schemes for social organization. They know that on earth even their own systems, 39 He then proceeded to attack humanis idolatry to be avoided for taking the focus off of Jesus Christ. 40 for all of humanity and that a political outworking of this principle should be that the franchise 41 ation in regard to race may be left to the various congregations, denominations, localities, states, institutions, and 42 The upshot of the article was to take a position in sharp contrast w ith the ecumenical movement that it sought to counter in Mississippi: race was to be a spiritualized issue that required a hands off policy when outsiders intruded upon local politics. The ecumenical movement erred on the side of the idolatry of humanism: The Ecumenical Movement does not consider sufficient the revelation of Jesus Christ, according to Holy Scripture, as the Truth about race. Instead, it places alongside Holy Scripture the idolatry of humanism and makes a fundamental moral judgment against C hristians of nonconcurring views. Furthermore, the Ecumenical 39 Christian Beacon July 2, 1964, p. 3. 40 Ibid 41 Ibid 42 Ibid

PAGE 297

297 Movement contributes to the creation of racial tension, especially by coercion and extra Churches related to the Ecumenical Movement are, therefore, in need of reformation in the matter of race according to the Word of God. They must accept guilt for any violence and bitterness they have already fostered on all sides through programs based on exalted humanism. 43 Thus ICY planned to be a counter revolutionary force, re establishing the white power structure played no role in the ICY statement, only a spiritual con cern. If there was any abuse of power to address, it was the National Council of Churches training volunteers for the Delta work, as exemplified by a cartoon in the September 3, 1964, showing a Delta worker pounding the head of a Mississippian with the Soc ial Gospel. The Beacon 44 The noti on of state sovereignty was an important part of the Reformed worldview as well as libertarian politics. In July 1965, as if a foreshadowing of the eventual marriage of the Religious Right with the Republican Party, the Beacon 45 Nonetheless, clearly by 1965 the Beacon showed signs of an internal struggle among fundamentalists about race. Two examples stood out. At a national assembly meeting of the International Christian Youth at Fort Worth, Texas, i n December 1964, an agreement could not 43 Ibid 44 Christian Beacon September 3, 1964, p. 4. 45 Christian B eacon July 15, 1965, pp.2 4.

PAGE 298

298 be reached about a statement on race and religion. The sticking point was the Christian basis for segregation: A fourth paragraph, summarizing the viewpoint of International Christian Youth as an organization made up of members of various viewpoints on social orga nization some favoring and some opposing segregation and or integration by legal establishment Religion and Race] The study paper, published in the C hristian Beacon July 2, 1964, had concluded that a Christian attitude toward race and religion could allow either legal integration or segregation and that Christians could operate according to Biblical injunctives under either circumstance. One member of the committee [issuing the new statement] could not agree that legal segregation could be condoned by ICY, and on this issue the statement fell 46 The second instance, reported in the February 4, 1965 Beacon personal trip to Afric a to aid fundamentalist forces facing the advance of the World Council of Churches on that continent. The incident prompted several front page stories and sent the message that the International Council of Churches welcomed people of African descent. The S ixth Plenary Congress of the International Council of Churches held in Geneva in August 1965 showed the presence of a substantial African contingent. 47 Photographs of participants mingling also gave a sense that integration had come at last to Carl McIntire The Third Protest: Reformed Fundamentalists as Eclectic, Independent, and Co belligerent In his study of the roots of fundamentalism before 1925, George Marsden makes clear that fundamentalism emerged from diverse movements: Fundamentalism w Christian thought that gradually took on its own identity as a patchwork coalition of representatives of other movements. Although it developed a distinct life, identity, and eventually a subcult ure of its own, it never existed wholly independently of the older movements from which it grew. Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse and 46 Christian Beacon January 7, 1965, p. 4. Emphasis mine. 47 Jon Reid Kennedy, Untitled article, Christian Beacon August 19, 1965, p.1.

PAGE 299

299 changing federation of co belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity in to line with modern thought 48 Presbyterians, and others, each with denominational distinctives that themselves harbored differences. One over arching point of unity was a shared hostility for the agenda of university learning to transform the Bible into a merely human document and humanity into a relative of battle at Princeton Semin ary against the forces of liberal theology, by 1929 eventually separation became the only option. Francis August Schaeffer (1912 1984) Schaeffer was an activist of a different sort, seeking to demonstrate the rule of the Christian God over all spheres of intellectual significance, including law and science. His lectures on government and evolutionary theory foresaw a totalitarian threat on the horizon e particularly sensitive to growth in the power of the federal government. In this regard Schaeffer stood alongside Machen and McIntire. The sixties inverted Reformed expectations about the behavior of government, and for the first time two Americas seem ed at war with each other. On the one hand, civil rights theorists held to a vision of the nation as an evolving organism, but the language of Reformed creeds imagined a nation based upon an theme of the era that fundamentalists did not ignore in their defense of their own interests. 48 George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture 2 nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p.4. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 300

300 Francis Schaeffer was born in Germantown, Pennsylvania to working class parents. According to Barry Hankins, Schaeffer grew up an agnosti c but came to respect ancient Greek thought as well as the Bible. 49 month period of reading faith held the solution to the philosophical questions he was contemplating. 50 Schaeffer began his college career studying engineering at Drexel Institute in Philadelphia before changing direction altogether and attending Hampton Sydney in Virginia in 1931 to prepare for the ministry. 51 After completing his degree in 1935, Schaeffer married Edith Seville, the daughter of missionaries to China. The partnership would span almost fifty years and be the cornerstone of a fruitful ministry. 52 Franci s came to known Machen Christianity and Liberalism 53 Together in 1935 they Westminster Seminary. Here Schaeffer viewed th e fundamentalist modernist controversy up the United States of America (PCUSA). However, Schaeffer eventually left Westminster due to disagreement and attended th e newly founded Faith Seminary to finish his degree. professors in particular, Cornelius Van Til and Allan MacRae, the former an expert in 49 Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), pp. 2 3. 50 Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), pp. 21 22. 51 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer, pp. 3 4. 52 Ibid ., p. 5. 53 Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 31.

PAGE 301

301 apologetics and the latter in biblical exegesis. 54 Duriez claims that Van Til was a prime motivator orthodox views. 55 (Van Til, who lived until 1987, became a living bridge between the era of J.Gresham Machen and the rise of the Religio us Right.) 56 belligerents is borne out in the case of Van Til and Schaeffer. 57 Udo Middelmann, who knew the Schaeffer family from 1960 and married into it in 1964, described a different version of Middelmann claimed that Schaeffer left Westminster presuppositionalist apologetic: Presuppositionalism he [Schaeffer] understood very much to be in the line of thing becomes true and real. An d Schaeffer worked the other way around. That is, 54 Ibid ., p. 37. 55 Ibid ., p. 40. 56 See John R. Muether, Cornelius Van Til: R eformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:P & R Publishing, 2008). Cornelius Van Til was born in 1895 in the Netherlands and immigrated to the United States in 1905. His family culture was deeply influenced by Dutch Calvinism and the view s of Abraham Kuyper, prime minister of the Netherlands (1901 1905), who emphasized the animosity of Calvinism toward the Enlightenment (p.24). Muether notes that the Dutch Reformed Christians felt a sense of tension as they began to Americanize, fearing t joined] observers saw American religion as too subjective, materialist, and pragmatic. It was indifferent to principle, especially to Reformed princ Presbyterian Church. Van Til entered Princeton Seminary in 1922 as a student when Machen was a faculty member (p. 50). Van Ti l would eventually became a professor at the seminary himself but join Machen in leaving in 1929 to found Westminster Seminary, at which he remained for the duration of his professional life (pp.19 and 61). h that of other fundamentalists. He was not a premillenialist and in apologetics chose the path of presuppositionalism as opposed to evidentialism (pp. 82 and 68). He had bitter arguments with Allan MacRae and J. Oliver Buswell luences as Westminster Seminary underwent fracture (pp. 86 87). 57 See footnote 59.

PAGE 302

302 ght]. 58 is further complicated by John Frame, professor of systematic theology and philosophy at Reformed Seminary in Orlando. According to Frame, Schaeffer vigorousl y agreed with Van Til on the matter of presuppositions when the worldview of the non Christian was under discussion. 59 Divisions among the conservative Christians that made up Westminster led to a schism in 1937. A first group, led by Machen, gave liberty on the matter of alcohol use, looked down upon premillenialism, and controlled the Independent Board for Foreign Missions, created under McIntire and Allan MacRae [who m Schaeffer would join] abstained from alcohol, upheld premillenialism, and sought control of the Independent Board. 60 As has been noted in the previous chapter, McIntire spearheaded the founding of a competing school, Faith Theological Seminary, as well a s a competing denomination, the Bible Presbyterians. 61 Schaeffer was among 58 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, January 13, 2011. 59 many people were the pre suppositional elements in it. I think he saw his apologetic as kind of a halfway point between Van Til and [evidentialist apologist J. Oliver] Buswell. But I think the Van Tillian elements that really that non Christian thought had abandoned reason and that it philosophical tensions between Schaeffer and Van Til, while at the same time, in speaking d irectly with Schaeffer, Frame heard a clear endorsement of presuppositionalism. John Muether claimed likewise that Schaeffer regarding the Cornelius Van Til pp. 197 198). 60 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 13 15. 61 Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

PAGE 303

303 the first graduating class at Faith (1938) as well as the first minister ordained by the Bible Presbyterians. 62 Schaeffer held two pastorates in Pennsylvania before a momentous appoi ntment in St. playing of games and memorization of Scripture, a strong se paratist message went forth. A 1946 pamphlet authored by Schaeffer revealed an ambiguity about American religious pluralism. On of our country stands for freedom under law. As Christians we especially honor it for the 63 On the other hand, that freedom had allowed the multiplication of false religions, among which Schaeffer numbe Day Adventism, 64 Most importantly, S Modernist controversy was far from over. With regard to the doctrine of sin, modernism openly t in the sight of God but a result of incomplete evolution. Whatsoever sin there is, is a product of 62 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 13. 63 Francis Schaeffer, Empire Builders for Boys 1946, p.7, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Box 349, File 4, PCA Historical Center. 64 Ibid e to explain the decreasing popularity of George

PAGE 304

30 4 65 Finally, modernism offered a highly distorted r. He was a son of God, as we all are sons of God. The Virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, and his resurrection are non 66 The fact that Schaeffer spoke so sternly in a manual designed for a separatist Protestant version of the Boy Scouts dem onstrated that on every front, including for the minds of children, he imagined a life and death battle. According to Barry Hankins, Schaeffer remained true to the fundamentalist cause in the 1940s and only in the 1960s identified with mainstream evangel icalism. Hankins comments: 67 Contamination even in an indirect way was a constant threat agreeing with separation in that realm, aligning himself with the separatist Children for Christ against the more inclusive Child Evangelism Fellowship in the 1940s. 68 The mission of Children for Christ was straightforward: Children for Christ Incorporated was an enlargement of Child Evangelism Fellowship in St. Louis; the larger work started at a meeting of the ACCC in St. Louis in 1945. Schaeffer was named director, and Carl McIntire was on the board. The organization was to evangelize and disciple children and direct them into fundamentalist churches and away from modernist ones. 69 65 Ibid ., p. 78. 66 Ibid ., p. 76. 67 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 25. 68 Ibid ., p. 25. 69 Ibid ., p. 29.

PAGE 305

305 A life altering moment came when the Independent Board for Foreign Missions sent Schaeffer to Europe for three months in 1947. The environment was ripe for evangelism after the Second World War: Just as the United States was gearing up for the Marshall Plan to rebuild the infrastructure and political institutions of western European countries, Schaeffer and others wanted to rebui ld orthodox Christianity by alerting Europeans to the dangers of theological modernism and training a generation of children in the Independent Boa rd and Children for Christ work and to persuade European evangelicals to leave the Federal Council of Churches to join the American Council of Christian Churches. 70 m issionaries to Europe permanently. They made their way overseas by stages, and while in Philadelphia the Schaeffer family (with Francis already traveling in Europe) began a friendship with C. Everett Koop, a physician who later assisted Schaeffer in an an ti abortion film entitled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? and became Surgeon General of the United States under President Reagan. 71 The Schaeffers moved first to Lausanne, Switzerland, to extend the work of Children for Christ. Hankins notes that Bar thian neo list of priorities due to its perceived spread on the continent. 72 In addition, in 1948, Schaeffer of Christian Churches (ICCC) as a counter to the ecumenical World Council of Churches in 70 Ibid ., p. 29. 71 Ibid ., p. 33 34. 72 Ibid ., p. 35.

PAGE 306

306 Europe. In 1949 the Schaeffers moved to Champery, a village in the mountains, for four years. tist fundamentalism. However, Schaeffer maintained a commitment to fight liberalism. He and other ICCC leaders met with Karl Barth in 1950 in an attempt to persuade him of orthodoxy. The heart of that biblical truths could be true as moral statements without being dependent upon the events of the Bible being factual. 73 Instead And I see: you and your friends have chosen to cult ivate a type of theology, who [sic] consists in a kind of criminology; you are living from the repudiation and discrimination of every fellow creature, whose conception is not entirely alking on 74 Barth aimed for the jugular: You may call me names (such as: cheating, vague, non historic, not interested in work in America, in the Netherlands, in Finland and everywhere and decry me as the most dangereous [sic] heretic. Why not? perhaps the Lord has told you to do so. But why and to what purpose do you wish further conversation? The heretic has been bur nt and buried for good. He ended with a crescendo: open theology] and the review of your friend [ICCC leader J. Oliver] Buswell reveals the fact of your decision to close your wind ow shutters. I do not know how to deal with a man who comes to see and to speak to me in the quality of a detective inspector or with the beheavior [sic] of a missionary who goes to convert a heathen. No, thanks! Yours sincerly [sic] Karl Barth 73 Ibid ., pp.38 39. 74 Karl Barth to Francis A. Schaeffer, September 3, 1950. Francis Schaeffer Correspondence, Allan MacRae Papers

PAGE 307

307 Excus e my bad English. I am not accustomed to write in your language. I am sending a copy of this letter to Rev. Buswell! 75 world view, nonetheless, forces around Schaeffer introduced him to a wider world by the end of 1950s. First, there were personal relationships that introduced Schaeffer to intellectual vistas eeting Hans Rookmaaker, a 76 Schaeffer was not a typical fundamentalist in that he embraced artistic expr ession as something more than a vehicle of worldliness, making a point of taking detours to artistic venues and historic sites in his European travel. 77 Udo Middelmann has described the mutually edifying discussions between Rookmaaker and Schaeffer regardi ng art and politics. Middelmann stated that Rookmaaker and Schaeffer philosophical base of Christianity more and Rookmaaker helped Schaeffer with the cultural art sy 78 Middelmann added that Rookmaaker introduced Schaeffer to the political thought of Abraham Kuyper, who was prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905. Kuyper was invited to give the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary by B.B. Warfield in 75 Ibid 76 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 35. 77 Ibid ., p. 31. 78 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, January 13, 2011.

PAGE 308

308 1898. Kuyper asserted that John Calvin endorsed the republic as the ideal governmental form, conditions exist, where the people itself c hooses its own magistrates 79 Kuyper also made a strong distinction between the godly roots of the American Revolution and the atheistic base of the French Revolution, in a manner very similar to that which Schaeffer would argue in the 1960s and 1970s. 80 The sovereignty, by the grace of God, of the government is here set aside and limite Neither the life of science nor of art, nor of agriculture, nor of industry, nor of commerce, nor of navigation, nor of the family, nor of human relationship may be coerced to su it itself to the grace of the government. The State may never become an octopus, which stifles the whole of life. It must occupy its own place, on its own root, among all the other trees of the forest, and thus it has to honor and maintain every form of l ife which grows independently in its own sacred autonomy. 81 discussion of Brown v. Board of Education as will become evident below. In addition to personal relationships there was a wider network of itinerant students and intellectuals that challenged Schaeffer to articulate his faith. In Champery the Schaeffers became acquainted with a group of schoolgirls who attended the church service they held. 82 According to Udo Middelmann, no religious community existed around the Schaeffers in Champery but nitially asked 79 Abraham Kuyper, Le ctures on Calvinism 80 Ibid ., p. 87. 81 Ibid ., p. 96 97. 82 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer, p. 36.

PAGE 309

309 the Schaeffers to lead Bible studies for the students at the school, the students desired to discuss more over dessert at the Schaeffer chalet, and the girls attended church services the Schaeffers organized after being requested to do so by a local tourism office. 83 The European context forced the American fundamentalist to confront secularism far beyond the comforts of the closed circle and spok e, and as Edith and the girls brought young people to the Schaeffer home for Children 84 Hankins contends that the Hegelian notion of synthesis lay at the heart o f what Schaeffer sought to combat: the thesis, the old modernism was the antithesis, and the new modernism was the of antithesis, which he believed Hegel destroyed in favor of synthesis, would become central to 85 thus maintaining that a clear se nse of right and wrong through antithesis was the only means to restore sanity to a chaotic and relativized worldview that represented the perspective of modern 86 But while Schaeffer was struggling to communicate with secularized Europeans, he 83 Udo Middelmann, email to author, October 26, 2013. 84 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer, p. 42. 85 Ibid ., p. 41. 86 Ibid

PAGE 310

310 1950s matters had reached a critical point. The peak of Schae the spring of 1951, when the level of dissatisfaction Schaeffer was experiencing caused him to rethink the entire basis of the Christian faith from its first principles. At first a reinvigorated Schaeffer was unsure what such revelations meant in relation to his view of separatism. 87 He had begun to sense the limits of separatism as early as 1938 when he noted that infighting among Christians took precedence over the common cause of evangelism. 88 A major rift lay on the hor izon: In 1951, even while reiterating that separatism was correct, he began to argue that separatism was not enough. Christians needed a better balance, it now seemed to Schaeffer, between militant separatism and positive spiritual growth. Schaeffer accus ed McIntire and the small group around him of having missed the forest for even the World Council, let alone the N.A.E, and curse those who happen to differ from us in our o wn work and expect the blessing of which should be the desire of our hearts. I think we have to be involved in combat, but when we are fighting for 89 nd the sole defining issue that characterized his 90 anticommunist witchunt s energized Carl McIntire to follow suit, to such a degree that Schaeffer could no longer work with him. 91 87 Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer pp.108 109. 88 Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 44. 89 Ibid ., p. 44 45. The quotation Hankins cites from correspondence from Schaeffer to Allan MacRae, April 14, 1951, MacRae Papers, PCA Historical Center. 90 I bid ., p. 45. 91 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, January 13, 2011. Middelmann stated that Schaeffer attacked the church emphasi s in the Bible Presbyterian Church has a life of its own. It would continue even if there is no promoting, self perpetuating, political way. Well, McIntire t ook that as a personal offense, and called Schaeffer a

PAGE 311

311 This new message of balance McIntire saw as an attack upon his integrity. Duriez recounts the split of the Bible Presbyterian Church into two Synod s in 1956, a larger one labeled the Columbus Synod and a smaller one with which McIntire sided, the Collingswood Synod: The McIntire wing in the meantime accused Fran [Schaeffer] of dubious motives for his message of balance; he was, they said, trying to t ake over the leadership of the denomination. This paranoia reflected deeper tensions within the denomination at that time. Suspicion of Schaeffer must have been enhanced when Robert Rayburn, on behalf of Highland College, presented him with an honorary Doc tor of Divinity degree on May 28, 1954. That same year Rayburn led several younger 92 McIntire accused Schaeffer of being a communist of being tainte d by his European associations; nonetheless, as Udo Middelmann points out, a large group walked away from McIntire along with Schaeffer in forming the Columbus Synod. 93 This exodus included Rayburn 94 The new freedo Foreign Missions, which McIntire influenced, was at risk, and the Schaeffers had no other cho ice but to raise their own funding or else leave Europe altogether. 95 Another ordeal came in early 1955 when the Schaeffers learned they were being expelled from Champery. Upon appeal, they learned they would be forced to change residence but could remain in country, and they chose a 92 Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 122. 93 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, January 13, 2011. 94 Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 122 and footnote 41. The Columbus Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church would in 1965 become the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod and later merge in 1982 with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), born in 1973 to combat liberalism in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). 95 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 52; Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 123.

PAGE 312

312 chalet in nearby Huemoz. From this spot they went on to fame within evangelical circles around the world. 96 But one final transformation was necessary, and thus the Schaeffers formally resigned 97 more than a break with an organization; it marked an end of Franc the North American perception, he was now an evangelical rather than identified with Reformed 98 Now the Schaeffers were free to create the Christian work of which they had dreamed a place of refuge wher e the sincere questions of modern humanity regarding faith and ultimate meaning could be asked in a welcoming environment. In July 1955 the new ministry was 99 Over the years, the Schae ffers would invite many inquirers to stay, and many would respond, requiring housing for a re the traditional Christian faith was intellectually defensible, but equally as important was the environment of hospitality the Schaeffers created to all comers. 100 Soon, in 1958, a work inspired by the Schaeffers began in England that put Schaeffer into contact with Inter Varsity Fellowship and 96 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 53 55; Duriez, Francis Schaeffer pp. 128 131. 97 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 56. 98 Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 132. 99 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 57. 100 Ibid ., p. 72.

PAGE 313

313 the youth culture scene. 101 1964. 102 The growth of protest among the young as well as the worldview of the hippie generation came to fascinate Schaeffer, w ho had the opportunity to debate ideas with many travelers in the early sixties exactly when the seeds of youth revolution came. 103 Schaeffer rejected his separatist past, now coming face to face with perspectives antithetical to his own: Some of those who dropped in were disciples of Timothy Leary, who advocated LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs, while others were from a radical German group that advocated violence against the establishment, and still others were reading Nietzsche, Siddhartha, or C.S. Lewi announce themselves as Nietzschean or whatever else they happened to be, ask what Christianity was all about, and the conversation would begin, often lasting for hours into the night and early morning. A variety of social m isfits, societal The discussions were open to all topics. On one occasion a young woman announced her sexual proclivities and challenged the Christians present as to what they believed about s ex. Schaeffer never blinked at this or other topics. He would discuss endlessly, often with tears in his eyes, in an attempt to convince all comers that Christianity was the only coherent worldview, the only answer to the deepest questions of the human rac e. 104 that had plagued fundamentalists ever since the 1920s. Time magazine, whi 101 Duriez, Francis Schaeffer p. 148. Duriez notes that the British Inter Varsity Fellowship was an equivalent to Varsity Christian Fellowship. 102 Udo Middelmann, email to author, September 25, 2013. 103 Duriez, Franc is Schaeffer p. 153. 104 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 60 61.

PAGE 314

314 Each weekend the Schaeffers are overrun by a crowd of young men and women mostly from the universities painters, writers, actors, singers, dancers and beatniks professing every shade of belief and disbelief. There are existentialists and Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and left wing atheists; the 20 odd guests this week inc lude an Oxford don, an engineer from El Salvador, a ballet dancer and an opera singer. The one thing they have in common is that they are intellectuals. And the mountains. class people, but not the truth in such a wa Bible can be acted upon, even in the intellectual morass of the 20 th 105 Although the medium and the context of the declaration had changed since the era of William Jennings Bryan a changing impact upon certain hearers: The Schaeffers count their conversions in low numbers last summer there were 17, and last week there were two more. But those who do become Christians are most unli kely problems, and the Lord has even helped us in preventing certain truth. It is irrational to think that watertight doors exist between religion and intellectual thinkin 106 Yet Schaeffer remained a religious conservative. He merely learned how to call people to a Bible believing salvation in the language of the hippie and the professor, and in the European context far away from the sanctuary of fundamentalist America. 105 Time LXXV, no. 2, (January 11, 1960): p.62. 106 Ibid ., pp. 62 and 64.

PAGE 315

315 lt on the streets in America in the early 1960s reflected a conservative political mindset reminiscent of J. Gresham Machen. Where Machen called for limited government in the area of child labor, Schaeffer called for the same in the area of civil rights. statement on civil rights, and the Reformed emphasis on the limitation of federal power had significant implications for the later controversy over the teaching of evolution in the 1970s and foreshadowed the prophet he later became in the late 1970s to the pro creationist Moral Majority. Era Francis Schaeffer interpreted judicial acti vism by the Supreme Court of the United States as the The fruit of this falling away from Reformation orthodoxy could be seen in all fields of human endeavor. In 107 Schaeffer relied upon four articles, one describing factions within the Supreme Court from an October 1962 Saturday Evening Pos t and three more from the 1956 American Bar Association journal dealing with the issues of the desegregation of schools and union matters. 107 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA Audio Library at part of their audio library in the 1970s.

PAGE 316

316 initially based upon the Bib le and therefore legitimate processes of change in government and law could not occur beyond the categories laid down by the Bible. In this lecture, he did not articulate exactly what those legitimate means were, but gave strong hints that majoritarian de mocracy and legislative involvement were the cornerstones. He was an explicit supporter of future culture wars over creation and evolution related to judicial activism and the increase of federal power. But the starting point for these controversies over race, religion, and the state (with science coming to the fore later) was the differing mentalities of the members of the Court, which formed the beginning of achieved by the quick and radical means employed by the Warren Court. A Review of a Saturday Evening Post Article on the Activism of the Supreme Court Schaeffe and for his discussion of judicial activism he picked one of the most well known periodicals of the era, The Saturday Evening Post which ran a piece by Marlo Pusey in its Octobe r 6, 1962 issue on the struggle between traditional and activist factions within the high Court. The Post article declared that by 1962 the Supreme Court had already gained a reputation for internal conflict just as its decisions stimulated conflict natio nwide: During its last session the court handed down two of the most bitterly controversial opinions in its long history one against a prayer in the public schools and the other for reapportionment of gerrymandered legislatures. Both these cases are new

PAGE 317

317 la ndmarks in the law. Yet, like others before them, they represent no more than battles in the long war within the court itself of the 108 Both decisions reflected a new set of priorities and a new vocation for the Court in rebalancing power arrangements. Strangely, Francis Schaeffer barely mentioned the school prayer decision energies upon the impact of Brown v. Board of Education instead, a decision the Post noted created opposition similar to the school prayer ruling: In part this furor [over school prayer] was a reecho of the hot crus ade against the court which followed its unanimous decision in 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools. Many Southerners who had grown weary of belaboring the court for its desegregation decision were delighted to find a new stick to beat it with. tempered wisecracks heard around the cracker barrel missed the true significance of the school prayer case co ntrol. 109 Though Schaeffer did not express such racist sentiments or defend segregation as such, he was a staunch defender of state sovereignty in considering legitimate and illegitimate processes of change, as his lecture shows. The notion of judicial acti vism was the central feature of these new church and state debates that had not existed during the time of the Scopes trial. Judicial activism begun by the Warren Court had a profound impact in matters of race and religion, and in the case of the latter, the principle that the government shall not participate in the establishment of religion struck a blow first against school prayer and then later creationism. 108 The Saturday Evening Post 235, no. 35 (October 6, 1962): p.22. 109 Ibid

PAGE 318

318 The Post define d the distinction between activist and traditionalist using the leaders of each faction: by a cool and affable Alabama lawyer, Justice Hugo L. Black. Black and his allies freedom of speech, press, and religion, as contained in the Bill of Rights, are 110 he absolutist doctrine in its more extreme forms should be overthrow of the Smith Act, which allowed the prosecution of Communists plotting a violent overthrow of the government. 111 be severely handicapped because irresponsible people would presumably be free to indulge in perjury, obscenity, misrepresentation, false advertising, and even solicitation of cri me and 112 Still, the activist justices faced opposition from the beginning: The Black doctrine has been resisted by a more conservative group of Justices who este em the guaranties of liberty in the Bill of Rights but insist that those guaranties be interpreted in the light of the Constitution as a whole. The most effective spokesman for this group until his recent retirement was Justice Felix Frankfurter. In many controversial cases he led a majority in rejecting the concept ke no law respecting an establishment of 113 110 Ibid 111 Ibid 112 Ibid 113 Ibid

PAGE 319

319 Pusey added that Frankfurter stood in the tradition of judicial restraint that Oliver Wendell exceed their const 114 Somewhat mysteriously, Schaeffer only made a scant reference to a matter Pusey described at length irritation with the Court was means for fundamentalist Ch ristians to unite with many other Americans; the marginal status of conservative Christians since the Scopes trial of 1925 was changing, and Schaeffer meant to lead the charge back into cultural relevance by attacking ments on school prayer could not have been far from If the court stops anywhere short of forbidding all acts of devotion in the public schools, it will then have the unwelcome task of deciding which religious exercises are permissible and which are not. One of the cardinal principles laid down in the past by the court is that public officials have no right to determine what is and what is not a religious cause. Yet the court itself appears to have assumed such a role. 115 Pusey added that t he reality of the church and impossible to attain absolute separation of church and state and absolute freedom of religion at the same time. The two concepts have to be merged into a relationship in whic h the state will not 116 Pusey concluded that the struggle within the court reflected a basic tension between order and liberty the scale toward the latter would breed 117 114 Ibid ., p. 24. 115 Ibid. p. 26. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid.

PAGE 320

320 Recovering the Sole Origin of the American Legal System: The Reformation Schaeffer gave some background on t he Supreme Court crisis from his vantage point as an Anglo Saxon Presbyterian. His language demonstrated a privileging of his ethnoreligious heritage as the root of American justice. I think in order to comprehend this [the changes in the Supreme Court], we have to go back to the understanding of law as it is developed in Western Europe and specifically in England. The basic view of law in Northern Europe springs from the Reform Lex Rex Lex Rex Reformation mind? 118 ly rule of faith 119 He pointed out a painting by Paul Robert hung outside the Supreme Court of Switzerland in Lausanne which depicted Justice as a woman with a sword pointing to the Scriptures as the basis for law. 120 121 Then came the key result that affected the present discussion of judicial activism: will be meaningless to you unless you see the following corollary. The following corollary is that after you have set up a government of law on such an absolute base the powers of the government are limited by that law until the law is changed. 118 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sou nd Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.2 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962. 119 Ibid 120 Ibid 121 Ibid

PAGE 321

321 could and could not do, because they could not move beyond the law se t down until the law was changed by the proper methods. 122 accountable to the law, including the king: Off the top of my head, I think what he would have meant is that rather than having a king or a bishop in church or the pope determining what was true below these authorities, that the government itself is under the rule of law, that law is king, which is of course is a Biblical principle, that you have in the Old Testa ment, that violates it. And he felt very much that that was an idea that had come from Scotland to America, and was very much part of the American self understanding of its g overnment, that there was not going to be a king or any form of government that was above the law. It was self government by the consent of the governed that made laws and everyone was subject to those laws. And then of course at that point 200 years ago t hat law would have been under the law of God, to which anybody could appeal, as it says in the Declaration of Independence that God has given the 123 This statement of worldview implied th at any court suddenly reinterpreting the law was acting not only illegally but unbiblically. John Frame has noted the Puritan roots of Samuel Rutherford: He comes out of the Puritan tradition, and the Puritans were very much concerned about government and form of the divine right of kings and insisted on the basis of Scripture that there is a level of popular sovereignty. King David for example was ordained by God to be elders of Israel the northern kingdom appointed him as the king. So he was both anointed by God and also accepted by a kind o f contract. Rutherford was actually 124 122 Ibid Emphasis mine. 123 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, January 13, 2011. 124 John Frame, telephone interview by author, January 27 2011

PAGE 322

322 presuppositions of the activists. 125 f the rights of minorities against a understood by Schaeffer as a form of tyranny against the popular will. Schaeffer then argued that the Founding Fathers were touched through two streams one directly Christian from John Witherspoon, prominent clergyman, a Presbyterian like Rutherford, and president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University), and the other from John Locke through Thom as Jefferson. Schaeffer commented that although Jefferson did not hold to Christianity, he nonetheless functioned out of a 126 Schaeffer feared that America in the present was in danger of losing its ties to the Reformation worldview in the world at the time of its founding and later, claiming that such a free citizenry and potent governm ent and legal system had not emerged from any other culture outside the orbit of the Reformation. He disparaged Roman Catholicism and Islam, as well as the French and Russian Revolutions, for failing to produce such a legal system. 127 It is clear that he de picted America as 125 Ibid 126 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.2 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962. 127 Ibid

PAGE 323

323 Reformation view of the Bible as basis for law] is not a common thing. It is very 128 However, Schaeffer acknowledged that Amer ica evolved, and its Christian consensus reduced in scale and at the present was lost. Schaeffer saw the end result being a worldview based on Jeffersonian thinking, without the expressly Christian content. Now a new problem arose: What kind of a base ar e you going to have for the group and yet protect the individual?...Or to put it another way, from a legal viewpoint, how are you going to What kind of base are we going to have to be able to ma intain some form of individual freedom and yet know how the force is to be used so there can be unity? 129 Schaeffer noted that Justice Felix Frankfurter only appeared conservative relati ve to Justice Hugo Black, the leader of the judicial activists in 1962. On the larger spectrum of justices dating back to the 1930s, Frankfurter was a liberal, as the Post noted. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes, had attacked Pres measures through. The efforts of Hughes and his staunchest conservative allies, Justices Willis Van Devanter, Pierce Butler, G eorge Sutherland, and James C. McReynolds, known as the Four decline spiritually and legally. The Hughes court, these old conservatives, were the men that were s till functioning on the basis of the concept of law that was handed down from the days of they would have been in the stream of John Witherspoon or whether they were in the str 128 Ibid 129 Ibid Emphasis mine.

PAGE 324

324 consensus moved from the Protestant country to the non are the moments when the weight of consensus passed from the traditional 130 Schae ffer emphasized that the conservatives of the Hughes court held it was still corollary that law sets limitations which the government cannot pass until these laws are constitutionally changed. With the passing of this, in which Frankfurter would have been 131 Schaeffer blamed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for introducing an arbitrary feat ure into judicial decision making as opposed to preserving tradition and for attacking believers in natural 132 To Schaeffer, an absolute base ica had lost its Christian consensus, and so it was left with Jeffersonian thinking and a fading Reformation memory. Relativism was drift. But the erosion of conse rvative Protestantism happened on two levels by the 1930s, destroyed by atheism and by competition from Roman Catholicism externally, and internally, by theological liberalism, according to Schaeffer. Cultural pluralism appeared to be a close cousin of rel ativism in theology. 130 Ibid 131 Ibid 132 Ibid

PAGE 325

325 Schaeffer expressed anger that the law changed by judicial fiat rather than by amendment to the Constitution. He refused to accept an about face in the law that bypassed a majority v ote dealing now in these [segregation] cases is a court deciding outside of the framework of the laws there have been and the legal processes which have precede desirable. This is the contrast [to rule by Lex Rex 133 Schaeffer then came to a major conclusion: Of course the terrifying thing immediately is that fact that you have a purely subjective situation. You no longer have Lex Rex you have something very very contrary to that. It may seem to be beneficial, it may seem to be beneficent, but nevertheless you have to understand that the safeguards are gone. You are in a you have nothing more to appeal to absolutely. Things are adrift. 134 Schaeffer was stunned to realize that judicial decrees in the new age were to be set upon whatever the Supreme Court believed was a sociological good, rather than upon a law above human w him. Even when Christians could agree a social good was achieved by the Court in one instance, as in the case of the desegregation of schools, the power of the Court would turn to an evil outcome in the next instance. Relativism instead of Lex Rex now ru Lex Rex is dead. 135 Schaeffer wanted to point out that once the high Court was allowed to determine law on a shifting a nd sociological basis, it came under attack for various types of decisions that emanated 133 Ibid 134 Ibid 135 Ibid

PAGE 326

326 from such a relativistic worldview. He quoted well known segregationist Senator James low to realize is that in the opinion on the school segregation cases the entire basis of American jurisprudence was swept away 136 137 individual situation, we 138 Schaeffer noted the segregation decisions were denounced by a host of Southern states and var ious legislators. He concluded there was underway a direct attack on majoritarian democracy. Quoting Fagan Dickson in the American Bar Association Journal he questioned where the trend would end. gregation] have been denounced by 101 members of Congress in the so called manifesto of May 17, 1956, and by the legislatures of Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, decis ion was by a unanimous Court which clearly had jurisdiction over the subject This would be the case in point of course. Wh ere does it end? Really who has the rights? 139 136 Senator James O. Eastland to United States Senate, Congressional Record May 26, 1955, page 6069. Quoted by American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 8, (August 1956): p. 730. 137 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.2 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962. 138 (This citation begins the second disc of a two disc set). Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA the original recording is 1962. 139 Ibid interjections.

PAGE 327

327 Schaeffer noted Dickson enlarged the number of Americans angry at the Court by adding recent rulings. 140 But he then 141 law?...Wh ere is the concept by this time that law is king rather than merely the sociological 142 Schaeffer mourned that true conservatism of the Hughes court variety no making non historically 143 Still, he celebrated those who called for a return to judicial restraint, such as former Supreme Court Justice James F. Byrnes and the National Association of Attor neys General. 144 Schaeffer reiterated that a legal system based on the Bible would have held the government in check, but went on to quote Dickson that the Supreme Court had overthrown the Plessy v. Ferguson [the 1896 decision that 145 140 Tidelands oil case in which the C 141 142 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Wor d, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962. 143 Ibid 144 145 Ibid ., p. 732.

PAGE 328

328 in its own decisions. The whole concept 146 Again, he interpreted a growing relativistic philosophy in law that had a mirror in the arts and other fields. Desegregation done disaster. Finally, e 147 Antagonism for the influence of a world government was natural for a premillenialist such as Sch aeffer, who coded the United Nations much as McIntire did as the forces of Antichrist. Schaeffer saw interposition by the states as the only hope for recovery of the old ideals. imple definition: A state has the right to interpose its sovereignty if the national government acts on powers not 148 Schaeffer elaborated: Now this is a tremendous idea. In other words, we must go back in history. The states things by their own free agreement. They had the Jeffersonian view of law. In this And their concept was that men would grant to the government certain things that would be clearly granted by the compact. And the law limited the government from taking other powers, until the law itself was changed. Already by 1798 a man like Madison and a man like Jefferson realiz ed that this would at some time come to a place of very practical importance. 149 Hence to Schaeffer the original notion of the federal government held by the Founding Fathers was an entity that emerged and existed based upon the will of the states, which re tained their 146 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962. 147 opinion has become an instrument of national policy and is now probably a more powerful force than the atomic and 148 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recordi ng is 1962.. Schaeffer claimed this was a quotation but did not provide the source. 149 Ibid

PAGE 329

329 sovereignty. This arrangement was an outflow not merely of the Constitution, but of a Reformation view of the Bible. Schaeffer then analyzed the statement of Sims Crownover, a Nashville attorney writing in the August 1956 American Bar Associat ion Journal that the desegregation decisions represented 150 Crownover gave a historical background to writing a much more profound. One might or might not agree with the Southern view of segregation. That 151 Schaeffer failed to mention, however, a critical statement immense difficulties divide the races in the So uth in terms of moral standards, education, 152 amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, which abolished slavery, granted equal prote ction under the laws, due process, and voting rights to African Americans) in no way leaving still a union of states, each state retaining certain sovereign rig hts that it has never surrendered to the general Government, and each state still being entitled to make its own decisions except where a power has been prohibited to the states or the people by the 150 American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 8, (August 1956): p. 727. 151 Fran cis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962.. 152

PAGE 330

330 153 otecting the people until the thing is 154 s words, with the concurrent view of an unlawful intrusion by the federal government upon state sovereignty. Schaeffer was quick to voice a hearty agreement: The doctrine of interposition rests not on expediency, but on simple fundamental principles. It re lies upon the assertion of a sovereign state that the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally; that we are not bound in honor or in duty, or in law, to abide by unconstitutional decrees; and that the power to operate public separate facilities is not a power prohibited to the states until this prohibition is clearly spelled out by valid constitutional amendments. 155 words above: If three fourths of the states agree tha t this power to operate racially separate but equal schools should be prohibited to the states, then that is the voice of the people. Until such a verdict is handed down by the people, we will continue to state that so violent a disruption in our long esta blished customs should not be thrust upon us by judicial fiat alone. 156 Schaeffer clarified: In other words what this man is saying is that this [segregation] has never been t changing it, but three fourths of the states namely by constitutional amendment should state this and then that they [the citizenry of the states] would bow. Now one might raise a whole lot of questions. Would they bow? Would they feel any different? Wou 153 Ibid 154 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962.. 155 156 Ibid Emphasis mine.

PAGE 331

331 the change in the concept of law. 157 Crownover desired to displace segregation from the center of the contr oversy, which, in his a resolution of interposition we may succeed in elevating this controversy from the regional field of segregation to the transcenden 158 Schaeffer referred to the Christian base was already eroded away. 159 federal government, a limitation that will endeavor to enforce orders 160 Schaeffer then alluded to the federal intervention on behalf of the Little Rock Nine students seeking to integrate Univ ersity of Mississippi respectively. hundred and fifty six [when Crownover was writing], and of hundred and sixty two we had the University of Mississippi. Never mind 157 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962.. 158 the statement in his lecture. 159 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA rary at (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962.. 160

PAGE 332

332 161 Schaeffer saw the behavior of the Supreme Cour t as cause for mourning, calling 162 Returning to The Saturday Evening Post article, Schaeffer noted again true conservatism was 163 The activists were, as mentioned before, focused on the delivery of r 164 you have one atheist who will appeal against prayer being said in school, you support this man an 165 Judicial Activism as the Beginnings of Totalitarianism? Schaeffer then pointed out his belief that judicial activism was not always consistently in favor of the individual but rather t ruly relativistic: 161 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962.. (An important aspect of the story of Arkansas culture was its majoritarian opposition to both desegregation and evolution, as in the case of the latter a statute banning evolution in the public schools was still on the books until 1968, when Susan Epperson, a teacher of the very same Little Rock Central High School that had seen the Little Rock Nine conflict, v olunteered to challenge the anti evolution statute in 1965. The conflict reached the Supreme Court, which in the case Epperson v Arkansas in 1968 declared the Arkansas statute invalid. See Edward J. Larson, Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution 3 rd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 93 124.) 162 Ibid. 163 The Saturday Evening Post p. 24. 164 Ibid ., p.22. 165 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law i n USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD), and the date of the original recording is 1962..

PAGE 333

333 individual as the base. I think what you have here is a group of men carrying their views out logically in the direction of anything that will destroy the old consensus. I think they will destroy the old consensus in both directions in favor of the individual when it fits and against the individual when it fits. 166 American Bar Association Journal Court in this situation ruled in favor of the collective rather than the individual, in a case time that a man may be compelled under an agreement authorized by federal statute to be a member of a private organization as a condition of employmen 167 In this instance, McClain claimed the high Court redefined what was in the best interests of the worker. In Hanson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co ., five employees of the railroad demanded in 1955 that they be free of the requirements of unionization under the Union Shop Statute, an amendment to the Railway Labor Act. The lower courts agreed that the Union Shop Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the trial court, holding that the Union Shop Statute violated the right to work and freedom of association of individual workers guaranteed by the First and 168 The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Nebra ska ruling, with the judicial activists leading the charge. McClain 166 Ibid 167 American Bar Asso ciation Journal 42, no. 8, (August 1956): p. 723. 168 Ibid

PAGE 334

334 169 t to work is no longer an individual but a collective right shared with all other railroad workers, a collective right which may be molded and shaped by Congress in accordance with its notions regarding the promotion of the interests of the whole organized that Congress intended in the Statute, as attributed to it by the Court, to protect the long range welfare of the 170 A Step Toward Totalitarianism But the right to use force to compel adherence and submission to rule is a prerogative of sovereignty, a nd heretofore has been limited to government. If the unions should ultimately succeed in obtaining unequivocal constitutional sanction of their scheme, we will have taken a long step towards establishment of a one party totalitarian state. 171 Here however Sc haeffer sent a double message. On the one hand, he stated: the way it is, I just think m en think and pretty soon what they think boils forth in 172 But in his conclusio n to the entire lecture, Schaeffer argued that a sinister intent was in fact 169 Ibid ., p. 725. 170 Ibid., p. 726. 171 Ibid., p. 726. 172 Francis Schaeffer, The Change in the Concept of Law in USA (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 95.3 (CD) and the date of the original recording is 1962..

PAGE 335

335 What we must understand then is the death of the limitation of government by law. Back of it we would insist that the reason for this is that which wa s tenable after the pull away this basis. It has nothing to stand on. Something else has got to come forward, and something else is coming forward. But in it the concepts that w ere put s produced after the Reformation and nowhere else, the old concept of law in this basic sense 173 174 It is important to note however that Schaeffer was not speaking in a vacuum about the Supreme Court and the matter of rights. As has already been shown, his former mentor Carl McIntire was vigorously opposed to the actions of the Court and civil rights protestors. ought was Rousas J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. While Schaeffer developed strong disagreements with the goals of Reconstructionism, he thought it worthwhile to review This Independent Republic Rushdoony develop ed a connection to with Cornelius Van Til. Rousas John Rushdoony (1916 2001) Rushdoony was born in New York City as the son of Armenian immigrants from Turkey. H e received his college education from the University of California at Berkeley and entered the 173 Ibid 174 Ibid

PAGE 336

336 Presbyterian ministry in the 1940s after graduate school. 175 William Edgar comments that Rushdoony served as a missionary to Native Americans in Nevada and eventu 176 Edgar was strongly influenced by its famous professor of apologet ics, Cornelius Van Til. Van Til had argued that there was a fundamental difference in the way unbelievers and believers reasoned 177 respect for J. Gresham Machen, alt 178 Furthermore, John Muether paints a picture of a devotee ansforming aggressively sought to deny. 179 175 (accessed September 14, 2011). 176 rst Things, August/September 2001, passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed September 14, 2011). 177 Ibid 178 Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011. Rushdoony assumed that Christ must be lord o ver every sphere of human activity, beyond those with which an academic like Van Til was most concerned. 179 Muether, Cornelius Van Til pp. 216 217.

PAGE 337

337 In addition, at least one w itness, John Frame, once a student at Westminster in the early 1960s, has a memory of the distance Van Til desired to maintain when Rushdoony visited Westminster students and faculty: 180 ht that the inte llect, over philosophy, over worldview, and Rushdoony agreed with that Van Til was never particularly interested in these other fields, although I think Van Til would have a greed with Rushdoony that Christ is Lord over everything and 181 Van Til represented one aspect of the history of fundamentalism a reluctance to speak about social iss ues, maintaining instead a focus upon the declaration of the gospel message. long Republican who opposed the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson with as much zeal as he disdaine d the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, but the Republican Party represented the lesser of two evils for him. 182 The nineteen sixties, with the civil rights cause, the sexual r evolution, and an activist Supreme Court overruling school eyewitnessing the transformation of an Anglo and pluralistic society. 180 John Frame, telephone interview by author, January 27, 2011. Frame recollects becoming a freshman student at 181 Ibid 182 Muether, Cornelius Van Til p. 218.

PAGE 338

338 Rushdoon conservatives in the future. In addition, Rushdoony did not hesitate to use the past as a guide for counteracting liberalizing forces. Frame recounts: Rushdoony came out of the b when I was a seminary student Rushdoony visited the seminary and Van Til ded their e meant it sort of as a joke, expecting that Rushdoony would qualify what he said, are p 183 Frame noted that Van Til overheard this exchange and, seeing Frame at a later point, 184 Nonetheless, Frame added that Rushdoony conservative Presbyterian wo Westminster to study under both Van Til and Frame. 185 Hostility Toward the Enlightenment naked animosity toward the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. According to William Edgar, Rushdoony believed that only the total penetration of divine revelation into all the realms 183 John Frame, telephone interview by author, January 27, 2011. 184 Ibid 185 Ibid Frame was late r a professor from 1968 1980.

PAGE 339

339 of human activity could bring about obedience to God. 186 s The Messianic Character of American Education (1963) Rushdoony decried the American public school system, tracing its ideology back to John Dewey and other secular thinkers who believed in the natural goodness of children a nd the role that 187 significant champions of the homeschooling movement. Edgar recollects in 2001: Rushdoony was often called upon as an expert witness to defend the rig hts of home school advocates against their detractors. In 1983 the Home School Legal Defense Association was formed under the leadership of people inspired by in all fifty sta tes belonged to the Association, and today home schooling is more popular than ever. 188 California to promulgate his ideas. Mark Rushdoony described the mission of the foundati on 189 In practice, Chalcedon focused upon the large scale more biblical in their without taking particular political stands or patriotic flag waving. 190 politics, psychiatry, and biology that touch ed humans and their education. In 1961, he published 186 passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed September 14, 2011). 187 Ibid 188 Ibid 189 Mark Rushdoony, teleph one interview by author, May 12, 2011. 190 Ibid

PAGE 340

340 Intellectual Schizophrenia : Culture, Crisis, and Education in which he addressed both John Locke and evolution. 191 Locke was guilty of transforming education into a godless machine. His philosophy ran directly against the mind of a conservative Presbyterian who believed in presuppositions as the basis for worldview: Accordingly, he gave to the Enlightenment its ideal weapon against God and the past, the concept of the mind as a blank piece of white pape essentially passive and receptive, although Locke at times speaks of it, The marvels of this theory for educators of the Enlightenment are immediately apparent. Man was able to remake man and the educ ator to play the role of a god. The hated and despised past could be cancelled out and man be given in effect a new inheritance. 192 Evolution was guilty of subverting the nation when its philosophical dimensions were applied to society: The erosion of cult ural agencies was furthered by the concept of evolution. In terms of very popular and influential developments of this concept, the family, religion, and all smaller societal forms were relatively primitive forms in human evolution, the culminating form o ultimately world state. The more primitive forms of organization had to be self consciously outgrown; at best they were to survive as subsidiary agencies of the State. 193 Hence Darwinism was being used as a This theme of the conspiracy to establish state control was an essential part of the new 191 Mark Rushdoony commented that his father was opposed to the teaching of John Locke because Locke was a proponent of natural law and of the Enlightenment ed as a bridge between Samuel Rutherford and the Constitution (Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011.) 192 Rousas J. Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia : Culture, Crisis, and Education (1961; repr., Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974), p. 2. 193 Ibid ., p.5. Emphasis mine.

PAGE 341

341 the Enlightenme they pushed the Enlightenment faith to its logical conclusions, were also the destroyers of that same faith and hope, and may be best remembered as its gravediggers in the future. 194 what Genesis states. He believed that Genesis 1 through 11 was a historical account, [and] so he b elieved in a young earth and creationism. And he believed were ready for. Because by the time he wrote, men were becoming more secular but they were retaining God as a first cau abandon the need for God except in the personal sphere. They were able to put Christianity aside except as they needed it in their personal lives. Christianity was pushed into the personal pietistic area. The world of educat ion could go on without the need for God even as a first cause. So he [Rushdoony] saw evolution as filling a need in the secular world. 195 Regarding the consequences of evolution in a social sense, the younger Rushdoony commented that his father saw in the 1 960s a generation of youths in revolt and the sexual revolution as evidence that evolutionary teaching had wrought social devastation. The Marquis de Sade, the eighteenth century intellectual and politician notorious for his unbridled views of sex, became the epitome of what an evolutionary worldview created: If you really believe in evolution, and that world and life view then there is no talks extensively about the Marquis de Sade. He saw the Marquis de Sade as really a revolutionary thinker, way ahead of his time. He [de Sade] was persona non grata because of his sexual deviancy, but de Sade made the point that our real enemy is God, and the perfect crime would be to murde r God. So he knew that God was his enemy [as well as Christianity]. 194 Rousas J. Rushdoony, Freud (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), p. 9. 195 Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011.

PAGE 342

342 a large extent agree with the synopsis that evolutionary worldview leads to some very ugly things in our society. He did 196 was a complete reversal of the processes that had generated theological liberalism and increased federal power. Christian Re constructionism to the meaning of these terms. olves the application of the law of God, and the biblical law particularly, to all of life. It also requires that one appeal to the whole law of God including the civil law of the Old Testament as a necessary supplement to being saved by grace through fait conveying their positive outlook on life. Indeed their view of the future could be described as postmillennial, since they tend to believe th eventually be established on earth through the faithful preaching of the gospel and civilization and a thousand year reign of Jesus Christ. ost extensive and thorough treatment of the law can be found in his Institutes of Biblical Law [1973], a massive, two volume work that includes an exhaustive study of the Ten Commandments followed by detailed treatments of taxation, government, virtue, oat hs, penal sanctions, property, and nearly every domain of jurisprudence. 197 Frame agrees and adds some detail: In the broad sense, Christian Reconstructionism is an attempt to use whatever influence we have to bring about changes in society that are acceptab le to the Scriptures, based on biblical standards, and that includes government, but it also 196 Ibid 197 passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed September 14, 2011).

PAGE 343

343 In the narrow sense believing that the civil laws that God gave to Israel in the Old Testament should be maintained in modern society by modern governments, and that the penalties for crimes in the Old Testament law should be followed today by modern civil governments. So the death penalty for homosexuality, or adultery, and that sort of thing. 198 Institutes work of Protest principles to real 199 Institutes 200 Mark Rushdoony confir med that the Institutes because it really gives the core of what we are trying to say and it gives the core of our position 201 Writing in 1974, Ha rold O. J. Brown, commenting for the most well known evangelical periodical in America, gave an indication that the Institutes would gain a wide hearing among conservatives: 198 istian perspective on the fact that God is in fact in charge. My father did not believe in a powerful central government; a lot of people have assumed that his talk of theocracy is basicall y a rule by patriarchal men who will force people into very limited state. In fact he wrote as much about the state as he did about theocracy, be cause he saw the state was di d not use him as model. (Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011.) 199 passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed Septe mber 14, 2011), and 200 201 Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011.

PAGE 344

344 Without a doubt, the most impressive theological work of 1973 is Rousas J. Rushdoo Institutes of Biblical Law (Presbyterian and Reformed), a compendious treatment of a whole gamut of questions in governmental, social, and personal ethics from the perspective of the principle of law and the purpose of restoration of divine order in a should give invaluable help for constructive thinking and practical conduct. 202 Reconstructionism was the application of theology to the political sphere; to understand how Rushdoony framed the context of the creation evolution controversy specifically, it is first essential to grasp his view of civil rights issues and the public school, and then to address his conceptualization of America. As with Schaeffe r and McIntire, the civil rights issue represented to Rushdoony an unlawful revolution in the power of the Supreme Court, and all three demonstrated the same committed refusal to bypass the will of the local majority. Mark Rushdoony explained that to his f ather the issue of civil rights dovetailed with the loss of a true republic: Well, if we go back much further, he thought that the issue in the civil rights really a Southern sympat hizer, he was never a Southerner, and he never went there in idolizing the antebellum South or anything like that, but he did think the South at least was trying to perpetuate the idea of the republic, and he thought that the defeat of the South in Reconst ruction really ushered in the era of centralized government extent dead, at least as it was 200 years ago. So his view on a lot of these issues has to do with the central gove rnment taking initiative regardless of the issue, right or wrong, one way or the other, he was very distrustful of centralized government and the increasing power of Washington and the federal structure. 203 Mark Rushdoony believed his father held that state and local authorities had the responsibility to balance the scales for African Americans and should have been pressured to do so in the 1960s using standard political means rather than mass civil disobedience; regardless of 202 Christianity Today XVIII, no 11 (March 1, 1974): p. 203 Mark Rushdoony, telephone interview by author, May 12, 2011.

PAGE 345

345 the difficulty in achieving that goal, the behavior of the Supreme Court to desegregate schools was an unconstitutional act of centralizing power much like those following the Civil War. 204 champion of Chri stian schooling was practically apathetic compared to McIntire, Schaeffer, and the mass of fundamentalist activists waiting in the wings for Republican presidential candidates. came to be rather anti public school, because the public schools were a manifestation of state power in an 205 Messianic Character of American Education. The side by a public school context. 206 Preserving Local Governmental Control While the Institutes marked Rushdoony at the height of his influence, an earlier work, This Independent Republic (1964), got the attention of Francis Schaeffer sufficiently to warrant analysi about the Constitution, wanting to go back to emphasize the Christian roots of America, [and] wanting to understand the Declaration, the Constitution and the other foundi ng documents as 207 Though differing in their attitudes to American 204 Ibid 205 Ibid 206 Ibid 207 John Frame, telephone interview by author, January 27, 2011.

PAGE 346

346 culture, Schaeffer and Rushdoony joined in the search for fundamentalist rights as they sensed their country leaving its religious roots behind. Sch in while maintaining a distance between the two men: This Independent Republic I remember his giving that and all of u s reading the book and discussing overlaps [between Schaeffer and Rushdoony] in understanding a position that Schaeffer held, that the found ing fathers, though not all Christian, nevertheless But then I need to say that in te went. Schaeffer had no relation with Rushdoony over the Gary North things, and In the negative and become a Christian nation. Schaffer was very much opposed to the notion of a Christian nation. What he was all in fa vor of was that Christians participate in the nation. 208 Swiss Alps. The year was 1964. Francis Schaeffer, the found er and director of This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History 208 Udo Middelmann, telephone interview by author, Ja nuary 13, 2011. Remembering the relationship more met, I know they spoke at the same podium at some point. Again I only met Schaeffer shortly before his death. I was Schaeffe eschatology was really crucial to my 2011.)

PAGE 347

347 the were held. It was before Schaeffer became a popular sage for many evangelical Christians, and so we could study such a text informally, though we always did Though at the time I was too much a novice in history to judge the accuracy that captivated our imagin ations and sought to link every area of our lives to a Christian worldview. A Christian historiography containing such a powerful critique of the point of view most of us received in school was for me a great stimulation. Rushdoony taught us that the Am erican Constitution, with its eloquent absence of references to Christian faith, was a secular document only in appearance. In fact, it was deliberately fashioned as a minimalist document by men of genius whose primary purpose was to ensure the vitality o f local government. 209 The thesis of This Independent Republic in other words, its roots were essentially religious. 210 d, moreover, that the United States, from its origins in the Colonial period on through the Constitution, represented a Protestant feudal restoration 211 the counties were the basic and determ 212 The American anti statist 213 nding and the Reformation on the other. 214 209 passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed S eptember 14, 2011). 210 Rousas J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, 1978), p. vii. The book is a reprint of a 1964 edition. 211 Ibid 212 Ibi d 213 Ibid 214 Ibid ., p. 22.

PAGE 348

348 experiment in nation building: The Christian, Western tradition in America was hostile to the doctrine of sovereignty and affirmed, with reference to the civil order, the doctrine of limited power This meant first, a division of powers, which naturally implied, second, a multiplicity of powers, and third, a complexity of powers. Statism st rives continually for a simplicity of government, assuming that the complexity of life is amenable to the mind of the planner and governor. 215 were primarily shap ed as statements of distrust. An overarching theme was a distrust of the Supreme Court and its use of the Fourteenth interference of the federal government in the j These implications of the 14 th Amendment were progressively utilized by the Supreme Court shortly after the beginning of the 20 th century, and there began the n country and its development of the thesis of a unitary State. As the court embraced moral relativism as its religious principle, so it established national sovereignty and absolutism as a corollary to its denial of higher law. 216 Rushdoony ended the book with comment that the moral decline of the Supreme Court was a byproduct of theological liberalism. 217 opposed the growth of federal power was concurrent with a national drift from orthodoxy. The upsho t of this approach was to argue that the preservation of local sovereignty was actually a biblically derived ideal. As a corollary, Rushdoony took great enthusiasm in the popularity of 215 Ibid ., pp. 33 216 Ibid ., p. 37. 217 Ibid ., p. 158 159.

PAGE 349

349 of local self 218 Secondly, Rushdoony was deeply distrustful of the social revolution of his day known as the civil rights movement. He denied that equality was an achievable goal: Whatever the political or legal pict ure has been, the honest fact is that, for the most part, the white American has not felt much sense of unity or equality with the Negro. Compassion, charity, kindliness, friendliness, bitterness, resentment, hatred and exploitation, these things have all has been virtually absent. 219 without prohibiting the other as a proof, Rushdoony claimed to support neither segregation nor 220 Again the underlying concern is that the growth of the power of the state has been veiled as an extension of justice. 221 But the real agenda was sinister and once again led to the power of the state: Total war must be waged against God, against all meaning, value, morality, law, and order, in short against everything that divides men in terms of an absolute standard. It is productive of political chaos by its attack on the idea of law. This planned chaos characterized the first step of both Russian and French revolutions and is the prelude to the new law of the total state. 222 218 Ibid ., p. 118. 219 Ibid 220 Ibid ., p. 88. R egarding the New Testament claim, see page 86. 221 Ibid ., p. 132. 222 Ibid

PAGE 350

350 moving in terms of reason or science, can remake man and society. It is seen, not as a power elite, but as the objective, selfless and supra 223 Consequently, Rushdoony took aim at Darwinism: A more basic influence has been that of Darwin, whose evolutionary hypothesis provided a framework for assault on orthodox Christian faith and a free market Evolution is a genetic faith and makes the p rior, which is the primitive, deter minative; the primitive is more basic, hence more vital and real. It follows therefore that sex is more important then [sic] religion, since sex appears early on the evolutionary ladder, and religion is a late 224 R catastrophic social and Darwinism. 225 The coding of Darwinism with other forces that promote the tyranny of the state over the lives of Power Arrangements 1930s over the growth of federal power and how basic he considered a doctrine of a limited federal government to be to the maintenance of a ci Machen set an example for his Presbyterian protgs. However, there is little evidence of anxiety 223 Ibid ., p. 139. 224 Ibid ., pp. 132 133. 225 Ibid ., p. 137.

PAGE 351

351 Scopes trial, in which Machen refused to participate in, did not involve a consideration of the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth became a major issue o nly slowly Rousas J. Rushdoony felt compelled to decode a rev olutionary situation. event, a certain liberty existed among fundamentalists regarding the origin of life and the age of the earth, as the narratives of George McCrea dy Price and Harry Rimmer attest in Chapter 2. evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky in the 1940s. And for all his feistiness in combating Communists, ecumenical forc es, and evangelicals like Billy Graham, even as late as the 1950s Carl McIntire was virtually apathetic about the issue of countering evolution (Chapter 3). These historical facts remind us that while evolution was a matter of debate before the 1960s, it w as not yet again a matter of culture war for fundamentalists in a manner similar to the Scopes era. The sixties therefore represent a moment of convergence for several streams. Among these currents, the Neo Darwinian synthesis and the subsequent crusade to re insert Darwinism into textbooks only became a problem at the close of the 1950s. It is the proposal of the present chapter that the culture war context in which the creation evolution controversy became embedded did not emerge any earlier than 1962, w hen fundamentalists realized for the first time evolving. In response to the shock of this realization, McIntire, Schaeffer and Rushdoony presented disparate solutions with strong commonalities about the proper power arrangement

PAGE 352

352 between majorities and minorities and between federal and state governments. All three were for recogni zing the sovereignty of God in all spheres of activity had a direct impact upon Schaeffer and Rushdoony. Lastly, for all three leaders examined in this chapter, civil rights represented a usurpation of power by the Supreme Court, and thus that instance p rovides important insights as to the depended on the exertion of the judicial prerogative through the Fourteenth Amendment. Fundamentalists in protesting the Su marginal in American life as they had been during the Anti Evolution Movement of the 1920s. Congressman Frank Becker who proposed an amendment to the Constitution. But fundamentalist outrage was hardly isolated, as the numerous measures proposed by members of Congress demonstrate. Francis Schaeffer struck common cause with The Saturday Evening Post as well as with conservat ive attorney Sims Crownover in expressing shock at the perceived excesses of the Court. But McIntire provided a glimpse of the fundamentalist future in American politics when he allied with the ultraconservative wing of the Republican party embodied in So uth Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. The general outcry against the Court was eventually so great that Republican candidate for President Barry Goldwater made it part of his campaign. While the situation in the 1960s had qualitative differences from the S copes era, McIntire and Schaeffer issue of fundamentalist rights had not been a federal level issue at the Dayton trial.

PAGE 353

353 Certainly McIntire, Schaeffer, and Rushdo power over the states as destructive of the America they knew. The use of vocabulary is particularly important here; coding played a vital role in how fundamentalists perceived the changes in their government. called the civil rights movement pro n the haeffer left America from the Reformation, with the Enlightenment excluded from any significant role. In e an usurpation of power at the expense of majoritarian democracy. The rights of blacks were illegally defended in a manner that ensured a future led by a morally relativistic Court; hence the 1960s represented the beginnings of tyranny, but the future tot alitarianism would not be so much deliberately orchestrated by the justices as the result of a cultural drift away from a Reformation base. maintenance of antitheses, instead of and power in government likewise had to be compartmentalized. Ideas of blending and creating new boundaries had been a problem for fundamentalists beginning with modernism and ecumenism, and now it was a problem with civil rights. Calvinism demanded the preservation of spheres and the idea of sphere sovereignty, as Abraham Kuyper maintained. The Supreme Court had violated the boundaries of its sphere in the view of the Reformed fundamentalists. This

PAGE 354

354 theme became a core piece of the rhetoric of the later Religious Right, in part because of the alliance struck between these confessional Presbyterians and revivalistic Baptists, to be discussed in Chapter 7. revealing. As an important sidenote, it is curious that Schaeffer pointed to the Hughes Court of the 1930s as the last bastion of orthodox decision of re invigora Stromberg behavior. Secondly, Schaeffer ignored the many interest groups that were involved in the than acknowledge the need for some means to secure the rights of racial and religious minorities ecord from the thirties to the sixties as a type of apostasy from a Reformation base. He then coded the future as dependent on nothing a terrifying prospect for a white Protestant fundamentalist in 1962 who had perceived h is group as the national majority. Automatically both McIntire and Schaeffer made proposals for vehicles through which fundamentalists could secure their rights in this new surprising context in which they found tian Youth was one such means, campaigning for school prayer and Bible reading in schools on the one hand, while arguing against civil rights (even by direct action, as in Mississippi) on the other. The Becker Amendment was another method of protest. Judic ial activism represented an outrage of such magnitude to Schaeffer that both McIntire and Schaeffer were essentially God ordained means that the Reformation had

PAGE 355

355 with Sims Crownover that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way restrains the States is important here). Given that fundamentalists perceived the American scene ha d turned against them, new tactics were critical to survival. Of course as Christians both Schaeffer and McIntire struggled to develop a language that balanced Christian justice, their conservative views, and the protests of l Christian Youth plus his own trip to Africa highlighted this struggle; however, in the end, Schaeffer demonstrated what really bothered the Reformed. His hesitation to condemn civil rights concerns and his acknowledgement of the need for increased racial harmony was not enough to counter his outrage at the constitutionally revolutionary methods the Supreme Court used to achieve these goals. R.J. Rushdoony was the most radical of the three Reformed leaders, but there were areas of overlap that demonstrate resonance in his thinking with the other two. Rushdoony did not promote a rights organization like International Christian Youth, but he was still angered by the liberty the Fourteenth Amendment gave the Court. Rushdoony, along with Schaeffer, served as pr ophet for the culture war to come. That is, Rushdoony was quick to condemn the Enlighten ment as secularizing and as a worldview that led to national horrors such as the French and Russian Revolutions. His early linkage of Darwinism to these other events was a foreshadowing of the rhetoric creationists later employed in their public relations campaigns. Rushdoony was imagined as rural and county driven in its politi cs. That Rushdoony should reject government led schools in favor of Christian schools and homeschooling should come as no surprise given his nostalgic vision of the nation.

PAGE 356

356 Fundamentalism that supported the agenda of Henry Morris and the creation scienti sts he led, as well as the later intelligent design movement, began as a protest first against the higher criticism of the Bible and secondly against evolution between 1900 1925. The subsequent removal or downplaying of evolution in textbooks was due to t he fear of publishers eager to sell their wares. But the early 1960s represent a pivotal reversal, when a Cold War environment and the simultaneous success of the Neo Darwinian synthesis elevated the importance of teaching evolution as a means to compete w ith the Soviets. But at this very historical moment, conservative Presbyterians were struggling with a new enemy the Supreme Court and its use of the Fourteenth Amendment. McIntire, Schaeffer, and Rushdoony represented the longest lasting intellectual trad ition fundamentalists in America had, one that began with Princeton Seminary and the legacy of Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen. In essence the Reformed tradition later came to provide the brain of the organism that became the Religious Right, while Baptist numerical and financial might would nurture its body. But it is only when considering the rights revolutions as a source of culture war with the political Left and as an additional matter of concern to fundamentalists, along with the E nlightenment view of the Bible, From the 1962 school prayer decision, ten more years were needed to turn the tide against fundamentalist Protestants ten more ye gay rights just as simultaneously evolution was returned to the public schools. Francis for the fateful 19 70s, and Henry Morris benefitted from the host of new cobelligerents. But earth and a flood, as ed the

PAGE 357

357 thinking of his day to build a philosophic objection to Darwinism specifically, in anticipation of the intelligent design movement of the 1990s.

PAGE 358

358 CHAPTER 7 FRANCIS SCHAEFFER AND THE RE EXAMINATION OF FOUNDATIONS 62) was only one of the many taped lectures fundamentalist transformed into an intellectual guide to numerous college students, graduate students, and professors, including th ose of a Christian background. In the 1960s he appeared more and more the irenic evangelical, willing to analyze secular philosophy, art, and even rock music. His work influenced individuals who later became instrumental in the success of the intelligent design theory, which followed on the coattails of the 1987 Supreme Court defeat of intellectual or artistic endeavor that did not interest Schaeffer in terms of it s impact upon evangelism. 1 However, when Schaeffer spoke on the topic of evolution in 1968, the reputation of the theory had dramatically changed since the Scopes trial of 1925, just as the reputation of science as a whole had grown. First, the confidenc Darwinism was still a problem in the first decades of the twentieth century the idea that another mechanism beside natura l selection could be the motive force behind evolution. But with the Genetics and the Origin of Species in 1937, Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection were reconciled. In short order, other specialists followed 1947 Princeton conference demonstrated the integration and the rigor of chemistry and physics, with natural selection enthroned as the primary mechanism of evolu tion. This new confidence 1 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 62 63.

PAGE 359

359 encouraged biologists to demand a re introduction of Darwinism into high school textbooks after the Scopes outcome had compelled textbook publishers to eschew evolution in order to avoid controversies that could affect sales. Dur ing the Darwin Centennial celebration at the University era compelled re ligious leaders to adapt or to resist. 2 American science as a whole underwent a transformation between 1925 and 1968 as well. Edward J. Larson reflected upon the ease with which William Jennings Bryan and his allies silenced the voice of influence against anti evolution sentiment. Their loud pleas against anti evolution legislation in Tennessee Mississippi, and Arkansas went unheeded, their expert testimony was barred from the Scopes trial, and the Scopes appellate brief of the Tennessee Academy of Science had no 3 But by the 1960s the number of A merican scientists increased by no less than a factor of ten, and the national investment in science had increased from tens of millions in the 1920s to several billion dollars. World War II and the Cold War were primarily responsible for these trends. T he Russian launch of the Sputnik satellite which could potentially serve as nuclear weapons platform jolted the American public into an emergency mindset about science education, and evolutionary biologists benefitted, as egan funding the Biological Science Curriculum Study year truce in legal activities enveloping the anti evolution 2 Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionar y Biology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 19 23. 3 Larson, Trial and Error p. 89.

PAGE 360

360 4 against evolutio nary theory. 5 foreshadowed difficulties to come for creationists First Amendment in light of the Fourteenth Amendment (see chapter four). W ith Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) the Court had defended a strict wall of separation between church and state. With the 1962 and 1963 rulings against school prayer and Bible reading, the Court had further defined the limited domain according to th e Fourteenth Amendment that Protestant religion could occupy without infringing on the rights of outsiders to the faith. As public schools were vehicles of the state and evolutionary science became identified with state interests, creationists faced the po ssibility that their children would be subject to a force feeding of Darwinism if the parents could not acquire another means of schooling. 6 Therefore, in four decades a myriad of forces the consolidation of biological disciplines around Darwinism, wars defense of the rights of citizens who did not participate in the Protestant majority converged to make the defense of creationism in the public sphere increasingly difficult. However, sittin g in Switzerland surrounded by young people of differing education, spiritual interest, and backgrounds, Schaeffer dispensed wisdom and showed hospitality (see chapter five). Among his many disciples were evangelicals and fundamentalists who found his wil lingness to engage secular trends thoughfully to be a liberation. 4 Ibid ., pp. 89 91. 5 Numbers, The Creationists p. 265. 6 Larson, Trial and Error pp. 93 95.

PAGE 361

361 One of the liberated was Charles Thaxton (1939 ), who had a conservative Texas upbringing and a deep interest in matters of science and faith. Born in Dallas, Thaxton grew up in nearby Gra nd Prairie. He attended a Southern Baptist church and a junior college in Arlington (now a branch of the University of Texas system). He completed his undergraduate training at ured a Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1970 with a dissertation on the X ray diffraction studies of small molecules. Fascinated with the creation evolution controversy even as a youth, he converted to Christianity at approximately thirteen years of age. Gr aduating from high school the year of the Sputnik flight (1957), Thaxton claimed that the launch also motivated his interest in science. A professor in his Iowa State years introduced him to the writings of the father of creation science, Henry Morris. 7 T haxton was a typical product of the huge evangelical subculture of the South, generation, and a new voice that could speak the language of secular modernity was sorel y needed. Thaxton soon got word of a man in Switzerland capable of crossing the communication divide between the evangelical enclave and the outside world. Noting the profound chasm that came to light between American evangelicals and secular Europeans, Thaxton recounted his statements: It must have been 1967 when a roommate of mine graduated from Iowa State and joined Campus Crusade. Campus Crusade in those yea rs was going to have a team England was to engage students in evangelism and do what could be done. But ? This is stupid. We know all about this Christian stuff. We have long since turned away 7 Charles Thaxton, interview by author, February 1 1, 2012.

PAGE 362

362 sense to them [the hearers]. Over Christmas break in sixty seven, [word came] about a man who was very effective in talking to the educated people. So he went to Switzerland. If what Schaeffer is saying is right, then what I think affects eve rything in my life more I realized that what Schaeffer was doing was showing that all knowledge is related Up to this time, I was not a student; I was just doing what the cur riculum said I should study to get through a course. 8 of 1970 to the summer of 1971. sses. The gh number were from European countries. Asians were also a noticeable group. Academics in different fields were another subset view of the relationship of Chris concerns of the day. 9 etics launching point for classes that centered around listening to audiotapes of lectures. Thaxton 8 Ibid Emphasis mine. 9 Ibid

PAGE 363

363 Schaeffer encouraged the back and forth de bate format during his lectures, and he would also invite philosophical opponents to present their views in a lecture. Schaeffer gave his opponents 10 Thaxton asked himself how one could explain the credibility of Schae academics given that he lacked a formal doctorate and yet presumed to speak about vast segments of Western civilization? [Schaeffer] worked very hard to educate himself. He read widely in many s going on in the world. But [as for] how he found the books, he was an avid reader, from cover to cover, of Newsweek He read every single issue of Newsweek Every week it came out, he devoured it. Time was oka y, but Newsweek was the avant garde of newsmagazines. 11 In response to the claim of some that Schaeffer was never seen reading a book, Thaxton explained that he read upstairs in his apartment, that he was a very purpose driven man, and that he seldom came down merely to socialize. 12 a very unconventional education, and as a result of that he could relate t o the common people the 13 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Ibid Barry Hankins makes the statement on page 43 of Francis Schaeffer 13 Charles Thaxton, interview by author, February 11, 2012.

PAGE 364

364 Thaxton also remembered that Schaeffer could speak the theological language of other evangelicals separated from the Presbyterian stream. The hearty reception Schaeffer received from both the sta unchly Calvinistic Covenant Seminary (St. Louis) and the dispensational fundamentalist Dallas Theological Seminary needed explanation; Schaeffer stated to Thaxton my much terrain in common between these groups of Christians that differences in theology ved to be essential to his argument for cobelligerence among parties during the late seventies. 14 Based on personal notes taken while listening to Schaeffer, Thaxton outlined principles Schaeffer identified which, when taken together, encapsulated his un derstanding of the biblical worldview. All else that exists outside of God is dependent and is created by God. Man has a qualitative difference from the other created t hings, because man is The present situation is abnormal. In other words, there was a real space time fall in history There was a completely non humanistic solution that is needed. Something that does not start from man. From the God side, He initiates the solution. A supernatural worldview, a cause and effect relationship between the seen and unseen. The second coming of Christ 15 14 Ibid 15 Ibid

PAGE 365

365 basis of how Schaeffer presented the Christian story to an audience. Thaxton understood that Schaeffer wanted groups, perhaps students who had a fragmentary knowledge of Christianity, to hear the list as a system in order to allow the Christian answer to h ave a total effect. But how close was Schaeffer to fundamentalism? Thaxton would not acknowledge alwell. The basic beliefs listed above were intended to present the biblical message in brief to anyone, and Schaeffer repeatedly warned about unwarranted narrowness, but the desire to bring his program to fruition diagnosis encouraged conceiving of Falwell as a cobelligerent. Only in these difficult circumstances did Schaeffer decide to join Falwell, a product of Southern American fundamentalist history. Schaeffer had come to know him primarily through reading whil e in Switzerland, and was in the main insulated from much of 16 Falwell did not automatically trust Schaeffer either (see chapter seven). preceding cha pter, that since America was a direct product of the Reformation. Since the notion Supreme Court had done in affirming the rights of African Americans on the matter of segregation and non Christians on the matter of church and state. Thaxton noted that while he 16 Ibid Nonetheless, Hankins was convinced that Schaeffer remained a committed fundamentalist even while he fundamentalist Schaeffer to re ream of evangelicalism in many ways, insisting on the necessity of a literal interpretation of Genesis and the inerrancy of the Bible in all Francis Schaeffer p. 136).

PAGE 366

366 depth. At the same time Schaeffer reflected on the origin of the American system: He was very much interested in how the Reformation influenced the founders. See, American historical study], but the Enlightenment was maximized. He would have re How Shall We Then Live? in 1976] to und erstand this concept of sociological law. He thought that all these changes that were going on had deep roots, and that we better understand them and have a proper evaluation of them because they are sweeping away our understanding of the Scripture. Words are changing meaning Just because how they define the terms. So he was very concerned about all the changes that were happening in society that were a challenge to the histor ic understanding of Christianity. And so when the courts were making decisions that affected millions of lives, [he believed] that he had to deal with that. 17 Schaeffer conceived of the shift within a dualistic framework of good and evil on account of his worldview, despite the fact that a pluralism of groups acting each in its own interests came forward for very different causes. Schaeffer discussed the concept of antithesis to critique the philosophy of Hegel, although between the two, while for Schaeffer himself antithesis involved setting Christianity against its for Schaeffer the difference was something necessary to preserve in or der to avoid falling into Hegelian relativism. But Hegel, according to Hankins, was no modern relativist. 18 17 Ibid Emphasis mine. 18 Hank ins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 41 and 99.

PAGE 367

367 For Thaxton, Schaeffer in the 1960s spoke about and discussed evolution as part of a larger critique of changes in Western culture about the under standing of what humanity is and where it came from. Thaxton celebrated the fact that Schaeffer was especially known for his ability to converse with people whose worldviews were greatly at odds with his own. Schaeffer held that truth never changes but th e packaging of truth can alter to meet the needs of targeted groups. 19 Schaeffer on Evolution Schaeffer gave a two which he began with the radical propo sals of Arthur Koestler. Koestler (1905 1983) a journalist and author best known for his depiction of communism in the novel Darkness at Noon (1940), wrote on a wide variety of topics. 20 It was an essay Koestler published in the spring of 1968 that Schaeff er used to demonstrate that evolution had resulted in neurological chaos for humans. these three brains have come through the evolutionary process, and that th e three brains work 21 Koestler argued that there was an incomplete dominance of rational t transition from the domination of the old [/lower] brain toward the domination of the 19 Charles Thaxton, interview by author, February 11, 2012. 20 Several of his books dealt with science and history. The Sleepwalkers (1959) explored the history of astronomy through the lives of Copernicus, Kepler, a nd Galileo, The Act of Creation The Ghost in the Machine (1968) took a much darker view, primarily concerned In addition he defended the Lamarckian evolutionist Paul Kammerer in a non fiction work, The Case of the Midwife Toad (1971). Cf. also Horizon 10, no. 2 (Spring 1968): p. 34. 21 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 2 Chesterton, IN) 12.1b (CD), Spring 1968.

PAGE 368

368 22 pathological conditions, the transitio n even in the normal person can never be complete. The schizophysiology is built into our species 23 Schaeffer, who understood Darwin to have established progressive evolution, capitalized on the idea that evolution had actually created a fragmented person ality rather than a higher 24 of nature allowed for destructive products of evolution to emerge. Schaeffer could not reconcile totally nor 25 Christian teaching instead stated that ilities was ultimately absurd and hopeless. about human potential had evaporated in the chaos of the twentieth century. Schaeffer noted that optimism rooted in a semi dream. Darwin was still functioning, we would say, on the Christian mentality [the idea of 26 22 23 Ibid 24 Francis Schaeffer, Chance a nd Evolution Part 2 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

PAGE 369

369 Nonetheless, Ko estler offered a solution: create an artificial remedy for a natural flaw. What ancient man could not do, modern man would accomplish through the use of the new tool at his disposal technology. Our biological evolution to all intents and purposes came to a standstill in Cro Magnon days. Since we cannot in the foreseeable future expect the necessary change in human nature to arise by way of a spontaneous mutation, that is, by natural means, we must induce it by artificial means. We can only hope to survive as a species by developing techniques that supplant biological evolution. We must resulting split in our minds, which led to the situation in which we find ourselves. 27 Schae sane human beings, humanity itself must take hold of its biological development to prevent its own self eaching sweet reason to an inherently unreasonable species is, as history shows, a fairly hopeless task. Evolution has let us down; we can only hope to survive if we develop techniques that supplant it by inducing the 28 writing about evolution, the human brain, and reason had elements a Christian could appreciate, but Koestler was ultimately moving away from any acknowledgment of a Crea tor and the This would make a good Christian statement if he gave a Christian answer, because Christian man is a rebel. So there i 27 40. 28 Ibid., p. 41.

PAGE 370

370 29 God is ruled out of all of this, so then now man has to find a solution. But what kind of great and high and wonderful solution is man going to do in order to solve 30 Schaeffer came to the climax of his criticism o f evolutionary theory: in the past we put complete faith in it. Evolution has brought us where we are, but verification modern theologian, who removes the Bible from the area of verification and leaves then only nonsense. You have exactly the same thing here. That at just the momen t thing the modern theologian does by removing the Bible out of the verification [likewise] in reality this [evolution] is removed out of the area of verification at the e xact moment when we could really look at it. So now at the present moment just when we really need evolution, somehow or other this good old evolution that brought us this far is letting us down. So now we are going to do something about it. 31 What Schaef ismissed evolution because he imagined it promised an advance in the development of living things and had instead Koestler echoed the sentiment of scientists that mind controlling drugs should be created 29 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 2 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

PAGE 371

371 nd 32 Schaeffer replied: ver be words, can you really have the glory of man if you are going to use a drug to kill h is enthusiasm? The answer is no. Christianity says, you see, there is nothing wrong with enthusiasm. 33 tranquilizer. But then came rian government loomed. 34 That was not enough for Schaeffer, who openly super weapon, t Hitler would have loved to have had such a super tranquilizer to put into the water 35 Schaeffer in closing this particular section of his lecture noted that the optimism about evolution 32 rding to David Cesarani, in the 1960s Koestler attacked behaviorism, which "demeaned consciousness". Thus Koestler became drawn to brain function, and this fascination led him into a relationship with the guru of LSD at the time, psychologist Timothy Leary (Koestler speculated about developing a philosophy of drug use to eliminate aggression.) Leary had been in correspondence with Koestler since 1959; Koestler experimented with mushrooms at Leary's house near Harvard in 1960 but came away from the experien ce disillusioned with power of drugs to affect creativity positively. Koestler's commitment to hard empiricism was not altered by the mind altering experience. See David Cesarani, Arthur Koestler: The Homeless Mind (New York: The Free Press, 1998), pp. 466 468. 33 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 2. 34 35 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 2.

PAGE 372

372 Importantly, Schaeffer did not exert his energy in presenting an alternative paradigm to natural tinued to add to the doubt with the help of a group of mathematicians, to whom he turned next. The Wistar symposium In a brief statement Schaeffer commented upon a recent challenge to evolutionary biology from the field of mathematics. He described the mathematician is raising at just the point where Darwin was uncomfortable, and that was, could 36 An article from Scientific Research laid out the specifics: Philosophical and methodological objections to evolutionary theory have been well voiced for several years now, and it is said that even Darwin himself remained troubled by the same question s currently preoccupying more and more biologists: can the complexity and diversity of life be understood simply as the result of random variations Darwinism)? 37 Schaeffer had discovered an open attack against biology not from the sectarian world of fundamentalist Protestantism but from within the university culture. There was no need to resort to quoting Scripture 38 Historic orthodoxy 36 Ibid. 37 Scientific Research 2, no. 11 (November 1967): p.59. 38 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 2.

PAGE 373

373 requires the blind 39 Thus here in the late sixties one discovers the basis for opposition to Darwinism divorced from the concerns of the Adventist George M cCready Price and the Baptist Henry Morris. Four academics challenged the biological paradigm: Murray Eden, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT, Stanislaw Ulam, a research advisor at Los Alamos National Laboratories, Victor Weisskopf, professor of physics at MIT, and Marcel Schutzenberger, professor of 40 The Scientific Research article reflected a developing debate that had begun informally and then took public form as a symposium at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia in April 1966. 41 The meeting was not a creationist vs. evolutionist confrontation but was celebrated by creationists like Schaeffer for poking holes in the edifice of Neo Darwinism Importantly, academic luminaries participated, including Loren C. Eiseley, professor of anthropology and the history of science at the University of Pennsylvania, Richard C. Lewontin, professor of zoology at the University of Chicago, and Ernst Mayr, pr ofessor of comparative zoology at Harvard University and well known as a participant in the Neo Darwinian synthesis. 39 Ibid. 40 41 a Philadelphia physician and was ania nephew initiated and funded the building of the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in the 1890s. In the twentieth century, the Wistar Institute est ablished a prominent place in research, delving into diverse areas, such as vaccine development, cancer research, and genetics. The 1966 engagement is not mentioned in the website history, but apparently by the 1960s the work of Wistar generated enough no institute/our history [accessed May 25, 2012.])

PAGE 374

374 selection, as it is seen through the eyepieces of Darwi nism or neo Darwinism, to operate and 42 Eden attacked evolutionary theory for being which survive to produc e offspring do survive 43 At the heart of the controversy were two clashing paradigms of how evolution and specifically selection worked. The mathematicians imagined a blind floundering through there is some path by which we have arrived in this very small corner of a tremendous space of 44 If random point mutations along the DNA gene strin g is taken seriously as the emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a m eaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the 45 Eden only making the statement that 42 p.59. 43 Ibid. p. 60. Emphasis is Bernhard 44 Ibid 45 Ibid. p. 63.

PAGE 375

375 the computer results according to the mathematicians had yielded chance incapable of producing complexity in the given time of geological history. right, a geneticist from the University of Wisconsin, presented an altogether different paradigm of natural selection, making the process a nonrandom journey through a forest of an immensely diverse and random collection of possible outcomes. Sewall Wrigh genetics, seizes on the fact that natural selection only appears vacuous when only a selected viable proteins from 10 325 possible proteins, each consisting of 250 amino acids, he rejects this challenge w at the correct one of about a million objects by a succession of 20 yes and no answers, it would require less than 1250 question s to arrive at a specified one of these proteins. While this is not a perfect analogy to natural selection, it is enormously more like natural selection than the typing at random of a library of 1000 volumes with its infinitesimal chance of arriving at any 46 And though Schaeffer did not make comment directly upon the Wistar symposium which predated his lecture by a year there Ernst Mayr also warned against non realistic computer modeling of the complexities of biology. In his conclusion May r stated: What does all this mean to him who wants to simulate evolution with the help of the computer? I think it should mean one thing in particular, which is that the approach adopted should not be too simplistic. To be sure, one will have to start wit h a set of simplified assumptions and expand from them gradually; but in the end one would have to adopt for every set of factors a far greater range of extremes than was believed necessary or even possible only twenty years ago. Evolution, again and again has resulted in unique phenomena and in startlingly unpredictable 46 Ibid. p. 61.

PAGE 376

376 phenomena. If we set up our programs in too deterministic a manner, I am afraid we will never be able to arrive at a realistic interpretation of evolution. 47 Schaeffer set aside these nuanc ed points and instead focused on the doubt Eden and his Polanyi describ ing the insufficiency of chemical and physical laws to account for the realities of biology. Schaeffer was ready to exploit another secular source for the cause of defending a conservative reading of Genesis. Nonetheless, it is striking that in the case o f Eden and his colleagues one found a vastly divergent conception of evolution even within the academic world; clearly the task of the Darwinists in educating America had not even yet persuaded the university leadership completely. For this reason, Schaeff er had real cause to celebrate. The Influence of Michael Polanyi By the 1960s, Michael Polanyi (1891 1976) was already well known in scholarly circles. Polanyi held two doctorates one in medicine and another in physical chemistry from the University of Bu dapest, and was best known for his work Personal Knowledge (1958) the title of 48 her sought to re and chemistry, I mean that biology cannot explain life in our age by the current workings of 49 47 Mathematical Challenges to the Neo Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution ed. Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 54. 48 Chemistry and Engineering News 45, no. 35 (August 21, 1967): p. 65. 49 Ibid., p. 54.

PAGE 377

377 Polanyi set forth two examples DNA and machines. Neither situation was comprehensible using merely the physical sciences; about DNA he commented that the form and function of the resulting biological system cannot be explained by the laws He drew a parallel with administrative hierarchies, in which the principle while relying on the autonomous workings of these lower levels Another illustration came from the world of machin irreducibility their design, shape, and operation are comprehensive features not due to physical and chemical forces 50 of something a t work above the principles of physics and chemistry. He drew a parallel with A DNA molecule essentially transmits information to a developing cell. Similarly, a book transmits information. But the transmission of the information cannot be rep resented in terms of chemical and physical principles. reduced to its physical properties information transfer. 51 Polanyi admitted that his conceptua l framework ran counter to the opinion of most biologists and had been directly assaulted by one of the co discoverers of DNA, 52 One image gu 53 50 Ibid., 51 Ib id. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. p. 56.

PAGE 378

378 h chemical equilibration, but are shaped by man. They are shaped and designed for a spec ific purpose, which they achieve by the interaction of their characteristic parts working in accordance with distinctive operational 54 Polanyi then organized his apology for boundary control in biological systems in two steps. First he stated could they not grow to maturity by the working of purely physical 55 Polanyi immediately dismissed the notion that physics and chemistry themselves existed without bo undary conditions, i.e., without laws that controlled their functioning and processes. 56 Polanyi envisioned two levels of control in both machines and living things. The boundary conditions of the physical chemical changes taking place in a machine are th e structural and operational principles of the machine. We say therefore that the laws of inanimate nature operate in a machine under the control of operational principles that constitute (or determine) its boundaries. Such a system is clearly under dual c ontrol. The relationship between the two controls the devices of engineering and the laws of natural science is not symmetrical. The machine is a machine by having been built and being then controlled according to principles of engineering. The laws of ph ysics and chemistry are indifferent to these principles: they would go on working in the fragments of the machine if it were smashed. But they serve the machine while it lasts; machines rely for their operations always on the laws of physics and chemistry. 57 Polanyi then explained the application to living things: 54 Ibid. pp. 57 59. 55 Ibid. p. 60. 56 Ibid ., p. 61. 57 Ibid.

PAGE 379

379 We must ask what the boundary conditions are within which physics and chemistry do explain biotic phenomena. The answer is found in the fact that biochemistry and biophysics are always concerned w ith processes that have a bearing on an existing organism These sciences seek to determine the chemical and physical principles Administrative hierarchies are common examples of a higher authority governing lower levels, while relying on the autonomous workings of these lower levels. Hierarchies formed by successive levels of the organism have been described similarly. 58 Polanyi then reached a climax: biology was a higher boundary conditions within which the forces of physics and chemistry carry on the business of life. This dual action of a system is said to work by the principle of boundary control 59 Polanyi then turned to DNA in order to prove the notion of boundary con trol applied to DNA itself that introduces within its chemical structure a pattern that acts as a controlling 60 T 61 trans mission of information that transcended physics and chemistry. His extended argument A written or printed text functions by its structure alone, without generati ng motion; it acts passively by being read. A plant or an animal, recognizable by its shape, its pattern, and its coloring may be said to transmit information likewise passively, by being seen. The boundary condition generating this function consists 58 Ibid 59 Ibid 60 Ibid. p. 62. 61 Ibid

PAGE 380

380 in t he case of such a plant or animal in its typical appearance, its morphology. If DNA is regarded as bearing a pattern that forms part of an organism and as transmitting information through this pattern, then such a pattern is to be classed likewise as a mo rphological feature of the organism, and hence be irreducible to terms of physics and chemistry. By the same token, any chemical compound bearing a complex structure and transmitting thereby substantial information to its neighborhood must be irreducible to physics and chemistry in respect to this particular feature. 62 Therefore, the form of an organism was a product of the transmission of information via DNA and could not be reduced to activity on the level of chemistry and physics, but involved a higher l evel process, thence having an administrative quality. Without invoking a Creator, Polanyi also sought to of Francis Crick, a co discoverer of the structure of DNA, as typical of the scientific community He is completely atheistic. And as such, his work is all committed to an end. It is an end that he wants to reduce a simple form of life to a purely 63 but is r university. 64 corrected in the history of science. Schaeffer called the period of the scientific revolution, with Copernicus, Galileo, and 62 Ibid. p. 62. 63 F rancis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 3 (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 12.2a (CD), Spring 1968. 64 Ibid.

PAGE 381

381 humanity and the impersonal forces of chemistry and physics. Schaeffer pointed out how Polanyi rejected the idea of the reducibility of machines (given their information content) and then extended t he significance of the point. Polanyi demonstrated that even machines were not explicable in purely mechanistic terms, as they had information content. Ruling out God as the information s conclusions tic history of science through pointing out the role of information in living systems, and as theist Schaeffer exulted in making Polanyi a I have listened and listened and all the arguments I have ever heard about P olanyi, [and] nobody has ever been able to disprove his proposition. I 65 information encoding process did not result from the forces of physics and chemistry acting alone. Schaeffer however notes that Polanyi describes the purposive input of information of human designers in fabricating objects but did not follow this notion to its logical conclus ion by making a direct parallel to a personal deity constructing DNA. 66 argument (and, for that matter, the mathematical challenges posed by Eden et al.,) and a generally anti evolutionist position, Schaeffer secured for Protestant fundamentalists an 65 Ibid 66 Francis Schaeffer, Chance and Evolution Part 4 com (Sound Word, Chesterton, IN) 12.2b (CD), Spring 1968.

PAGE 382

382 mind, science originated and developed in western Europe under the influence of a Christian discoverable using human reason, such as in the cases of Copernicus and Galileo in astronomy. 67 Crick and other naturalistically minded scientists had hi jacked science and Polanyi implications of his own language when he discussed the concept of design. Schaeffer capitalized ed: references to design and personifying nature pointed to a Creator behind the scenes that Polanyi did not acknowledge but whose presence as the source of information content in biology his theories demanded. Schaeffer faults Polanyi for 68 Thus Schaeffer questioned not only the naturalistic basis of biology but also the use of naturalistic categories in science as a whole. Most importantly, his critique of the pres uppositions the scientific intelligentsia took for granted was free of references to a young earth or a global flood. Schaeffer tried to be cordial to his fellow Christian conservatives but casual where he believed basic theological tenets were not vulnera ble. His single book length discussion of origins, Genesis in Space and Time (1972), was direct polemic against Darwinism; however, in the midst of his arguments about the existence of a historical Adam and a real Fall into disobedience, Schaeffer commented that the genealogies of 67 Ibid 68 Ibid.

PAGE 383

383 Genesis did not amount to a chronology of the earth and that belief in a global flood ought not to be a test of orthodoxy. 69 Reflecti ling 70 As early as Chemistry and Engineering News article thoroughly before of positivism in one of the earliest [thinkers] I knew of who was talking about these kinds of issues [the origin of 71 The mathematicians who questi known aware of also before meeting S chaeffer. 72 Thaxton reflected: I think the fact that he [Schaeffer] was interested in those kind of things attracted this was an important piece and he described it on that tape recording as one of the 69 Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History 2 nd Intervarsity Press, 1972): pp. 122 125 and 133. 70 Charles Thaxton, in terview by author, February 11, 2012. 71 Ibid 72 Ibid

PAGE 384

384 great propositions of the twentieth century. I thought so too the very first time I read it. 73 inclined to trust Schaeffer more broadly as a polymath. The fact this man who was not really into all these different subjects, the fact he could talk about them as knowledgeably as he did I found very impressive. That gave me a sense of confidence that w know about that maybe he really was on to something. I could take the level of confidence from the areas I knew and was willing to give the benefit of the doubt ut. 74 Thaxton was a youthful product of Northern European evangelical Protestant culture who was facing the power of modern science in the 1960s as he entered the academy. In his words, the historic warfare metaphor applied to the science and religion relat ionship since the 19 th century by defenders of Enlightenment naturalism making supernatural explanation superfluous was e of Christian faith, who brought a Christian 75 theologically conservative young people came to Schaeffer to sort out the relationship of their Reformation faith to not only modern science but art, history, culture, and the issue of rights. As broad appeal among evangelicals and fundamentalists through two books, How Should We Then Live and A Christian Manifesto 73 Ibid 74 Ibid 75 Charles Thaxton, interview with author, October 26, 2013.

PAGE 385

385 How Should We Then Live? (1976) As we have already seen, Schaeffer deeply distrusted the growth of federal power over the states even for the cause of justice. We have already seen Schaeffer as a vehement defender Brown v. Board of Education in 1962 (see chapter five); in the 1970s however, he made public statements calling for improved race relations and the end of racial prejudice at the 1974 international missions confere nce at Lausanne, Switzerland. 76 Therefore, on the matter of race, Schaeffer made a separation between valuing people and controlling process and above all he denied federal authorities power to control over the process of racial reconciliation. Schaeffer had a deep distrust of the growth of federal power in virtually any area of concern, like Machen his spiritual ancestor. Eventually Schaeffer moved shoulder to shoulder with the Religious Right, and supportive of the merger of religion and politics known as the Moral Majority, founded in 1979 under the leadership of fundamentalist Jerry Falwell. How did this transformation come about? Celebrity and controversy drew Schaeffer away from his Swiss chalet back to the United States, and he proceeded to expound about science, theology, and the nation, in a hour of turmoil for Christian conservatives unsure of their rights. n Time magazine (see chapter five) were means by which Schaeffer became well known in certain circles. Increasingly sure he had answers for He began to be we ll known in American evangelical circles from 1964 when he spoke at 76 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 131.

PAGE 386

386 colleges and universities, beginning with Boston schools. 77 In 1968, a young historian at Calvin remar k Schaeffer presumed to speak knowledgeably about large swaths of history that required several academic careers to absorb. 78 The God Who is There Escape from Reason (both published in 19 68), and He is There and He Is Not Silent (1972). 79 Hankins argues that Schaeffer made too much of a separation between the Renaissance, which Schaeffer considered as purely secularizing, and the Reformation, which modern historians considered as mixed tog ether with the thought development of the Renaissance. 80 But such a narrative also later earned Schaeffer serious political points with fundamentalist leaders seeking to name an enemy primarily rooted in Enlightenment thinking, namely, secular humanism. Nonetheless, Schaeffer appeared to be the irenic evangelical until the mid 1970s, a 81 ness to speculate and speak prophetically existed than Pollution and the Death of Man published in 1970. Of course, Schaeffer still revealed a theologically conservative worldview by attacking environmental pantheism. However, the foray into a topic litt le discussed by his religious 77 Ibid ., p. 75. 78 Ibid ., p. 77 79. 79 Ibid ., pp. 79 105. 80 Ibid ., pp. 97 98. 81 Ib id ., p. 111.

PAGE 387

387 fundamentalist orbit. 82 Schaeffer appeared to have vestiges of his interacting with the issues average college students might hear about as they constructed their worldview. But as the 1970s progressed, Schaeffer resurrected his fundamentalist identity. inerrancy conservative camp, where he became much less of an independent voice. His mov e to the right would be mirrored by a strong reaffirmation of his fundamentalist militancy. The old separatism re 83 theological liberalism in the past. By the 1970s, questions about the inerrancy of the Bible the idea that God had essentially dictated the original autographs arose at Fuller Seminary in California. The concept o f dictation meant that divine control over the miraculous creation of the autographs was complete and free of human interference. Harold Lindsell, a former Fuller faculty member, attacked his former school for liberal tendencies in a 1976 book entitled The Battle for the Bible 84 This was the first battle in the realm of theology science and nation were to follow for Schaeffer in overlapping sequence between 1976 and the early 1980s. The three strands united e worldview, which soon became influential within the Religious Right. 82 Ibid ., pp. 118 122. 83 Ibid ., p. 135. 84 Ibid ., p. 143.

PAGE 388

388 Christianity (especially Reformation Christianity) formed a basis for cult ure war, as his vision of humanism underwent transformation from its being merely a dangerous worldview to its empowering a human army actively infiltrating the corridors of power in America. With the aid of his son Franky, Schaeffer made his name known wi th evangelical circles nationally through two books and films, beginning with How Should We Then Live? moved from a Christian worldview at the time of Aquinas to the relativistic secularism, or what he calls simply secular humanism, of the late twentieth century, need read only How Should We Then Live? 85 un diluted restoration of the first century church. 86 denote independence from divine rule and rejoiced in his belief that the Reformers were undoing the evils of the secularizing Renaissance. The Reformers denounced the idea that human reason at its core, therefore, the Reformation was the removing of the humanistic distortions which had entered the church. 87 medieval Roman Catholic Christianity became increasingly corrupt; the Renaissance introduced humanism; th en the Reformation recaptured true Christianity and held humanism at bay until the 85 Ibid., p.167. 86 Ibid ., p. 169. 87 Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1 976), pp.81

PAGE 389

389 88 blown secul arism by 89 In other words, God blessed northern European peoples to be the true inheritors of the legacy of the first century Christians in terms of the correct interpretation of Scripture. This line of thinking was the bedrock for A Christian Manifesto as will be shown. How Should We Then Live? 90 But in fact, as chapter five demonstrates, Schaeffer was elaborating on the influence of Samuel Rutherford upon the founding fathers m uch earlier than the post Roe v. Wade context of 1976, and the Brown v. Board of Education as well as school prayer and the abortion ruling. In How Should We Then Live? Schaeffer presented a repeat of his earlier argument: its sovereign is a book written by a Scot, Samuel Rutherford (1600 1661). The book is Lex Rex thout chaos because there was a form. Or, to put it another way, here was a government of law rather than of the arbitrary decisions of men because the Bible as the final had a great influence on the United States Constitution, even though modern Anglo Saxons have largely forgotten him. This influence was mediated through two sources. The first was John Witherspoon (1723 1794), a Presbyterian who followed Samuel Rutherfor Lex Rex directly and brought its principles to bear on the writing of the Constitution 88 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p.169. 89 Ibid 90 Ibid ., p. 170.

PAGE 390

390 1704), who, though secularizing the Presbyterian tradit ion, nevertheless drew heavily from it. He stressed inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and work. Without this biblical background, the whol e system would be without a foundation. 91 Schaeffer also created a strict separation between the American and French Revolutions that mirrored a conflict he imagined put the Reformation and the Enlightenment at war with each other. 92 Hankins called Schaeff conflict with historians Marsden and Noll (see the next chapter). 93 Naturalism was also a proble evangelicals coming into contact with the Enlightenment university resembled in some ways Morris and Schaeffe r were seeking a special place for divine revelation in relation to a human institution 94 he basic argument was that modern science, like democracy, can be attributed primarily to Christianity. The Christian base gave the West the notion that there was an objective universe, created by God and external to humankind, that can be known through re 95 However, in a modern science and what he termed the most recent science 91 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, pp. 108 109. 92 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 170 171. 93 Ibid ., p. 170 94 Numbers, The Creationists p p. 208 238. 95 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 171. See also Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, pp. 130 143.

PAGE 391

391 he also discussed above in reference to Michael Pol anyi. Schaeffer assumed the Scientific Revolution had a Christian outlook at its root. Science had progressed from a state where natural causes acted alone in a explanation all was now a machine, and naturalistic thinking by the twentieth century contami nated the social sciences as well. 96 Thus the Enlightenment based sufficiency of naturalistic explanations making supernatural causes superfluous to science was the t. about the climax of Enlightenment influenced biology, the work of Ch arles Darwin, noting that the film version of How Should We Then Live? made a connection between the philosophy of the survival of the fittest and the racist rhetoric of the Nazis. 97 Furthermore, Schaeffer was quick to pure chance (randomness) could not have produced the biological complexity in the world out of 98 Schaeffer therefore foresaw a new tyranny based upon scie nce done without reference to God. without a sufficient base modern modern science will become sociological science ; so civil law has moved toward being sociological law ...The only absolute allowed is the absolute insistence 96 Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? pp. 146 147. 97 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 172. See also Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? p. 151. 98 Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p. 148.

PAGE 392

392 99 The base for both law and science had been Christianity, according to Schaeffer, but since that foundation had disappeared by the 1970s, the society itself was in jeop ardy, as the meaning of human life no longer had a fixed definition. Thus, within a wide range, the Constitution of the United States can be made to say what the courts of the present want it to say the court feels i s sociologically helpful at the moment. At times this brings forth happy results, at least temporarily; but once the door is opened, anything can become law and the arbitrary judgments of men are king. Law is now freewheeling, and the courts not only inter pret the laws which legislators have made, but make law. Lex Rex has become Rex Lex Arbitrary judgment concerning current sociological good is king 100 Roe v. Wade ruling which created wide latitude for women to see k an abortion. 101 Then Schaeffer asked his pivotal question. And (taking abortion as an example) if this arbitrary absolute by law is accepted by most modern people, bred with the concept of no absolutes but rather relativity, es in regard to such matters as authoritarian limitations on freedom be equally accepted as long as they were thought to be sociologically helpful? We are left with sociological law without any certainty of limitation. 102 Rejecting the possibility that the New Left would fill the vacuum of leadership, Schaeffer 103 ways th ree of the most important being through mass psychology, the deification of nature in biology, and the media. 104 99 Ibid 100 Ibid 101 Ibid. pp. 218 220. 102 Ibid 103 Ibid ., p. 224. 104 Ibid ., pp. 228 245.

PAGE 393

393 authoritarian government ruled by nonbelievers loomed all the while Christ ians were asleep in their affluence and complacency. 105 Schaeffer concluded How Should We Then Live? with an image of two worldviews at war or, second, our society once again affirming that base which gave freedom without chaos in the first place 106 Thus he laid the basis for waging a culture war to save the nation without proposing detail as to how such a campaign ought be carried out. in his next project. In 1979 Schaeffer continued his argument begun in How Should We Then Live? in the book and film What ever Happened to the Human Race? which gave biblical arguments against abortion and euthanasia. Working with future Surgeon General C. Everrett Koop, Schaeffer successfully persuaded some evangelicals, including the Southern Baptist Convention conservativ es whose Convention had lacked a firm position about abortion until Schaeffer made his appeal. 107 Returning to a familiar theme, Schaeffer made a parallel between 108 He added that a certain scientific view of hum an beings led to their demotion to mere matter, and the Enlightenment was ultimately to blame. 109 separated and superior to other life forms, and the devaluing of people Scha effer understood to 105 Ibi d ., p. 245. 106 Ibid. p. 252. 107 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 182. 108 Ibid ., p. 186. 109 Ibid ., pp. 187 188.

PAGE 394

394 result in the promotion of abortion. 110 person: Evolution makes men and women feel superior and at the top of the pile, but in the materialistic framework, the whole of reality is meaningless; the concept of are left with everything being sad and absurd. Thus, the concept of progress is an illusion. Only some form of mystical jump will allow us to accept that personality comes from impersonality. No one has offered to explain, let alone demonstrate that it to be feasible, how the impersonal plus time plus chance can give pers onality. We are distracted by a flourish of words and lo, personality has appeared out of a hat. 111 Thus, with How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Schaeffer laid a foundation for culture war between the forces of the Reformati on and forces of the Enlightenment, which included academic science. In A Christian Manifesto Schaeffer translated attention. A Christian Manifesto (1981) Sc haeffer foreshadows the subject matter in his dedication, where he described those including the Apostles, the Reformers, and Samuel Rutherford, Presbyterian author of Lex Rex 112 He men tioned in the preface the input of Christian lawyers, first and foremost of which was John Whitehead, the author of The Second American Revolution (1982), a work that warned of secular humanism spread in government and particularly the judiciary. 113 And as i f warning of a general conspiracy, 110 Ibid., pp. 189 190. 111 Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, M.D., Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell C ompany, 1979), pp. 140 141. 112 Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), pp. 5 6. 113 Ibid ., pp. 10 11.

PAGE 395

395 Schaeffer listed the publication dates of the Communist Manifesto (1848), Humanist Manifesto I (1933) and Humanist Manifesto II (1973). 114 His thesis declared that American Christians have failed to see the whole pattern b ehind 115 These diverse phenonmena have a unitary cause at the final reality is 116 world views stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results including sociological and go vernmental results, and specifically including 117 Therefore, Schaeffer saw a naturalistic explanation of nature as tied to a relativistic included evolution. Schaeffer defined the humanistic view opposed to the traditional Christianity as placing humanity at the center of reality instead of God, and the Enlightenment was the historical event at the root of humanism. 118 Schaeffer was absolutely convinced that the humanist view possessed 119 Noting that naturalism included 114 Ibid ., p. 13. 115 Ibid ., p. 17. 116 Ibid ., p. 17 18. Schaeffer singled out astronomer Carl Sagan of the 198 0 PBS television series Cosmos for special attack for making that comment that the material universe was the totality of reality ( Ibid ., p. 44). 117 Ibid ., p. 18. 118 Ibid ., p. 23 24. 119 Ibid ., p. 24.

PAGE 396

396 120 Humanism did not intrinsically value the individual but only the collective Schaeffer imagined a totalitarian state as the ideal end product of the humanist agenda. 121 The a ntidote to ward off this coming secular catastrophe was recollection of the How Should We Then Live? Through John Witherspoon, John Locke, Lex Rex that law is king and that no one in 122 Amendment, which in his mind had only two purposes. The Establishment Clause meant that no federally sponsored church could dominate over other groups, and the Free Exercise Clause that no federal interference with practice of religion should occur. (Schae history, individual states had state churches without violating the Amendment, in an allusion to states rights.) Schaeffer was convinced that humanists controlling America had made the notion of separation of church and state to mean the automatic silencing of Christians when they 123 He added that the horrific outcomes of the French Revolution were precisely the result of the separ ation humanists were clamoring for. 124 120 Ibid ., pp. 26 27. 121 Ibid ., pp. 29 30. 122 Ibid ., pp. 3 1 33. 123 Ibid ., pp. 34 36. 124 Ibid ., pp. 36 37.

PAGE 397

397 secularized society and in secularized, sociological law. By sociological law we mean law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for 125 What Schaeffer the Roe v. Wade decision, and the basis for situational ethics was a naturalistic view of science: material energy, humanistic concept of the final basic reality. From t he material energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality is, and must be by its nature, silent as to values, principles, 126 Schaeffer believed that the federal judiciary had the power to shape public opinion through its rulings; thus, the government was secularizing America from the top down. 127 heritage. Schaeffer also worried openly about pluralism the nation had grown into a diversified entity and the proportion of citizens revering figures like Rutherford had decreased substantially States meant a sharp increase in viewpoints not shaped by 128 A process of dilution was occurring. Schaeffer added that these immigrants enjoyed the freedom the Reformation worldview created and that their own worldviews that they had inherited was 125 Ibid ., p. 41. 126 Ibid ., p. 48. 127 Ibid ., p. 49. 128 Ibid ., p. 46.

PAGE 398

398 inadequate to create such a free nation 129 Thus the Northern Europeans of Reformed background had gifted the other groups without receiving acknowledgement or thanks. Barry 130 For all of these reasons, Schaeffer called for culture war, beginning with protesting the evidence existed that the 1961 Supreme Court ruling Torcaso v. Watkins acknowledging eight years [from 1933 to 1961] the Supreme Court turned radically from a Christian memory to the 131 Writing in 1981, Schaeffer was eager to join in cobelligerence with any fundamentalist p arty resisting secular humanism, and the greatest such entity at this time was the Moral Majority, whose public face was Lynchburg, Virginia pastor Jerry Falwell. The Moral Majority had been instrumental in the successful campaign of Ronald Reagan to win the White House in imagined: They have carried the fact that law is king, law is above the lawmakers, and God is above the law into this area of life where it always should have been. And this is a part of true spirituality. The Moral Majority has drawn a line between the one total view of reality and the other total view of reality and the results this brings forth in government and that all Christians have got to do the same king of thing or you are simply not showing the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life. 132 129 Ibid ., p. 134. 130 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 199. 131 Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto pp. 54 55. 132 Ibid ., pp. 61 62.

PAGE 399

399 Schaeffer returned to the theme of worldviews at war, stating that abortion legalization was the direct manifestation of a materialistic, chance driven view of science. 133 However, he impact. 134 Schaeffer saw the primary battle to be a legal one, as the sociologically based ruling s of the Supreme Court were allowing it to dominate the other two branches of the federal government. 135 Schaeffer gave a list of pending court cases involving the rights of Christians. A sampling of the categories will serve to illustrate the increasing dem and for public interest law of behalf of the Religious Right: the right of assembly on a high school campus for religious discussion or right of teachers to assemble for prayer, the right of parents of students in religious schools to be exempt from prosec ution under truancy laws, the right of a church to fire an employee who was a practicing homosexual, the legality of having a nativity scene in front of city hall or the Ten Commandments in public school room, whether an unborn fetus has constitutional rig hts, whether singing Christmas carols was permissible in public schools, and whether the State could set academic standards for religious schools. 136 Citing Samuel Rutherford, Schaeffer went as far as to conclude that Christians always had the right of revo lution if their demands were not met: any office [arm of civil government] commands that which is contrary to the Word of 137 133 Ibid ., p. 70. 134 Ibid ., p. 73 74. 135 Ibid ., p. 81. 136 Ibid ., pp. 83 86. 137 Ibid ., pp. 90

PAGE 400

400 local majorities over the power of federal influence. Approximately at the same time A Christian Manifesto was published, a new law guided by the notion of giving equal time to both creationism and evolut ion in Arkansas schools was being debated as the state of Arkansas faced a challenge from the ACLU on the grounds that the law violated separation of church and state. But it must be stressed that this concept is entirely new and novel from the viewpoin t of the original intent of the First Amendment and the total intent of the Founding Fathers. This new separation concept is a product of the recent humanist dominance in the United States and is being used in this case to destroy the power of a properly e The ACLU is acting as the arm of the humanist consensus to force its view on the majority the individual states should resist but the people should resist. The Humanist forces have used the courts rather than the legislatures because the courts are not subject and especially they ( the courts) are not subject to re election. This is also related to the courts increasingly making law and thus the diminishing of the Federal and state legislatures. 138 es in power in the United States but no longer. 139 Schaeffer thus provided an ideological framework for fundamentalist protest in A Christian Manifesto From his ire transformed back into a warlike stance with the nonbelieving and secular world, as he believed the Bible, the Reformation, and America were linked and secularists sought to dissolve those links. Schaeffer preached a doctrine of cobelligerence in the 1970s among Christian 138 Ibid ., pp. 109 139 Ibid ., p. 114.

PAGE 401

401 conservatives. His influence touched many leaders of the Religious Right, and the network of activists is the subject of matter of the next chapter, as the 1970s context of creat ionist protest occurred in a milieu where right to be antievolutionist came first as it was part of a stand against

PAGE 402

402 CHAPTER 8 ANTIEVOLUTIONISM AND THE RIGHTS BATTLE OF THE 1 970S An Arkansas Courtroom, 1981 equal time to creationism in the public schools was, as noted in chapter six, a matter of intense concern for Francis Schaeffer. He unders as an act of tyranny a boost of the cause of secular humanism. But the trial was more than merely a confrontation between fundamentalists and humanists. On the matter of evolution and creation, the tri al represented the first meeting of several communities and people of diverse disciplines since the Scopes trial. First, there was the creationist leader Henry M. Morris and the network of fundamentalist pastors that supported him. 1 As the father of the new young earth creationism, Morris had published The Genesis Flood with theologian John C. Whitcomb, Jr. in 1961. Ronald Numbers New Geology a worldwide flood that deposited most of the fossil bearing 2 After attending a liberal Baptist church in Blacksburg, Virginia while a professor of civil engineering at Virginia Tech in the late 1950s, Morris made contact with fundamentalists destined for national prominence. He left the liberal church after seeing the controversy over origins unfold there and helped found another local congregation. He invited Jerry Falwell (1933 2007) f rom Lynchburg, Virginia to 1 Fundamentalism itself was little understood by t he academy until the publication of Fundamentalism and American Culture in 1980, written by George Marsden, himself a participant in the Arkansas trial against the 2 Numbers, Th e Creationists p. 227.

PAGE 403

403 Road Baptist Church beforehand. 3 Falwell went on to found the Moral Majority, a political organization tying religious cobelligerents t ogether prior to the successful election of Ronald Reagan to the White House. Another participant in the network of fundamentalist pastors was Timothy F. LaHaye (1926 ) a co founder of the Moral Majority along with Falwell and likewise a pastor of a large congregation at Scott Memorial Baptist Church in El Cajon, California (near San Diego). LaHaye was, like Falwell, deeply involved in the culture war of the 1970s over the definitions of family and sexuality; his wife Beverly was instrumental in the creat ion of the counter feminist organization Concerned Women for America. LaHaye also gave direct assistance to Morris by allowing the creation of the Institute for Creation Research to be affiliated with his own Christian Heritage College in the early 1970s. 4 young lawyer named Wendell R. Bird (1954 ), who bridged the gap between the fundamentalist and coauthor of A Christian Manifesto John W. Whitehead (1946 ), was a member of a new generation of Christian attorneys readying themselves for culture war conflicts against secular humanism. Bird, Whitehead, and their cohort of lawyers came to nationa l attention in the years surrounding 1980 with the conservative counter ascendancy, propelled by the Moral Majority, symbolized. Speaking for the Religious Right, Bird proposed in 1978 that only by givin g equal time to creationism in science classes could 3 Ibid worldview in this chapter. 4 Ibid ., pp. 313 315.

PAGE 404

404 case. T he wedding was not a foregone conclusion, but it seemed like an inevitability given the history the ACLU had had in defending evolutionary teaching beginning with the Scopes case. First, the structure of the showdown in Little Rock illustrated how local an d national forces aligned in a culture war battle. Sociologist Dorothy Nelkin has noted the significance of McLean v. Arkansas that was specifically designed to meet the co the Arkansas trial were diverse, including some fifty journalists from the major networks, newspapers, and magazines, Reverend Roy McLaughlin, leader of the Arkansas branch of the Moral Majority, and Dua ne Gish of the Institute for Creation Research. 5 The ACLU and the Moral Majority tended to polarize a complex issue the origin of life into a framework of political opposites. The Left was intent on fighting creationism in all its forms, including the nas cent intelligent design movement, being championed on college campuses in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Charles Thaxton while the Right decried attacks on creationism as a denial of fundamental rights under the Constitution. In Arkansas, the ACLU sou ght to demonstrate that people of reason, whether in the religious or scientific communities, discounted creationism. Nelkin noted that the ACLU had organized two groups of expert witnesses. For the religious team, there was a Methodist bishop 5 Dorothy Nelkin, The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in th e Schools (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1982), pp. 139 140.

PAGE 405

405 in Arkansas a Roman Catholic scholar, a historian of fundamentalism, George Marsden, 6 theologian Langdon Gilkey, a theologian, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, and Nelkin herself, as a sociologist of science. From the scientific community came geneticist Franci sco Ayala, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, geologist Brent Dalrymple, and biophysicist Harold Morowitz. 7 Nelkin reports that several teachers and school administrators presented their concerns about actually implementing the act in the classroom. 8 Even on the level of the community high school, the ACLU appeared to have its creationist opponents surrounded. But creationists saw their task to create doubt that one theory of origins was adequate. Their slate of witnesses included Norman Geisler, apologi st and theologian from fundamentalist 9 B ut also speaking on behalf of the state of Arkansas was astrophysicist Chandra W. Wickramasinghe, whom Nelkin saw as the most credible witness [for the creationists] in terms of scientific reputation. He was critical of conventional evolutionary hypothese s while not supporting creationist rejection of an old earth and common ancestry between humanity and apes. 10 In such a witness creationists saw an ally who could poke holes in the certainties of Enlightenment naturalism. The convergence of these multiple communities 6 George Marsden, as author of Fundamentalism and American Culture in 1980, was among the first products of the fundamentalist movement to enter the world of higher education with the goal of interpreting fundamentalism and evangelicalism for mainstream scholars. By deciding to aid the ACLU, Marsden experienced a stern backlash from Francis Schaeffer, who also engaged in a prolonged disagreement with Marsden and fellow historian Mark Noll a 7 Nelkin, The Creation Controversy pp. 140 and 146. See footnote 5 on page 146. 8 Ibid ., p. 141. 9 Ibid ., p. 142. 10 Ibid ., pp. 142 143.

PAGE 406

406 into a two sided battle between Protestant fundamentalists/creationists on the one hand and established science, liberal religion, and education on the other created a sense of distortion. Unraveling the interconnected issues of biological or igins, interpretation of the Bible, and American history requires a review of the political, legal, and academic aspects of the 1976. Creationism persisted inasmuch as it became a symbolic contex tualized within larger battles, between Religious Right vs. New Left and Republican vs. Democrat. This contextualization of an old battle in a new era is primarily what breathed new life into creationism as a matter of rights in a period dominated by right s vocabulary. Background to the 1970s Understanding the genesis of the Religious Right that gave creationism its practical support requires a review of both history and political science. Historian Frank Lambert noted c, religion and politics have operated most of the time in 11 As late as 1965, Jerry Falwell, later the public face of the Moral Majority and friend of Francis Schaeffer, agreed with this arrangement. But by the 1970s, Falwell was singing 12 Lambert concluded: 11 Frank Lambert, Religion in American Politics : A Short History (Princeton: Princeto n University Press, 2008), p. 1. 12 Ibid., p. 3.

PAGE 407

407 beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, can be accounted for by the 13 In his estimation, ideology not religious denomination, defined the battle lines of the new conflict. 14 Stages of Cultural Displacement of Conservative Protestantism The religious and political scene of the 1970s drew on historical traditions. The origins t and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, 15 the origins of the Religious Right had roots in a Protestant response to the new pluralism of the second half of the nineteenth century as non deas about human origins, biblical 16 In science, Darwin imagined a humanity created by impersonal laws; in economics, Marx saw a society generated by class warfare, not God. Freud source of human behavior. Finally, there was yet another invasion by European intellectuals that examined the Bible as literature and raised serious questions about its authorship and even the 17 13 Ibid., p. 4. 14 Ibid., p. 5. 15 Ibid., pp. 8 9. 16 Ibid., p. 104. 17 Ibid., p. 104 105.

PAGE 408

408 The birth of Christian fundamentalism was an attempt to counter these changes in the 18 Caught between rural fundamentalism and the modernist forces at Princeton Theological Seminary, J. Gresham set of changeless beliefs grounded in an authoritative text that transcends the ebb and flow of 19 This resistance to change meant a resistance to revolution in society, in science, and in biblical interpretation that undergirded all fundamentalist understanding. Though Machen decline d to aid William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes predecessor at Princeton Seminary, Charles Hodge, stood firmly against Darwin in an open clash between Reformation ideas of design in nature versus the Enlightenment notion of chance. 20 What is Darwinism ?, Frederick Gregory notes how slowly theologians like Hodge were to respond t o the novel challenges Darwinian theory created. But when Hodge responded, he characterized the situation as deep polarization key problem for Hodge was the anti teleological implicati ons of natural selection. 21 Jon H. some three thousand clergymen, more than any other American theologian in the nineteenth 18 Ibid., p. 105. 19 Ibid., p. 106. 20 Ibid., p. 114. 21 Frederick Gregory, Nature Lost?: Natural Science and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), pp. 129, 150, and 152.

PAGE 409

409 What is Darwinism ? proved to be 22 Hodge focused upon what Christopher Toumey notes (see the introduction), i.e., the stochastic features of evolution only, leaving out the nonrandom aspects of natural selec tion: Here is another demand on our credulity. The apex is reached when we are told that all these transmutations are effected by chance, that is, without purpose or in tention. Taking all these things into consideration, we think it may, with mode ration, be said, that a more absolutely incredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men. 23 However, according to David N. Livingstone, Hodge was willing to entertain the notion of evolution with teleology as a possibility, but a direct conflict e xisted between natural theology, which Hodge prized, and natural selection. Hodge embraced Scottish Commonsense thinking and its precept that facts accessible to all about nature were more important that speculative theorizing such as that which Darwin em ployed. 24 indisputable Word of God that provides a bedrock for faith, then all the doctrines and teaching 25 Fundamentalists soug ht above all to maintain old certainties; modernists and secularists sought first to adapt to waves of progress. 22 Jon H. Roberts, Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859 1900 (Notre Dame, IN: Universi ty of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 17. 23 Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company, 1874), p.48. 24 David N. Livingstone, Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI and Edinburgh, Scotland: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Scottish Academic Press, 1987), pp. 101 105 and 185. 25 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 118.

PAGE 410

410 The culture war had thus begun as the twentieth century opened. Lambert noted that 26 He cited two and industry, [which] insisted on modernizing American universities to meet the demands of a public life that had under 27 Christianity underwent two changes: first, in public status, as it more and more appeared superfluous to a compartment in a weekly schedule rather than an all integrating force. 28 In the decade of the 1920s the cultural marginalization of the fundamentalists began. The during the age of the Old Testament a hopeless argument in the face of modernity. Universities were becoming secular entities, divorced from church concerns. 29 The response of fundamentalists was to create an alternate civilization with alternate views of history, exemplified in the birth of the Bible college system a nd the spread of premillenial dispensationalism, which broke all of history into providentially organized 26 Ibid. Though George Marsden dated the extent of Protestant in fluence in universities somewhat later, his thesis major northern denominations acted as a virtual religious and cultural establishment. Th is establishmentarian outlook was manifested in American universities, which were constructed not, as is sometimes supposed, as strictly secular institutions but as integral parts of a religious The Soul of the A merican University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief [New York: Oxford University Press, 1994], p. 3.) 27 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 119. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. p. 120.

PAGE 411

411 episodes. 30 The result was a long term divide between fundamentalists on one side and he 1920s, these two worlds 31 A Sophisticated Antievolutionism? The Scopes trial exacerbated this schism in 1925. On the one hand, fundamentalists led by William Jennings Bryan appeared to fit the car icature of backward yokels. Opponents found social changes that had transformed America into a modern, scientific, urban, pluralistic, 32 Even the visuals of the trial signaled the end of a Protestant dominated era. 33 However, Clyde Wilcox and Carin Robinson note d antievolutionism in the 1920s demonstrated considerable political savvy, given the immense energy of fundamentalists in fighting evolution manifested in the plethora of organizations devoted to the cause, the personal persuasion of state legislators, and the staging of large rallies antievolution crusades as one of the most sophisticated of the various waves of Christian Right 34 Moreover, Bryan had careful ly measured philosophical reasons for opposing important, the teachings of the German philosopher Nietzsche, which he believed had been the 30 Ibid. p. 121. 31 Ibid. p. 122. 32 Ibid. p. 125. 33 Ibid. 34 Clyde Wilcox and Carin Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers?: The Religious Right in American Politics 4 th ed. (Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2011), p. 37.

PAGE 412

412 impetus for German expansion in W 35 The hillbilly image of fundamentalism was a construct of their opponents in the urban media and the universities, one that filled the popular mind but yet would be challenged later in the political astuteness of the Religious Right in the 19 70s. The Great Depression and World War II changed the balance of power as the federal reasingly believed that science and scientists could solve all sorts of problems, from fighting disease to making 36 eriod, and federal spending increased welfare state that the New Deal helped create for a wide range of vital services, including employment, unemployment relief, he alth care, education, and old 37 The power of states was challenged by problems both economic and military that were greater than single states could solve, so yielding to federal authority was the natural result, to the alienation of conse 38 Fi nally the growth of federal influence was also the product of the United States being thrust on to the world stage as the opponent of the Soviet Union. Conservatives lost control of 35 Ibid. pp. 37 38. 36 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 131. 37 Ibid ., pp. 131 and 133. 38 Ibid ., p. 134.

PAGE 413

413 ing Americans anxious to update science curricula including the reintroduction of Darwinism into biology textbooks after three decades of nervousness on the part of textbook publishers following the ived Soviet lead in science and 39 Soviets in science expertise wa s a matter of national security. 40 Though the primary issue at Darwinism in American schools benefitted Smocovitis notes that outcry of Neo Darwinist Hermann J. Muller 41 new showdown with evolutionists. Fundamentalists Shift to Anticommunism Wilcox and Robi nson see a transition among fundamentalists from antievolutionist protest to anticommunism between the 1930s and the 1960s. 42 This move occurred as Christians were generally forced to adjust to domestic and international pressures upon faith communities. A mong white Protestants the world after World War II forced a choice among three attitudes toward modernity: resistance, accommodation, and assimilation. Liberals were motivated to to advance their 39 Wilcox and Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers p. 38. 40 Nelkin, The Creation Controversy p.39. 41 Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton: Princeton Unive School Science and Mathematics 59 (1959): pp. 304 16. 42 Wilcox and Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers pp. 38 and 41.

PAGE 414

414 43 The National Council of Churches, born in 1950, was the coalescence of liberal Christian streams in America, whose broad vision included embraced diversity and an ecumenical approach that was highly pragmatic and focused upon 44 This approach involved adapting biblical interpretation to the demands of modern science, redefining sin as an imperfection that c ould be overcome through human exertion, a general attitude of support for the big government ideas of the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt and for the United Nations as a global peacekeeper. 45 Willing to negotiate and accommodate after the humiliation of the Scopes trial, evangelicals, as cousins of fundamentalists, desired greater cultural relevance and stood in between the assimilationist approach and the attitude of resistance to modernity fundamentalists like Carl McIntire and the youthful Francis Scha effer took. 46 The National Association of organized a separatist organization committed to resistance: the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC). Wilcox and Robinson elucidate the harsh demeanor of the ACCC in relating to outsiders compared to the gentler ways of the NAE: The ACCC was vehemently anticommunist, and it even attacked leaders of mainline Protestant denominations for their alleged ties to communis ts. Its extremism alienated many moderate fundamentalists, who in 1942 formed the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and launched a movement that has been referred to as neoevangelicalism The neoevangelicals took orthodox doctrinal positions, but were more moderate than the fundamentalists, both in religion and politics. Their religious moderation was evident in their rejection of 43 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 132. 44 Ibid., p. 137. 45 Ibid., pp 138 140. 46 Ibid., pp. 136.

PAGE 415

415 separatism, their political moderation in their unwillingness to label their political opponents as communists. 47 As ha world gover 48 The tendency to repudiate progressive ideas forms a bridge between the anticommunist focus of fundamentalist protest, which Wilcox and Robinson claimed essentially lost its public audience after the Goldwater campaign of 1964, and the next phas e, the rise of the Religious in 1980. 49 The 1960s were a period of strong Reformed hostility to revolutionary change, embodied in the civil rights movement and the defense of the separation of church and state in the Supreme Court, as chapters four and five have explored in examining the responses of McIntire, Schaeffer, and R. J. Rushdoony. But there was a set of missing pieces to be discovered white Southerners who were Baptist before the Religious Right could unite the Reformed to a larger national cause. Christians awaken politically to join the battles others like McIntire and Schaeffer had been warning about until this decade fundamentalism and evangelicalism were relatively unknown to the national media except in terms of Scopes type caricatures. George Marsden commented that one of the most important cultural development s between the 1930s and the 1970s was the rise of the South from a self consciously separate region to more of an 47 Wilcox and Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers 48 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 150. 49 Wilcox and Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers p. 41.

PAGE 416

416 integral part of the national culture. That transformation was not possible until the turmoil of the civil rights movement receded and the Sou th formally joined the rest of the nation in accepting racial integration, at least in principle. 50 Interestingly, Marsden added that the flight of white Democrats to the Republican party (in light of the Democrats taking up the civil rights cause) made pos 51 Race in fact became one of many bases for claiming rights into the 1960s and beyond, along wi th other demographic labels such as gender, sexual orientation, and religion. The entire mindset of a culture and the new vocabulary of rights came to dominate the worldview of the opponents of the Religious Right but eventually the Religious Right as well How this transformation in American thought came about had its roots in the coalescence of streams known as the New Left. Evolution in biology came to be identified with the Left in politics as both came to represent Enlightenment university culture and the demand of autonomy from God against the forces of tradition, of which fundamentalism was one. The New Left, Rights, and Interest Group Politics The demand for rights by many parties of which the civil rights cause was foremost and earliest in the n ational discourse had a direct impact upon the creation evolution debate. The Religious Right essentially became aware of the right to be creationists by observing the protests of others, including its ideological opponents. Learning rights language was t herefore a form of schooling, and the transformation of the controversy over evolution was a result both of the transformed context in which the case for a creator was being made the context of rights. Creationists defined the rights many of their adversa ries argued for, especially in the domain of feminism and gay rights, as connected to evolutionary teaching via the unifying theme of secular 50 Marsden, Fundamentalism and Am erican Culture pp. 236 237. 51 Ibid ., p. 237.

PAGE 417

417 humanism. Hence understanding the New Left of the 1960s and its rights orientation is vital for comprehending the success of the Religious Right in the 1970s. The essence of the New Left consisted of groups of people seeking justice and finding their voice in the streets. Voices long silent in the religious marketplace demanded to be heard in the 1960s. And when on ce again they were denied a fair hearing by the religious establishment, they took their message directly to the country and sought a hearing the cultural and political elite d ominated by white, middle and upper class, Protestant males. These protesters charged the white Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) establishment with perpetuating a morally bankrupt society that promoted greed, war, racism, and sexism. 52 The religious modernis ts of past decades now responded in the National Council of Churches, which openly endorsed the civil rights movement in 1963. 53 Van Gosse has described the broader context of civil rights in the growth of the New Left and the embrace of both causes by the Democratic Party. The success of the New Left was a total surprise to many Americans, since as the 1960s opened, the social order appeared to be a permanent fixture of American life. Black ly existed as a 54 As we have seen in our consideration of Carl McIntire, the backlash was immediate: of a c 55 These developments encouraged Repub licans to promote Ronald Reagan as a champion for a pre 1960s mentality. Under Reagan there 52 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 160. 53 Ibid., p. 179. 54 The World the Sixties Made: Politics a nd Culture in Recent America ed. Van Gosse and Richard Moser (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003), pp. 11 12. 55 Lambert, Religion in American Politics p. 180.

PAGE 418

418 lection, the 56 In other words, conservatives, opponents of big government control reminiscent of Machen and McIntire, took charge of the country in 1980 for the first time sinc e the Scopes era the period of wilderness 57 conclusions ignore the fact that the fundamentalist subculture had grown and thrived in the provided a fertile seedbed for a new conservative movement. Carl McIntire, for example, was not alone but rath er represented an overlooked community that included Francis Schaeffer, R. J. Rushdoony, and many Baptists. believed more consistently than liberals that the New Left 58 three ways: 1. The voting bloc of black Americans within the Democratic Party, 2. The labor movement, and 3. Organizations that dealt with reproductive and civil rights, environmental and 59 tol d story of U.S. history in the late twentieth century is how the social movements of the Sixties 56 Van Gosse, The World the Sixties Made p. 8. 57 Ibid., p. 12. 58 Ibid ., p. 24. 59 Ibid ., pp. 24 25.

PAGE 419

419 60 Among many organizations that functioned as extensions of these past movements, Gosse listed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the National Organization for Women, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Wa y, and environmental groups such as Greenpeace. These institutions defended the gains staked out by the New Left between 1964 and 1976 and then attempted to expanded them. 61 Finally, he was careful to link these forces into one mass of overlapping causes. Among them, they have millions of supporters, many of whom not only support a world fr om corporate despoliation, social justice for working people and the poor, and opposition to militarism. However hedged with qualifications, these e Right. 62 more democratic than any America that came before 63 The New Left had a wide ranging impact. J. Brooks Flippen describes how the feminist movement in partic ular began to irritate and alarm conservative Christian leaders who supported compromise with the Left after 1976. 64 Finally, the New Left impacted higher education Flippen notes that many leading scholars in social science and humanities disciplines identified 60 Ibid ., p. 25. 61 Ibid ., p. 25. 62 Ibid ., pp. 25 26. 63 Ibid ., pp. 4 64 J. Brooks Flippen, Jimmy Carter, The Politics of Family, and the Rise of the Religious Right (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 201 1), pp. 30 31.

PAGE 420

420 publicly with the Left. 65 With the university arrayed with the Left and the conservative pastors with the Right, by the mid 1970s another chapter in the cul ture war over evolution was about to unfold. Melding a Fundamentalist Worldview to Interest Group Politics The creation of a Religious Right community did not eradicate major doctrinal and denominational differences among the participants. George Marsde n, in looking at the early and changing federation of co belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity into line w 66 For the Religious Right, as descendants of the first fundamentalists, America itself was in peril in the 1970s as the forces of the New Left threatened to introduce a new vocabulary about rights and the family, a situation that touche d Christian Right has no single agenda, but rather a collection of overlapping a 67 Flippen other non fundamentalists constituted parts of the whole, so that the Religious Right could not be correctly characterized as a movement solely com prised of conservative Protestants. Although it did draw heavily from the Southern Baptist Convention and the growing number of independent Bible churches [which included Moral Majority leaders like Jerry Falwell] the movement still 65 Gosse, The World the Sixties Made p. 26. 66 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 4. 67 Wilcox and Robinson, Onward Christian Soldiers p. 10.

PAGE 421

421 68 Religious Right more than affiliation appears correct. 69 the Religious Right and the impact of the sub movement and the larger movement upon the national discussion of creation and evolution after Reagan took office in 1980. The evidence will show that although the academic world of the university was essentially lost territory to creationism, in polit ical and legal realms fundamentalists, unwilling to yield the local high school, were capable of partial victories in the field of rights on the national scene that shocked an evolutionary scientists realized, and the Religious Right proved its point. To fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell the nation was in a horrific state in the 1970s. According to Marsden the spread of federal governmental influence caused a great deal of offense. It was not doctrinal erosion in major denominations, which played a relatively smaller role in the new fundamentalism, but opposition to the expansion of the powers of civil government that caused alarm. This was because the decades after 1945 w ere a time of expansion of government, especially the federal government, in a way the 1920s were not. 70 He were toward creating a more pluralistic and permissiveness toward pornograph ic media, the Roe v. Wade ruling, and finally the campaign 68 Flippen, Jimmy Carter, the Politics of Family, and the Rise of the Religious Rig ht p. 15. 69 See footnote 4. 70 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture p. 244.

PAGE 422

422 established resentments against governmental attempts to alter essential basic patterns of American supernatural origin of the Bible, which was a mark of pride for conservative Christians and me to be the shorthand framework for understanding the convergence of these cultural and political 71 es specific attention on interpretation line conservatives in this period were almost uniformly critical of the Supreme Court, disagreeing not only with the substance of some of its more famous decisions, but also with what they took to be a disregard of the original intent of the Constitution and a 72 These rulings included the school prayer and Bible reading decisions of 1962 and 1963, which fundamentalists be promiscuity, high crime rates, disrespect for authority, and widespread loss of a sense of right and wrong. Though the causal connection may have been tenuous, the undeniable appearance of all the predicted phenomena not only convinced critics of the Court that they had been right, but 73 Furthermore, the Roe decision exacerbated poli tical right left tensions to the breaking point. The 71 Ibid ., pp. 244 245. 72 Martin, With God on Our Side p. 192. 73 Ibid

PAGE 423

423 reestablish their idea of order in the country. Several scenarios touching upon the rights of blacks, women, and gays created furor among the future leaders of the Religious Right and specifically of the Moral Majority. Men of different denominations became cobell igerents as they realized the political and religious worlds were coming into close contact. For one, schools were always close to home for funda mentalists. A major conflict erupted in 1978 when the Internal Revenue Service threatened to revoke the tax sidestepped civil rights for blacks. Several key figures of the Religious Right claimed that their conservative 74 A textbook controversy that erupted in 1974 in Kanawha County, West Virginia centered ne and destructive of traditional American family values. The controversy brought both violence and national attention. 75 Although the particular texts in question were later adopted, a new screening procedure for books gave more power to parents. In D ade County, Florida, gay rights became a public conflict in 1977 when gay leaders persuaded the county commission to pass an ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Lead ing the 74 Ibid ., pp. 172 173. 75 Most notably, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation offered i ts expertise to the protesters, and its operative Paul Weyrich was later connected to the IRS/Christian School battle on behalf of fundamentalists. See Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun Brown, Religion and Politics in the United States 6 th ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011), pp. 206 With God on Our Side pp. 135 136 and 171.

PAGE 424

424 protest against the ordinance was Anita Bryant, a TV personality and conservative, who fed fears that the new rule would compel the public schools to hire gays as teachers. A successful referendum did away with the ordinance. 76 Martin notes that Je rry Falwell gave Bryant public support not only by inviting Bryant to appear on the Old Time Gospel Hour televised from gay rally at the Miami convention center. 77 Finally there was the Equal R ights Amendment which was a direct product of the feminist movement. Wald and Calhoun constitutional status was interrupted by the formation of two powerful organizations: Stop ERA, founded by Phyllis Schafly, and Concerned Women of America, the brainchild of Beverly 78 They conclude that these protests (Kanawha and Dade Counties, and the ERA) were s 79 The Religious Right, according to Flippen, would not have flourished as it did without the issues of gender and sexuality that exploded during the Carter era. 80 Clearly, by the mid 1970s a mass of American conservatives had become angry at what they saw as the transformation of their federal government. The question then became how to channel their collective outrage. Three things were necessary to mobilize the evangelical masses worldview, a new network, and a narrative 76 Wald and Calhoun Brown, Religion and Politics in the United States p. 207. 77 Martin, With God on Our Side pp. 197 198. 78 Beverly LaHaye is the wife of Tim LaHaye, discussed below. Wald and Calhoun Brown, Religion and Politics in the United States p. 207. 79 Ibid ., p. 208. 80 Flippen, Jimmy Carter, the Politics of Family, and the Rise of the Religious Right p. 19.

PAGE 425

425 Republican agenda in the 1970s by outlining a network of new relationships between political operatives and pastors. 81 Fi Jimmy Carter betrayed after the 1976 election, as Carter showed his liberal stripes over time: n 1976 was pointedly illustrated in a breakfast he held for a small group of prominent conservative ministers that included Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, Jim Bakker, D. James 82 Carter waffled when aske d about his stand on about the future. Afterward, LaHaye recalled, while waiting outside for a limo to take him back to out of the White House and get someone in here who will be aggressive about prayed essentially the same prayer. We got into thi s limousine, and here were some 83 the ignition switch that sparked the activism of the Religious Ri ght (see below). Towns expressed the deep sense of threat felt by many fundamentalists during the seventies about the 84 A new network of conservatives was forming. The Moral Majority was born in June 1979 with a pastoral leadership that showcased a mixture of denominations: three independent 81 Martin, With God on Our Side pp. 191 220. 82 Ibid ., p. 189 83 Ibid Martin quoted Tim LaHaye but provided no citation. 84 Ibid ., p. 210. Martin quoted Elmer Towns but provided no citation.

PAGE 426

426 fundamental Baptists Falwell of Lynchburg, Virginia, Greg Dixon of Indianapolis, and Tim LaHaye of San Diego; one Southern Baptist conservative, Charles Stanl ey of Atlanta; and D. James Kennedy, from the denomination that Schaeffer eventually joined, the Presbyterian Church in America. 85 Schaeffer provided the unifying narrative of secular humanism vs. traditional Christianity and others expounded upon it. M secular humanism as a destructive, anti Christian religion in his twenty plus books, which sold such as Fa selling 1980 book Battle for the Mind being an important example. 86 word for enemy forces in the dichotomized world of the emerging mentality of cult the new political consciousness. According to Tim LaHaye, secular humanism was not so much 87 Vocabulary in the 1970s was difficult to pin to Schaeffer. When Schaeffer talked of humanist worldview, he was not [merely] talking about the specific points of secular humanism [as defined by bodies such as the American Humanist Association] but something much broader [and commonplace in modern culture]. For Schaeffer humanism was that view where man starts from himself, defines his own reality without use of or need of anything outside himself, and sets out to provide answers to any problems without relying on anything from outside like God or the Bible. 88 85 Ibid. p. 200. 86 Ibid ., p. 196. 87 Marsden, Fundament alism and American Culture pp. 245 246. 88 Charles Thaxton, email to author, October 9, 2013.

PAGE 427

427 The Political Story: The Battle for the Mind and the Moral Majority of how the dangers of secular humanism touched many spheres of human thought and activity, from the intellectual realm to is the last obstacle for the humanis ts to conquer. The 1960s saw the battle for racial rights. In the 1970s, it was sexual rights. But the 1980s have been designated for the battle against religious 89 attempt 90 and universities of the continent and became the high priests of education. With missionary zeal no absolutes self sufficient and self at world would have completely lost the battle for the mind and would doubtless live in a totalitarian, one 91 This contrast LaHaye beli eved had its root in the completely Christian and completely benevolent history America possessed compared to other countries: Unsurpassed freedom and wealth were the fruit solely of a Bible based form of government and a unique Bible based educational sys tem. 92 All of this success was dependent on rights that emerged from a belief in God, not human wisdom. 89 Tim LaHaye, The Battle for the Mind (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1980), pp. 9 10. 90 Ibid ., p. 26. 91 Ibid ., p.35. 92 Ibid ., p. 37.

PAGE 428

428 Therefore, our government of law was based on a respect and reverence for God and the realization that man was His special creation. Such expressions originate. 93 Citin prophet 94 LaHaye observed the humanist takeover of America had begun approximately in 1940. LaHaye then described the central contrast between historic Christianity and the secular humanist worldviews through two illustrations. He depicted two views of human identity at war the servant of God versus the autonomous self. Philosophical and theological ideas were the foundations of each, from whose roots differing sciences of origins grew. The two contrasting identities were generated from differing social moralities that grew out of the origins narratives, resulting in different views of the world and govern ment. Christianity and had its origins in the divine revelation provided in the books share with mankind, not only produces the i ntellectual base for a morally sane society but gives 95 instantaneous creation as explicated by Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research and in civil morality. The Bible gave rise through its commands to the Judeo 93 Ibid. pp. 38 39. 94 Ibid ., p. 38. The dedication is on page 5. 95 Ibid ., p. 49.

PAGE 429

429 absolute: not subject to revision or del etion by any earthly potentate or Supreme Court, without 96 The next step was the creation of servants of God, guided by the Bible, doing good deeds and active in the nation. The final component was the development of a compassionate world view that seeks to deliver the gospel message to the whole world. 97 Thus LaHaye constructed a narrative of young earth creationism and redemption that questioned the authority of the federal government. The other option was huma nism, whose foundation stone was atheism. LaHaye pointed primarily Voltaire and Rousseau, and was then developed by German rationalists like Georg Hegel, Ludwig 98 Resting on its atheistic base, evolution grew and infiltrated the university: The theory of evolution, although ancient, was catapulted into world prominence by the publi The Origin of Species came to be known, swept through the atheistic or agnostic dominated academic community of the Western world like wildfire. Today it is the primary foundation upon which all secular educ ation rests. Psychology, the most influential single discipline of modern education, is totally dependent on the theory of evolution, as are such fields as sociology, political science, biology, and many others. It has had a drastic influence on art, musi c, and literature. Some informed educators admit that it is the most powerful influence in education today even though not one of 99 96 Ibid 97 Ibid ., p. 54. 98 Ibid., p. 59. 99 Ibid ., p. 61.

PAGE 430

430 LaHaye defended giving equal time to creationism as a logical consequence. Humanists feared that if evolution was disproven, the right to have autonomy from God would disintegrate; hence, attacking the Institute for Creation Research was a must for humanists. 100 For LaHaye, evolution was could not be separated from m orality and worldview since it permitted autonomy from accountability to a divine being. He found verification for his constructed view in the fact that the Humanist Manifesto made evolution the basis for its claims: 101 LaHaye then joined a chorus of protest against evolution led by a politician and a lawyer, John Whitehead, who later influenc e that evolution has exercised upon our society. Former Congressman John Conlan and history by shifting the base of moral absolutes from traditional theism to Se 102 LaHaye then began to connect evolution to a whole host of evils that resulted from its and societies. Relativism now ruled in the field of m orality, an outcome that for LaHaye had a sinister meaning. Much of what LaHaye protested fell into the domain of rights battles and stood on the side opposing the biblically based good that had come forth from Western civilization. The humanistic doctrine of evolution has naturally led to the destruction of the moral foundation upon which this country was originally built. If you believe that man is an animal, you will naturally expect him to live like one. Consequently, almost every sexual law that is re quired in order to maintain a morally sane society 100 Ibid ., p. 62. 101 Ibid ., p. 63. 102 Ibid the Religion of Texas Tech Law Review X ( Winter 1978): p. 54.

PAGE 431

431 has been struck down by the humanists, so that man may follow his animal It certainly has not been the Bible believing churches of our nation that have advocated sexual permissiveness; trial mar riages; easy divorce; abortion on demand; inflammatory sex education forcibly taught our school children from kindergarten through high school; coed college dorms; homosexuality as an optional life style; and free access to pornography, marijuana, and occa sionally, have consistently liberalized our statutes in these areas. They are committed to doing away with every vestige of the responsible, moral behavior that distinguished Such an assault on young, impressionable minds flies in the face of revealed truth: 3,500 years of Judeo Christian morality, the Reformation, and everything that is good and wholesome in Western culture. 103 n culture had brought about the legalization of animalistic behaviors. in the permitt ed him to bifurcate a complex nation into only two parties: Bible believing Christians and children from their parents and put the children under the supervision o f all the state of course, they mean bureaucrats and social change agents who have been carefully sexual activity, contraceptives, birth eliminat ion, and permissiveness to children, whether parents want it or not! Of course, government financed abortions will be provided for those who fail to 104 This language directed toward the fundamentalist subculture was intended naturally to generate action guided by anxiety. LaHaye warned of the idea of law made 103 Ibid ., pp. 64 65. 104 Ibid ., pp. 66

PAGE 432

432 based upon immediate sociological needs rather than on the immutability of the Ten Commandments. He concluded that humanism had made sociological law the new norm in America. 105 T 106 Again LaHaye attacked the Enlig htenment, writer 107 Here LaHaye that autonomous thinking historically leads not to world betterment, or even human 108 LaHaye took one final step imagining that humanistic autonomy led to big government socialism politically an freedom has always been in inverse proportion to the size and power of government. The less government, the more freedom and vice versa. Anyone familiar with humanist writers is struck 109 The key point was that the teaching of evolution had led to this end, the death of capitalism. LaHaye was ady to commit acts of violence 105 Ibid ., p. 68. 106 Ibid ., pp.68 69. 107 Ibid ., p. 70. 108 Ibid 109 Ibid ., pp. 72 73.

PAGE 433

433 and that they were favorable to Communistic thinking. 110 He feared the power of the United Nations as an agent of humanistic one world government and noted that humanist Julian Huxley, one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian synthesis, served with UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 111 LaHaye called his readers, as patriotic governmental office in 112 secular organi zations campaigning for the rights for different segments of the population. The basic connection between the teaching of evolution and the campaigns for rights fostered in his mind the growth of the federal government and support for socialism. New York b ecame the capital of the humanist movement, which then spread across the United States. The recognized liberalization of the East Coast can be traced largely to these early humanist organizations and the concentration of educational institutions located t here. No doubt the rapid expansion of such societies to positions of influence was due to the many colleges and universities in the area. The humanists soon found that establishing a myriad of organizations and societies would give them access to many mo re special interest groups throughout the nation. One of the early organizations was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (founded in 1909 Since then, scores of organizations have been spawned or assisted by these societies recently, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and National Organization of Women (NOW). 113 110 Ibid ., p. 73. 111 Ibid ., p. 74. 112 Ibid ., p. 78. 113 Ibid ., p. 163.

PAGE 434

434 The Battle for the Mind called Mind Siege: The B attle for Truth in the New Millennium (2000), included a list of enemies that included the National Academy of Sciences; the National Center for Science Education (a watchdog organization battling creationism on the local level); the National Association o f Biology Teachers; the National Education Association; major television networks, high profile newspapers, and news magazines; the U.S. State Department; the Department of Education; the left wing of the Democratic Party; Harvard University; Yale Universi ty; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and 114 In The Battle for Mind LaHaye provided two major illustrations of the contrasting sides One cartoon depicted the servant of God (with a The basis for all is the divine revelation of the books of the Bible. The humanist perspective is on atheism, evolution, and amorality, and is empowered to hold up a worldview of one world socialism. Most interesting here are the books understood to be humanistic, which include Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato as well as Enlightenment thinkers whom LaHaye mentioned in his text. 114 Tim LaHaye and David Noebel, Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), pp.66 67.

PAGE 435

435 Figure 8

PAGE 436

436 Figure 8 view.

PAGE 437

437 As a leader of the Mora and Falwell lieutenant Elmer Towns, demonstrate different levels of importance each man gave to Schaeffer Towns were agreed that in the 1970s beginning with Jimmy Carter something was going terribly ith the problem. From these two interviews, one can see a pattern emerging: antievolutionism was more significant as a stand against humanism primarily rather than a defense of the particulars of earth views. Timothy F. LaHaye (1926 ) Timo thy F. LaHaye was born in Detroit, Michigan on April 27, 1926. He came into the Michigan, where my uncle Dr. Elmer Palmer led them to Christ. About 4 years later, w hen I was 115 His working class father lost his job at a Ford plant in Michigan during the Depression and died when Tim was only ten. 116 LaHaye was a product of the fundamentalist subculture. On graduating fro m Bob Jones University he took a low paying pastorate in South Carolina 117 and later he attended Moody Bible Institute for one semester. After serving in the Air Force in World War II, he attended a Christian college on the GI Bill, and then went into the m inistry. He eventually earned a position at Scott Memorial Baptist Church in San Diego in 1956 and served there for twenty five years, while he also earned a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Baptist Seminary, and he later received several 115 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, Apri l 9, 2012. 116 Newsweek 143, issue 21 (May 24, 2004): p.48. 117 Ibid.

PAGE 438

438 honorary de grees, including a doctorate of literature from Liberty University, a Falwell led institution. 118 The two historical facts for which LaHaye is nationally known are his participation in the Moral Majority with close friend and ally Jerry Falwell in 1979 and his co authorship, with Jerry B. Jenkins, of the 1990s Left Behind series, a marriage between end of the world prophecies in the Bible and a fictional narrative placing characters in the midst of events culminating in the second coming of Christ. Newsweek in 2004 called the LaHaye at that point 62 million copies of the series sold. 119 LaHaye provided the biblical ideas and Jenkins constructed the narrative. LaHaye claimed to have been pr ofoundly inspired by the end times work of a professor at Dallas Theological many of his excellent books and meeting him personally as we spoke together at pro phecy conferences I came to hold him in highest esteem. His books and ministry influenced me 120 of Genesis when the two joined forces. Ronald Numbers comments tha compelling view of earth history framed by symmetrical catastrophic events and connected by a 121 LaHaye did both. 118 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 119 Newsweek, p. 45 46. In 2012, LaHaye put the figure at 70 million. ( Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012.) 120 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 121 Numbers, The Creationists p. 371.

PAGE 439

439 associations with other leaders of his generation of Christian conservatives seeking both to evangelize America and rescue it politically were also favorable. He called Bill B right, president 122 He qualified his endorsement of Pat Robertson, religious broadc aster of The 700 Club are friendly acquaintances with a lot of core beliefs in common except for his extreme charismatic beliefs and activities, and he holds to the post second coming, which I think is unscriptural and not conducive to producing an evangelistic 123 124 Personal relationships between nationally know n pastors constituted a later political force the power of which shocked the academic world. In the 1970s, LaHaye found in Falwell a co belligerent, a fellow member of a new generation of fundamentalists willing to shake off the habits of their elders in my biblical philosophy of why America was declining. He is reputed to have claimed that I was the first fundamentalist who believed we should jettison non involved passivism [sic] and get our 125 Missing in the present academic literature is a treatment of the context of relationships 122 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Ibid.

PAGE 440

440 from which Francis Schaeffer and Henry Morris ben efitted as they spoke about the decline of Western civilization as a result of the perils of Darwinism. LaHaye, Falwell, and their compatriots who celebrated Morris and Schaeffer had to overcome an inward looking attitude among their audiences first. LaH treatment of creationism had yet to be published: To my knowledge there has never been a book written that gives the historical truth about the rise of Creationism, the Moral Majority and the important motivation of the Evangelical chu rch beginning in the 70s, [and] gaining steam in the 80s, and even the ultra liberal media today recognizes that we represent the largest minority view in the nation, only half of which get out and exercise their free franchise to vote. If we can motivate 20% more we can fulfill my lifetime political dream of seeing the same percentage of members in government as are in the population. It has never been our goal to control America. It is our goal to elect enough members to government to have the same inf luence on our country as our Founding Fathers. 126 LaHaye admitted simultaneously that fundamentalists were not engaged in the political process others demanding th eir rights. Unfortunately, we are still suffering the results of the unscriptural pietistic movement that taught (as did my godly pastor under whose ministry I was called to involved in politics, we should leave that up to the nice civic minded people while civic. Today that can easily be as we do, they want the freedom for themselves and the organizations they themselves, and the public school is a good illustration of that! Their tolerance imposes the unscientific theory of evolution as scientific on young impressionable minds. When in truth it is a religious belief about a godless world which spontaneously sprung into existence and over millions of ye produced a man and woman on the same continent with complimentary reproductive capabilities to produce over 6 billion people. THAT IS 126 Ibid

PAGE 441

441 scientific. 127 ision of America Pinpointing the root of secularism in American thought was not an easy matter, given the diversity of opinions LaHaye entertained simultaneously. On the one hand, the threat appeared to reethinkers, atheists, socialists and liberal Unitarians plus other anti Christianity thinkers had their start as early as 1826 when Socialist 128 Education was furthermore taken over by the anti academics love evolution and will lie to our children and call evolution Science, when it is an unproven 129 Humanist Manifesto God, anti Christianity and anti 130 was a critical component to the fundamentalist uproar over evolution in schools evolution appeared to be integrated into a worldview indoctrination process. On the other hand, LaHaye argued that the root of this secularizing process came from Europe and t [ There was] the growing atheism of the 16 th century (and only God knows when it started, probably in the days of Nimrod or before) and hit the 131 127 Ibid 128 Tim LaHaye, ema il message to author, March 6, 2012. 129 Ibid. 130 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 131 Ibid.

PAGE 442

442 preference for a one world government, which is the master plan of Satan, otherwise they would not advocate changing our laws to conform to UN or European laws and teachings. I have been 132 With regard to the United States, LaHaye described a second fall as if the fall of humanity in Genesis had repeated itself in American history. In the 1700s, the values of the Judeo Christian philosophy of the colonists when the educational learning level was much higher 133 Totalitarianism Looms LaHaye bel ieved scientists taught evolution with sinister intent toward the trusting young. Christian, anti 134 LaHaye questioned the as surance of evolutionists and their moral integrity at the same time: Just because Micro Evolution, within the known species is provable does not make it factual to move [prove] the macro evolution, (migration of the species) factual. In fact it is an evil lie to con innocent children into thinking it is a fact because the teacher or scientist says so. That is intellectual and educational dishonesty. As I said in my previous letter, dogs can be interbred hundreds of times but the result is er are there dog/cats or dog/ chimps. We are still limited to the species God created and that Noah took on the ark. 135 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid. 134 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, March 6, 2012. 135 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012.

PAGE 443

443 136 LaHaye warned about the governmental context in which evolution was being defended and promulgated. Again, he saw sinister intent and hints of conspiracy against Bible believing people. He did not see the success of Christian schools in California, for example, to be an illustration of the F ree Exercise Clause of the First Amendment at work, but instead as an illustration of the lengths Christian parents must go to educate their children in a world is taught in public education. 137 God or a God philosophy of public education is destroying our natio proponent is public education and their brainwashed product in the secular dominated media and 138 The Carter Betrayal LaHaye believes a momentous transition awakening fundamentalists to political action oc curred with the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He holds that a disproportionately small number of secularists controlled the thought of the vast majority of Americans (including Bible believing Christians) from the centers of the culture in politics, law, edu cation, the media, the arts, and in the academic realm. Fundamentalist Christians were politically asleep until 1976 when a supposed defender of the faith, Jimmy Carter, appeared on the political scene and conservative Christians became mobilized and unite d only to be shocked to learn quickly that Carter was 136 Tim LaHaye, email me ssage to author, March 6, 2012. 137 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 138 Ibid.

PAGE 444

444 openly sympathetic to liberals and secularists. It was then that these fundamentalist Christians realized they would have to systematically recapture the sectors of American life themselves. They would have to participate in the new national language of rights by fighting for their own. LaHaye comments: did not guarantee a person had a Christian world view. He caused many sou thern democrats in the Bible belt to realize the Democratic Party had left them philosophically and was not following scripture or their savior or the founding The Democrats have m oved on from just being secular liberals to being rabid secular socialists who hate the traditional America we knew and instead want us to become part of the one world government that the UN is working tirelessly to establish. If it had not been for the ov erpowering liberal media, totalitarian unions would have voted them out of office. 139 Every rights revolution has its moments of ignition when disparate parties coalesce for a common cause, e.g., civil rights history demonstrates the galvanizing power of the Emmett Till killing in Mississippi and the Montgomery bus boycott. Other rights movements have pivotal moments as well, such as the Stonewall protest in 1969 that sparked the gay rights movement. demographic was politically asleep until this moment. But as fundamentalists began to awaken and participate in the rights mindset that so many other constituencies had embraced for years, they constructed a dualistic narrative about America that was a good vs. evil story rather than acknowledge plur alism. And of all the parties they could have chosen to blame for their discontent, they pinpointed atheists and secular humanists. Among an army of rescuers, LaHaye celebrated Jerry Falwell as the foremost: 139 Ibid.

PAGE 445

445 That [the late 1970s] was when I realized Jerr y was tapping into the growing need to get ministers involved in educating their congregation on the moral and anti Christian attacks by liberal secular humanists or those influenced by them on limited government who were seeking to destroy the Judeo Chris tian principles on which our nation was founded and that has made America the greatest nation on earth. The time was right and we had no small impact on getting a conservative governor of California elected [Ronald Reagan] and four years later reelected in a landslide. [And it was in this period] during which the MM [Moral Majority] was growing and becoming a great influence in America. 140 As will be seen, the Carter betrayal and the rise of the Religious Right in reaction likewise transformed the activity of Henry Morris and his fellow creationists by putting antievolutionism into the framework of a national battle a culture war that had not occurred school that pr oduces a hatred for America by Americans who want us to apologize for all the 141 Neither William t LaHaye made about the foes of the Moral Majority. In this context, Henry Morris like Falwell was a savior, not just an apologist. Creationism suddenly had meaning for the future of the country, not just for the faith of nervous Christian students of bi varied realms of American life the media, sexuality, rights, etc. The context of the creation evolution controversy exploded into domains that Morris, William Jennings Bryan, or George McC ready Price could not have foreseen, as now neighbor strove with neighbor in the forum of 142 ok The Long War 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid.

PAGE 446

446 Against God a manifesto for young earth creationists that book shows this battle [the creation evolution controversy] has been going on for thousands of years. Essential ly he posits that evolution is a religion, based on false religious doctrine into every false religion in the world. Dr. Morris was a giant of faith. 143 Naturally a dichoto my that paints the other side as demonically inspired did not allow for measured dialogue in the heat of culture war battle. Obviously, for fundamentalists the new political environment made a hero of the scientist Morris. As Morris and LaHaye were co bel ligerents against the secularization of America, the Reformed leaders Francis Schaeffer and R. J. Rushdoony likewise entered the sociopolitical fray of the late seventies. LaHaye acknowledged that Schaeffer had a limited but significant influence on him b ut denied Rushdoony had any place in his worldview formation. my wife and daughter his seminar in Indy [Indianapolis], spoke with him at a second humanism conference in Am sterdam but did not know him personally very well. I was given a series of his tapes (reel to reel) which I enjoyed. But I had almost no contact with him. His books and videos were his greatest contribution to the MM [Moral Majority] leaders. Rushdoony ha the Reformed Church branch of Christianity which had a strong emphasis on Christian schools. 144 movement, but Baptists, Evangelical Free, Bible churches, and Calvary Chapel followers who 145 143 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, March 6, 2012. 144 Tim LaHaye, email message to author, April 9, 2012. 145 Ibid.

PAGE 447

447 But even co belligerence did not involve overlooking theological differences. Therefore, Baptists like LaH aye and Falwell differed strongly with Reformed ideas. LaHaye took serious issue with Calvinism and attacked the theology of predestination as well amillenialism. 146 Therefore, the tenuous nature of the Republican coalition that elevated Reagan to the presid ency became apparent even the Religious Right showed signs of factionalism. An informative but somewhat misleading article from Newsweek in February 1981 shows a tendency to lump the Religious Right into one mass rather than see it as a pluralism of co be lligerents labeling The Moral Majority Report its key publication. But in retrospect, it is fair to conclude at minimum that clearly Reagan was the champion of antievolu tionism many had hoped for. The Newsweek piece also defined the priorities and bugaboos of the Religious Right abortion, school busing, school prayer, homosexuality, sex on TV, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the U.S. Department of Education the Establishm ent Clause of the First Amendment, control by big government, and 147 Creationism and antievolutionism were contextually transformed in this new era of rights. In 2012, LaHaye held to his past convic tions and looked dimly upon the Obama administration as a fulfillment of his predictions. I wrote the BATTLE FOR THE MIND over 32 years ago. Nothing has happened to cause me to change my view on the secular control of thought thru media, education and li beral Democrats. They are helped by the entertainment industry, the very socialistic unions and political parties except they have become so apparent that more people realize it. Hopefully enough will wake up and go to the polls to defeat the favorites of the tightly controlled media mafia that are 146 Ibid 147 D Newsweek 97, issue 5 (February 2, 1981): p. 60. The authors describe the success of Reagan as the result of a coalition of five major parties, of which the Religious Right is b ut one neoconservatives, GOP establishment, Old Right, New Right, and the Religious Right.

PAGE 448

448 you would find that Jimmy Carter and President Obama have the same naive ideas or worse. 148 ords is obvious crusade for young events actors either on the side of good or evil, with no option in between. The two party system of American politics reinforced this line of thinking, as the above discussion of The Battle for the Mind demonstrates. Academic Evaluations of LaHaye has been the subject of scholarly reflection. The notion of under one umbrella. In the growth of Religious Right activism on a national scale, Henry Morris remai dream of building a creation but the relationship between the two men stimulated little additional c omment from the scholar. 149 All of this should also be understood in light of those who discount Morris as an network that undergirded Morris lifted him to prominence. According to Michael Lienesch, to LaHaye the disaster that was to become secular humanism was significantly linked to the thought of Thomas Aquinas and afterw European thought divided dramatically into two lines, the humanism of the Renaissance and the 148 Ibid. 149 Numbers, The Creationists pp. 312 316.

PAGE 449

449 150 Secondly, the Reformational influence was the guiding as uniformly a disaster for era in which Europeans emerged from the darkness of superstition into the light of rationality, these writers [including LaHaye] see 151 LaHaye believed that European style secularism only invaded the United States after the deaths of the Founding Fathers; the early colonies had been designed to promote the Christian way of life and the creation of a new nation was a direct product of religious revivals. The Founders themselves were in the main devoted, Bible believing Christians. 152 The dualistic we re seen to be virtually synonymous. Humanists, LaHaye believed, had vastly disproportionate social, political, and psychological power compared to their actual numbers, which he estimated to be approximately 275,000 in The Battle for the Mind 153 Lienesch n concern about secular humanism limited his view of how democratic rights could be extended: humanism is in fact a religion, it would seem to fo llow that humanists would share the same political rights and responsibilities as others, including the right to elect their own to office. Not 154 Finally, in describing the leaders of the Religious Right, including 150 Michael Lienesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right (Chapel Hill, NC: Universi ty of North Carolina Press, 1993), p. 158. 151 Ibid ., p. 159. 152 Ibid ., pp. 161, 144 145, and 147. 153 Ibid ., pp. 162 and 164. See also Tim LaHaye, Battle for the Mind p. 141. 154 Lienesch, Redeeming America pp. 168 169. Lienesch goes on to quote pp. 45 46 of Battle for the Mind which

PAGE 450

450 LaHaye, Lienesch conc luded that the very notion of rights for all was highly problematic in the late twentieth century context: Most of the time, however, they are more cautious about rights, and sometimes they seem altogether ambivalent about them. Thus they warn that in ass erting their rights, citizens can sometimes be guilty of asserting their own self interest to the detriment of the greater good. Moreover, they are aware that rights imply equality, or at least equality before the law. This presents the problem that rights can be claimed by others as well as themselves, including those with whom they disagree. Complicating the issue even more is the fact that many of them see rights as belonging to majorities as well as minorities. 155 The idea of equal protection of the righ ts of all presented LaHaye and the Religious Right with a difficult problem in a pluralistic America. Clearly, white evangelical Protestant male heterosexuals were facing pluralism head on in the courts and in society, and a dualistic narrative with a simp lified atheistic enemy served them well in making sense of the national melee over rights but also in reassuring their audiences that God and trustworthy politicians were still on the side of those who defended historic Christianity. As will be shown, Elme r Towns at times disagreement existed about the spread of liberal thinking and humanistic ideas. Elmer L. Towns (1932 ) Elmer Towns was born in Savannah, Georgia and grew up in a Presbyterian church. He converted to Christianity at age 17. He eventually attended Dallas Theological Seminary and years at Midwest Bible Colleg e in St. Louis and aided that school in getting accredited. He became president of Winnipeg Bible College in Canada, then went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois (1965 1971) while also attempting to earn his doctorate educator, he does not think like a pro moral American, but like a humanist. Consequently, he is not fit to govern us 155 Ibid ., p. 182.

PAGE 451

451 from Garr ett Seminary (named Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary as of 1974), which, he noted, was the most liberal of all United Methodist seminaries at the time. He was quickly was given a founding of Liberty Baptist College (later to be known as Liberty University) and earned a doctor of ministry degree from Fuller Seminary in 1982. In 1969 Towns had published a book Church on the list. Towns immediately recognized how future oriented Falwell was, by building up a church he himself founded into a multi building ministry with a television outreach around an educational leader serving with a pastoral one. 156 Guided by Public Opinion Spikes Towns emphasized that creationism was not ever a major plank in the agenda of the Moral Majority. Fundamentalists worried about the national scene in the 1970s first and e, the those the four planks in the platform. Everyone tried to add other issues, but Jerry always resisted 157 Furthermore, the timing of Falwell 156 Elmer L. Towns, interview by author, February 27, 2012. 157 Ibid

PAGE 452

452 sponsored prayer as well as initial support for the continuance of racial segregation. In both regards, Falwell was a ty pical white Southern fundamentalist of his times: The Supreme Court issue on [school] prayer hit him, and basically he preached against it. His first response [was] the bully pulpit, to preach against the vote first came in contact with him in [nineteen] sixty vehement [and] spoke against the integration issues in the fifties. And later he went to the black community and apologized. 158 Towns highlight later presidential candidate Jesse Jackson circa 1979. Falwell apologized to a local Lynchburg s 159 The other rights revolutions generally stimu lated a slow response from Falwell as his audience first became agitated. As far as the feminist revolution went Falwell did not immediately speak publicly against abortion following the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. rmon on the abortion issue was a full five years later. 160 Towns agreed: 158 Ibid 159 Ibid co nfronting civil rights demonstrations in the South. See Jerry Falwell, Falwell: An Autobiography (Lynchburg, VA: Liberty House Publishers, 1997), pp. 312 marching into the South, d emanding that we follow their dictates in the running of our community and in the ordering of our lives. I was angry that suddenly the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President had assumed rights once granted to the states, and I protested loudly the arrogant, disruptive, and often violent wave of demonstrators arriving daily in the South. I was determined to maintain the right to decide for ourselves how we 160 Martin, With God on Our Side p. 193.

PAGE 453

453 He did not focus [on abortion] from the pulpit until [nineteen] seventy eight. I think that is a true statement. But when Falwell would get into the pulpit he would talk about the drift of the nation, and he would talk about sin, and he would talk about more drun keness, and more cursing on television, and he would mention the abortion issue, but it was just in passing, [it was] not a focus. 161 On this point, Towns was candid Falwell was guided by opinion polls, by spikes in public concern first and foremost. boy, the spike went up th e money spike. I remember because I used to sit in these ublic opinion [was]. You tell nerve. the creation process, but the fact of a creator. 162 his agenda, though Towns acknowledged Morris came to Liberty University and preached several times. Nonetheless, the Moral Majority did not elevate the creatio n evolution controversy number one battle. Abortion was his number one battle, and homosexuality was his number two e liberal things in the public schools his main 161 Elmer L. Town s, interview by author, February 27, 2012. 162 Ibid

PAGE 454

454 potentia something new to be different. Jerry [Falwell] came up with saturation evangelism. That laid a 163 Towns defined an influence maker as someone who affected a mass of Christians directly through his life. He praised Princeton theologian Charles Hodge for his scholarly w ork but did Machen deserved this label for being the origin of multiple Presbyterian denominations. Towns also illustrated how influence was passed on from the older generation of fundamentalists to the next by telling the story of how Jerry Falwell obtained a mailing list of 100,000 pastors from Sword of the Lord biologists who would later feel its wrath. 164 significant in the genesis of the Moral Majority: --I think he is a non 165 Carter and Cobelligerence 163 Ibid 164 Ibid 165 Ibid

PAGE 455

455 el was the thing that uncovered the other two or three motivator for the Mo liberal tendencies (to allow definitions of the family beyond a two parent led unit for example), ensationalism guided Falwell here, and the sovereignty of Israel was a therefore a major concern. 166 Cobelligerence for the sake of saving America required something beyond a fundamentalist coalition it required a Judeo Christian alliance, one that was for ged at personal should not matter Baptist and Catholic and Mormon could co Judeo Christians] have a common heritage of law, we have a common heritage of truth, we have 167 At the same time, Towns was careful to describe the degree to which th e cobelligerents actually agreed. For example, he admitted he messianic attitude in its control of the public school but rejected the basic premises of nstructionism. Towns was consistent in his conservatism religiously and politically. Referring to 2012, laws rather than interpreting them and separating himsel f from President Obama. 168 While 166 Ibid See Martin, With God on Our Side pp. 168 190. 167 Elmer L. Towns, interview by author, February 27, 2012. 168 Ibid

PAGE 456

456 Towns expressed deep concern about secular humanism and defined its spread as being another critical spark for the creation of the Moral Majority, he acknowledged that Falwell was guided more by the Christian writer Watchman than by Francis Schaeffer. In fact, a matter of style was enough to cause friction between the to Schaeffer until the late seventies, suggesting the creation of the Moral Majority in 1979 was a rushed affair. But the Moral Majority was conceived as vehicle to unite religion and p olitics in a unique way in 169 The Academic Life and The Lord of the Flies Towns explained his understanding of Darwini he shuddered at the direction public education had taken, adopting liberal thinking about the nature of humanity: Let me tell you what I am going to write one of these days. I am going to write a ng to be called Out of the Mind of a Liberal Let me tell you, if you understood the presuppositions of liberalism, if you could ever look at them, they would horrify you. If you look at the presuppositions of a Christian and the presuppositions of a liber al, they are two opposing forces, and both forces want to destroy the other. [In America] we were dominated by a presupposition of the force of law, and now we are dominated by a presupposition of the force of liberalism. 170 Among those presuppositions of li berals appeared to be Darwinism and moral relativism, leading to a horrific vision of secular humanism let loose in society: The Lord of the Flies is the epitome of humanism. If humanism is left without law, if humans are left so that each man does what h e wants to do, each man does truth as he sees truth, what are they going to do? Violence to one another, raping 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid.

PAGE 457

457 one another, killing one another. You know The Lord of the Flies is a picture of life without controls. 171 Finally, Towns painted a dualistic imag e of academy versus the Bible believing church. He assumed the two greatly differed on their histories of America, claiming that academic departments in universities see with the eyes of sin rather than the eyes of divine revelation, the result being that [Academic historians do] not believe people came to America for the freedom we ee the real Puritan thrust, and fundamentalists make is that man has a tendency toward evil, a tendency to non law, a tendency towards rebelling against whatever the standards [historians] do not see the conflict within themselves and so they do not see the conflict within society. 172 The political and legal domains became therefore the realms in which Moral Majority leaders and other social conservatives saw the ir greatest victories, though on a limited scale; the academic realm remained lost to fundamentalist influence. Schaeffer knew the divide firsthand between the conservative Protestant church and the university from his time in Switzerland, and spent the en d of his life communicating to both evangelical academics like George Marsden and politically active fundamentalist pastors like Falwell. But Schaeffer entered the legal realm as well and encouraged the development of a new category of law in the public in terest of evangelicals seeking to undo the moral relativism around them. Schaeffer worked directly with attorney John Whitehead in attacking secular humanism, and Whitehead had many colleagues cobelligerents including Wendell Bird, defender of antievoluti onist rights, with legal expertise 171 Ibid 172 Ibid

PAGE 458

458 The Legal Story: Public Interest Law for the Religious Right A community of lawyers rose up for the first time in the late 1970s to defend the rights of the Religious Right. John Whitehead was one of the most influential, as founder of The Rutherford Institute in 1982. A second individual of equal significance was Wendell Bird, who made a 1978 argument as a Yale law student that creationism ought to be taught on an equal ba sis with evolution in schools to respect the rights of free exercise of religion of creationist students. As the NAACP and ACLU defended African Americans and free speech advocates respectively, so fundamentalists sought to secure their own rights. These events demonstrated that Americans were thinking more in terms of demographics and interest groups than ever before. Whitehead and Bird collaborated with each other and other Christian lawyers. By the 1990s, public interest law on behalf of the Religious Right had become commonplace. John W. Whitehead (1946 ) John Whitehead was born in Pulaski, Tennessee. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Arkansas, graduating from law school in 1974. Reflecting on the tumult of his youth, Wh itehead remembered open cheering among his fellow students upon the named Bill Clinton. 173 As a young attorney Whitehead maintained a counterculture and atheistic wo The Late Great Planet Earth which led to his Christian conversion. He moved his family to California, in the words of R. Jonathan Moore, 174 173 John W. Whitehead, interview by author, July 23, 2012. 174 R. Jonathan Moore, Christians in the Courts (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), pp. 37 38.

PAGE 459

459 Whi gained the attention of Rushdoony. The network originated through personal relationships around a common cause of restoring America. While in California in 1976, Whit ehead met Rushdoony and began attending the church in Los Angeles Rushdoony pastored, and, according 175 Hankins claimed tha t Whitehead never fully to believe with Rushdoony that the American founding had much deeper Christian influence than secular academics and media figures believed. his first book, published in 1977, The Separation Illusion: A Lawyer Examines the First Amendment Supreme Court of his era 176 The Separation Illusion 177 Whitehead wrote with the passion of a young zealot, attacking secular historians for sup 178 Pure 179 175 Hankin s, Francis Schaeffer pp. 193 194. 176 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 194; Moore, pp. 40 41. 177 Moore, p. 57. 178 Ibid. pp. 45 46. On the federal state, Whitehead naturally reserved a special blast for t the Civil War, Whitehead contended, the Court more than any institution had been responsible for denuding 179 Ibid. p. 47.

PAGE 460

460 Whitehead concluded that democracy was the enemy of the family, which was designed by God as a hierarchy and logically beyond the rea ch of the autonomy for the individual that rights 180 The sorry state of affairs that the present represented was in Whitehe direct result of the growth of federal power (really Northern power) over the states (especially the Southern states) in the aftermath of the Civil War. The North represented the egalitarian values of the Unitarian and transcendentalist and support of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the South represented the God Northern forces had wielded the issue of race deftly to insert federal authority where it had never been before and t 181 s rulings against school prayer and Bible reading in 1962 and 1963. The Court had taken the place of God himself as supreme authority over state governments by using the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce a twisted and new interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 182 Rushdoony, given the evidence of Chapters Four and Five. Francis Schaeffer likewise found ame increased substantially in Christian circles when he defended an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco in 1980 from the 180 Ibid ., pp. 48 49. 181 Ibid ., pp. 50 51 182 Ibid ., p. 54.

PAGE 461

461 charge of discrimination emanating from a gay organist who, on the basis of a local ordinance protecting homosexuals in empl to a wor ld of Christian leaders that needed his services. Franky encouraged Whitehead to write a The Second American Civil War It was later published in 1982 as The Second American Revolution Whitehead also gave F rancis Schaeffer substantial help in the writing of A Christian Manifesto which, as Chapter Six has shown, included a long list of legal battlefronts that gave Schaeffer immense concern. 183 The Second American Revolution guments in How Should We Then Live? subsequent decline of God ordained order, extending the argument into the field of law. 184 In the acknowledgements Whitehead thanked both Schaeffer and Rushdoony the former of whom the tyrannical, secularist, humanistic power, which has separated our country from its Judeo Christian base and now dominates this nation 185 Whitehead made brief reference to the Fourteenth Amendment in an appendix, noting that the Supreme Court had used the amendment in ways far beyond guaranteeing the rights of African Americans and essentially ely on the assumption the best interests of the citizenry required a 183 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 193 196. 184 John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution (1982, repr., Charlottesville, VA: The Rutherford Institute, 2004), pp. 17 72. 185 Ibid ., p. 9. Francis A. Schaeffer, foreword to The Secon d American Revolution by John W. Whitehead, p. 11.

PAGE 462

462 broad interpretation of the amendment as establishing a second Bill of Rights against the states power. 186 Although Darwinism did not play a major role in The Second American Revolution it sat in the background as an essential underpinning to the secular humanism that caused the severity handiwork, he [Darwin] helped to rob man of a sense of respon sibility to his Creator and of all 187 The influence of Darwinism altered the legal discipline, by using the arbitrary will of man as random chance became lord of the universe instead of the Bible as its reference poi 188 This was the recent interpretations had more to do with sociological change than with Darwinism. The latter h essentially assumed the fall of a Christian America. Leaders of the Religious Right welcomed Whitehead as a legal savior. Schaeffer introduced him to Pat Robertson, and Whitehead also met three leaders of the Moral Majority Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell. Whitehead appeared on television speaking The Rutherford Institute in 1982. 189 186 Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, pp. 212 213. 187 Ibid. p. 36. 188 Ibid ., pp. 188 189. 189 John W. Whitehead, interview by author, July 23, 2012.

PAGE 463

463 By the time The Second American Revolution was published, Whi tehead was one of the most famous lawyers in evangelical circles because of his association with the Schaeffer family. But there were so many legal battles to fight that in reality a whole army of attorneys rose up to meet the challenge. Wendell Bird becam e the creationism specialist, having written a defense of equal time for creationism while at Yale Law School, and Bird and Whitehead collaborated in the 1980s. 190 Because Bird sits at the intersection of the story of creation science and Francis Schaeffer 191 had in persuading federal judges and two Supreme Court justices. Wielding the Constitution and Bypassing Enlightenment Science Wendell R. Bird (1954 ) was a hybrid p ersonality and the product of two communities fundamentalism and Ivy League culture and thus he became a symbol of the new relevance of 192 Bird proved that fundamentalists could bypass the debate with Enlightenment scientists altogether and appeal directly and solely to the legal community using the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In 1978 Bird descri bed the legal strategy he envisioned in a student note in the Yale Law Journal. 193 A survey 190 Ibid 191 of equal time in the case of the Arkansas litigation of 1981. 192 Larson, Trial and Error p. 147. 193 Ibid ., p. 147. Larson notes that his efforts brought him a school prize.

PAGE 464

464 He opened his argument by stating that this time, as compared to William Jennings even introduce the Bible into science classes. Leading advocates of the creatio nist perspective do not endeavor to proscribe discussion of the general theory of evolution, as did the law involved in the Scopes trial. Nor in most areas do they attempt to introduce biblical creation into public earth and life that employs scientific argument and not a sacred text in its challenge to the general theory. Cast in this form, the conflict is not between science and religion, but between two theoretical mod els that build upon scientific observation and criticism and that harmonize with some religions and have overtones contrary to others 194 Bryan sought to eliminate conflict by doing away with evolution; Bird sought to organize a new conflict. His goal was t o equalize opportunity for creationists in the courts by leveling the playing field using the Free Exercise Clause and by suggesting that rational people accepted 195 Bird first demonstrated that some students emerge from religious communities with a long history of antagonism against evolutionary theory and that there were legal precedents that 196 The supernatural creation of life, the special creation of h umanity apart from animals, and a worldwide flood Bird claimed were 194 The Yale Law Journal 87, no. 3 (January 1978): p. 517. Emphasis is mine. 195 Ibid. p. 518. 196 Ibid. Jews, and many Lutherans, Pentecostals, and oth 520).

PAGE 465

465 essential foundation stones of the worlds that spawned creationist students. 197 On the other side stood evolution, linking humanity and apes with common ancestry and purporting that uniform 198 To Bird, the conflict for religious students going to public school was obvious given the stark contrast between the two approaches to origins. Christian students might be forced to attend public schools for various geographical and economic reasons but even within those schools their constitutional right to free exercise could not be impinged. Three types of burdens on free exercise can arise in the public school classroom: underm ining of religious convictions, violation of religious practices, and compulsion of unconscionable declarations of belief. These burdens can interfere with religious exercise because of certain coercive features of public education: requirements of the aca demic program, conditions on enjoyment of public school instruction, and influence of teachers and peers. 199 from the religious communities between creationists and evolutionists rather than an amelioration. His desire was limited to get creationist students through t he governmental schools with their faith intact. favor of fundamentalist Christians if their lawyers argued well. To address the problem of the undermining of belief Bird presented a parallel situation in which a court ruling upheld 197 Ibid. p. 520. 198 Ibid. pp. 521 522. 199 Ibid. p. 523.

PAGE 466

466 schools. 200 belief groups are more moderate in this practice; they oppose subjection to views b iased against their beliefs, but permit participation in a balanced presentation of both antagonistic and supportive gument, but nonetheless he again pointed out the 201 right to separate from affirmation of the rights of students not to pledge allegiance to the American flag if such Amendment protects individuals from state compelled statements contrary to religious 202 system was rooted in fundamentalist Christianity. Bird moved on to the problem of coercion in the public schools. He underscored how schoolchildren felt compelled to set a side their own convictions for the sake of academic gain, 200 Ibid. pp. 523 524. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. 201 Ibid., pp. 524 525. 202 Ibid., p. 525 526.

PAGE 467

467 that is, setting aside religion for the sake a grade in science. 203 incr eased the coercive environment. 204 Court overthrew religious instruction that occurred on school property in a released time program but upheld the same when classes occurred away from the school. 205 206 Bird then proposed to referee a solu in teaching biology and in presenting the general theory can be served by means less burdensome 207 He contemplated three options: exempting creationist students from the offending course altogether, neu tralization of the offending material, or completely eliminating course requirements that included the offending material. He ruled out the first and third options swiftly: exemption would still not 203 Ibid., volving educationally important material such as biology may be tantamount to a direct requirement of subjection to objectionable instruction and abandonment of religious 204 Ibid., pp. 532 534. 205 Ibid., pp. 534 535. 206 Ibid., p. 537. 207 Ibid., p. 542.

PAGE 468

468 eradicate the coercion and ostracism of others, and elimi nation placed too much of a burden upon the state and its interests in teaching a standard curriculum. 208 Bird reached a climax instruction found to abridge free exercise of religion can be neutr alized by incorporation of removal of an abridgement of religious exercis e must not contravene the establishment clause of 209 To adhere to the requirements of the Establishment Clause, what was creation would co ntravene the establishment clause and thus could not be employed to neutralize a public school course that exclusively presents the general theory of evolution 210 Bird then cited the 1974 book edited by Henry Morris, entitled Scientific Creationism not evolving but rather decaying from an origi nal created ideal according to the law of entropy; hold doctorate 208 Ibid. pp. 544, 547, and 570. 209 Ibid., pp.550 551. 210 Ibid., pp. 553 554.

PAGE 469

469 responsible for Scientific Creationism 211 Morris and his group had provided Bird with the weapon he needed to break into the biology classroom. Bird went on to discuss the m atter as to whether creationism automatically and unconstitutionally advanced the cause of religion. He turned the tables on evolutionists by claiming that evolution also resonated with religious teachings the teachings of secular humanism and the Humanist Manifesto I and II harmonize with the teachings of many faiths, the general theory of evolution also coincides with 212 At this point, Bird was fighting to secure a space for creat or a designer does not contravene the establishment clause, nor is teleological discussion coinage and in the pledge of allegiance, that even Darwin made reference to a creator, and that religiously oriented scientists can still legally write textbooks. 213 Bird was attempting to flatten the playing field, to make creationism and evolution both s cientific and both religious, even as creationists at certain times openly professed their faith in a biblical God: It is true that the authors of the major scientific creationist textbooks are Christians representing a variety of denominations or fellowsh ips, and that in other places some have written in support of biblical creation. The personal beliefs of the authors do not render their works religious in nature, or the contents religious doctrine. The establishment clause does not ban use in public sch ools of literary works authored by individuals holding strong convictions about religion, whether Moby Dick by Melville or Candide by Voltaire. 214 211 Ibid., pp. 554 555. See footnote 198 on page 555. 212 Ibid., 213 Ibid., pp. 55 7 558. See footnote 208 on page 557. 214 Ibid., pp. 558. See footnote 210.

PAGE 470

470 Bird thus opened the constitutional door to creationism on paper. The next decade gave him the opportunity to see these principles tested in the public eye. dramatic apex when in 1987 he presented the equal time argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the state of Louisiana in Edwards v. Aguillard but they have not activism showed the Religious Right was gaining partial victories and constitutional ground similar to the past successes of other interest groups and their legal arms, such as African Americans and the NAACP. The secret of the coming creationist success was teamwork, specialization, and division went to work for the Institute for Creation Research, where he put his legal skills to use improving an equal time reso lution that Henry M. Morris had drafted for adoption by local 215 But one zealous Catholic creationist, Paul Ellwanger, head of Citizens for recoun 216 Both Arkansas and Louisiana laws were enacted in 1981. 217 Larson has pointed out that while bo th the Arkansas and Louisiana bills called for equal 215 Numbers, The Creationists p. 352. See also Larson, Trial and Error p. 149. 216 Numbers, The Creationists p. 352. 217 Larson, Trial and Error p. 157.

PAGE 471

471 litany of cr 218 The Louisiana bill allowed balanced treatment for scientific creationism as an option without ref controversial Kentucky law permitting teachers to temper evolutionary teaching with creationist 219 Nonetheless, the bastion of the New Left the ACLU rose to do battle in both Arkansas and Louisiana, as it had done in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. Hence evolutionary teaching Falwell and Ronald Reag an on the Right. (Candidate Reagan had openly supported the equal time approach.) 220 rights in Arkansas and Louisiana. Larson reflected on how greatly the scenario had changed from 1925. No longer would an obscure county court, presided over by an elected judge applying state law, be the site of such a confrontation. In the thirty odd years since the U.S. Supreme Court had assumed final authority for state level disputes involving religious freedom, a comprehensive body of federal constitutional law had developed to deal with the subject. This change was widely accepted. 218 Ibid. p. 151. 219 Ibid ., p. 153. 220 Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 39.

PAGE 472

472 Court to address the tho rniest Establishment Clause disputes, including those raised by the new 221 The major players of the Arkansas trial have been outlined at the beginning of this the Establishment Clause, motivated leaders of the Right to pinpoint the shoddiness of the work their hope on Louisiana, where the state attorney general had deputized Bird to give creationists their day in court to defend the last surviving equal 222 In 1985 Adrian Duplantier, a federal judge, had declared the Louisiana equal establish judge panel on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Duplantier ruling. 223 by scientists. One of these, Dean H. Kenyon, was a biology professor from San Francisco State who had long been interested in the religious implications of evolution: He would join community college professor Percival Davis in 1989 to write a textbook defending intelligent design called O f Pandas and People 224 The future leaders of the intelligent design movement 221 Larson, Trial and Error p. 158. 222 Ibid ., pp. 163 and 166. 223 Ibid ., pp. 169 171. 224 Ibid ., pp. 170 171. See Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (1989;repr., Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1993). The editor of Pandas was Charles Thaxton, described in Chapter Six as a d championing think tank The Discovery Institute, as did Kenyon. Both Thaxton and Kenyon are listed as fellows of the Discovery (accessed November 23, 2012).

PAGE 473

473 the Louisiana case. Arkansas situation: Bird rejected all the traditional features of the biblical account that figured so prominently in the Arkansas statute, leaving only the broad concept that some organic and inorganic matter initially appeared in complex form, rather th an merely on the scientific merits of creation science and the educational merits of the Louisiana law. 225 Against Bird were arrayed the ACLU and the National Association of Biol ogy Teachers, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 226 Once again the political left and the scientific establishment appeared as one in the court of law. Despite setbacks and losses to the cr eationist side, the flexibility of a plurality of judges toward creationism was about to be revealed. Though creationism was ruled a violation of the creationist i nstruction by individual science teachers while slamming shut the door to esta 227 Bird wanted more, and en banc by the entire fifteen member Fifth Circuit appellate was a strategic move as Reagan had appointed six of the fifteen, after declaring himself in line 228 225 Larson, Trial and Error p. 167. 226 Ibid ., pp. 166 167. 227 Ibid. p. 172. 228 Ibid., pp. 172 173.

PAGE 474

474 Bird lost again, but this time encouraging news came from the conserv ative wing of the including four appointed by President Reagan and two named by President Richard Nixon, concurred with Bird. The dissenting opinion was explained by Judge Thomas Gee and as Larson ha published judicial support for creationist claims since Scopes are two bona discussed in a balanced manner if it is discussed at all. I see nothing illiberal about such a requirement, nor can I imagine t hat Galileo or Einstein would have found secular warrant, one at the heart of the scientific 229 The tide had turned against the New Left as represented by the ACLU and Enlightenment science. With the success of Ronald Reagan and conservatives, including the Religious Right, classrooms but also to its judiciary. 230 Bird then turned to the Supreme Court of the United States. There again, in 1987, he successfully split the bench. The issues and the communities in conflict had not changed. Bird fought for the notion Clause. 231 Most striking were the alignments of New Left organizations and liberal Christianity with the scientific parties on one side and Religious Right organizations and creationists on the other. The 229 Ibid es from Aguillard v. Edwards 778 F. 2d 225, 226 28 (5 th Cir. 1985). 230 Ibid 231 Ibid ., p. 175.

PAGE 475

4 75 National Academy of Science, numerous scientific or ganizations and state academies of science, and a collection of prominent American scientists, including seventy two Nobel laureates, joined against Bird and the creationist cause by filing briefs. But there were other opponents as well, including the Nati onal Education Association, People for the American Way, the American feminist Concerned Women for America. 232 But the conflict was largely from a distance and on paper through the filing of briefs and the fracas was a quiet and formalized one compared to the circus like atmosphere of Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. This phase of the cre ation evolution battle had boundaries and a shape unlike the primitive Scopes scenario. Adjudicating the culture war was becoming a routine for the courts. If the courts at the time of Scopes had not yet charted the boundaries for these two large parties to coexist in America, by 1987 most of the legal terrain had been mapped and bounded. By a majority of seven to two, the Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science in Public School Instruction A ct violated 233 William Brennan wrote for the majority while Antonin Scalia dissented and was joined by Chi ef Justice William Rehnquist. As 234 232 Ibid ., p. 178. 233 Edwards v. Aguillard, Supreme Court Reporter Series, vol. 107, 2573 (1987), p.2574. 234 Larson, Trial and Error p. 179.

PAGE 476

476 Brennan claimed that the structure of the Act had the earmarks of the age old controversy between fundamentalist Chri poraneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the 235 He also noted that the Louisiana State Senator Bill Keith who had championed the Act believed that evolution and the religion of secular humanism were one and the same. 236 the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clea r secular intent of 237 ment categories for the scientific community. For fundamentalists the term meant secular humanism, a form of religion that was anti God; for the court, the term meant displaying neutrality toward all religions. Regardless, Brennan seemed to present fundamentalists an 238 Justice Lew is F. Powell was even more specific. He pinned the substance of the Louisiana Act on the evangelistic teachings of the Institute for Creation Research and a related Loui 239 Powell elucidated the structure of the Religious Right by noting that the Institute for Creation Research was an affiliate of the Christian Heritage 235 Edwards v. Aguilla rd, p. 2581. 236 Ibid ., p. 2582. 237 Ibid ., p. 2583. 238 Larson, Trial and Error p. 180. 239 Ibid

PAGE 477

477 College [founded by Tim LaHaye] in San Diego, California. 240 The networ k of creationists was now in full view of the American public. The Religious Right had its Supreme Court champion in Antonin Scalia, who with Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion. 241 Scalia accused the majority of the Court of assuming the worst about cre 242 data that has been censored from classrooms by an embarrassed scientific establishment 243 The language of censorship implied discrimination and thereby the violation of rights. Scalia was determined to give creationists the opportunity for a real trial in district court they had been denied. 244 ply because it had been championed by the politically active Christian fundamentalists of the Religious Right: that the sole purpose of a law is to advance religion merely becaus e it was do so would deprive religious men and women of their right to participate in the Act, relief for famine victims. 245 240 Edwards v. Aguillard, p. 2587. 241 Larson, Trial and Error p. 180. 242 Edwards v. Aguillard, p. 2592. 243 Ibid 244 Larson, Trial and Error p. 179. 245 Edwards v. Agui llard, p. 2594.

PAGE 478

478 After defending the rights of the religious, Scalia then argued for the credibility of creation als that may have been regarded as quite 246 mpetition between two views, Establishment Clause given that evolution was a part of secular humanism, which has been declared by the Supreme Court a religion in Tor caso v. Watkins (1961). 247 In other words, Scalia accomplish state neutrality. Scalia continued on with arguments that the legal system could not mandate a form of in students would be free to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced 248 Scalia was therefore willing to read bias into the most educators and scientists, who themselves had an almost religious faith in evolution understood why the Louisiana legi suffering from 249 Scalia concluded by saying that the history of the Scopes judgment 246 Ibid ., p. 2598. 247 Ibid ., p. 2599. 248 Ibid ., p. 2601. 249 Ibid ., pp. 2602

PAGE 479

479 is The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence the re may be against evolution presented 250 evolution is so conclusive that no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any real scientific evidence to the c 251 Still the outcome of Aguillard leaders and that Harvard paleontologist and popular writer Stephen Jay Gould, who had joined in submitting an anti creationist brief to the Court, made perhaps the most expansive claim regarding the impact of Aguillard important chapter in American social history, one that stretched back to the Scopes 252 to allow individual teachers to introduce creationist ideas; the future remained uncertain and certainly the public r emained deeply divided. 253 These fears of some evolutionists later proved, in fact, to be well founded. In 1999, a legal guidebook for the intelligent design movement, of which Charles Thaxton was a part, took Aguillard to mean a new opportunity existed to teach the controversy ordered boundary of secular intent. 254 250 Ibid ., p. 2604. 251 Ibid 252 Larson, Trial and Error pp. 181 182. Larson is quoting Gould from Stephen Natural History 97 (1988): p. 12. 253 Larson, Trial and Error p. 182. 254 David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E. DeForrest, Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook (Richardson, TX: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1999), p. v. Emphasis is the

PAGE 480

480 The Network of Attorneys in Cobelligerence One aspect Larson overlooked was that Bird was not alone as a new breed of lawyer for the Religious Right. In the 19 80s and early 1990s a host of attorneys sprang up to search for only one of many categories of rights this new legal community was fighting for, and just as B ird had won partial victories by winning over seven judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and two Supreme Court justices, so other lawyers either won new ground or defended the old for their fundamentalist clients. The creationists had appealed dir ectly to the law and ignored their opponents the scientists, treating them as if they were an interest group rather than as intellectual guides for all Americans. This maneuver of ignoring the opposition while appealing to the courts to follow the letter of the law became a common practice among this new generation of public interest lawyers for the Religious Right. Fundamentalists had been ignored before the as an interest group of their own. In 1984, Bird and Whitehead collaborated on a book entitled Home Education and Constitutional Liberties in the preface of which they argued that compulsory education laws had liberty of parents to educate their children at home were all in jeopardy. 255 In 2012, Whitehead recalled how Bird had sought him out. Whitehead had been impress Aguillard decision, especially because he personally had heard the arguments made in Aguillard (em 255 John W. Whitehead and Wendell R. Bird, Home Education and Constitutional Liberties (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), pp. 9 10.

PAGE 481

481 se events 256 Nonetheless, the loss of the equal time crusade did not hinder the adva nce of public interest law for the Religious Right in general. The rise of law schools teaching the fundamentalist view on the Constitution created large networks of lawyers and legal scholars armed to do battle in the culture wars. Saving America was t he top priority. Challenging Darwin was always a present call, but it remained in the background once the public school domain appeared lost after Aguillard These institutions s, including Oral Coburn School of Law closed its doors in 1985 and transferred its journal, the Journal of Christian Jurisprudence to Regent University, whose law sch ool was supported by Robertson. Robertson also backed the American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law Counsel also worked in public interest law. The Journal of Christian Jurisprudence provided an outlet for an emerging legal e, in contradiction of the Bible. 257 256 Joh n W. Whitehead, interview by author, July 23, 2012. Whitehead agreed that the teaching of origins in public schools has to be scientifically based and he supported the idea that all theories should be taught. 257 Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3, (1982): pp. 49 99.

PAGE 482

482 article. 258 Herbert W. Titus, initially professor at the Coburn Scho ol of Law and later at Regent University School of Law, posed the question whether education was one of the items that d that the mass exodus of Christian families from the public schools was a direct result of God being run out of the schools by the courts. Evangelicalism had indeed changed since the days of the Scopes trial newspaper caricatures since Titus was speaking as a graduate of Harvard Law School. 259 By the 1990s two other evangelical attorneys of prominence had emerged, Jay A. Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice and Mathew D. Staver of Liberty Counsel. Both men illustrated the collection of protests the Religious Right made in the 1990s and still make in 21 st century, as well as the eclipse of creationism in that collection. 260 258 Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3, (1982): p p. 21 31. 259 Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3, (1982): pp. 101 illiam J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law,, (accessed November 23, 2012). 260 On the American Center for Law and Justice website, the focus of the organization founded in 1990 is listed school campus. The website celebrated cer Supreme Court case Board of Education v. Mergens in which the Court agreed that the Equal Access Act protected the creation of a Bible club on a school campus and that such protection did not violate the Establishment Clause. (The Equal Access Act was a federal law created in 1984 during the Reagan administration.) On the topic of school prayer, Sekulow also participated in the Supreme Court case Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000), in which the Court ruled that student led prayer at high school sporting events a violation of the Establishment Clause. Finally, in a direct confrontation between political right and left, Sekulow participated in the Supreme Court case of 20 03 Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women ( the assertion by NOW claiming that Operation Rescue, an anti abortion organization known for its use of civil disobedience, should be considered guil mission/about aclj [accessed November 24, 2012].) In a 1996 book, Sekulow and Keith Fournier ma ke almost no mention of creationism at all except to point out the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard e Jay Sekulow and Keith Fournier, And Nothing But the Truth [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996], p.54.) Mathew D. Staver of the Liberty Counsel listed a similar set of concerns in a 1998 manual outlining the zones of rights Christians should c public assemblies, the right to picket, use of religious signs and symbols, the right to proselytize, and religious

PAGE 483

483 The biography and perspective of Jeffrey C. Tuomala (1950 ), former associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at the Liberty University School of Law, has also shed light on the development of public interest law among evangelicals. Raised in Geneva, Ohio, Capital Universi ty Law School, a Lutheran institution in Columbus, Ohio, in 1976. In the last year of his legal training, Tuomala converted to Christianity. In 1980, he attended Ashland Theological Seminary for two and an half years, a school run by the Ashland Brethren. Tuomala recounted how his seminary professors made connections between the Bible and law, and he became motivated to pursue an LL.M. (Master of Laws) at George Washington University. He then considered public interest law, possibly working with The Ruthe rford Institute, a religious liberties organization founded by Whitehead in 1982 in Charlottesville, Virginia that continues to style itself as a leading advocate of religious and civil liberties and human rights. His thought was to work for Christian law schools, but Oral Roberts University Law School was the only one that existed at this time (the mid 1980s) and it was closing its doors. Tuomala had met John Whitehead in a Sunday school in a Washington, D.C. church, and he had heard that Herbert W. Titus had left Oral Roberts University Law School and was planning to found a school of public policy at the Christian Broadcasting Network University (later Regent University) organized by Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach, Virginia. In 1987 Tuomala went to Rege nt University to teach, where he remained until 1996. Following a faculty dispute over tenure, Tuomala spent 1996 discrimination were among many, but Stave r included discussions of the social impact of same sex marriage and non evolutionary theories of origins without reference to the Bible as p ermissible after the Aguillard case. (See Mathew D. Staver, Faith and Freedom: A Complete Handbook for Defending Your Religious Rights 2 nd ed. [Orlando, FL: Liberty Counsel, 1998], pp. v xi.) Two past founders of the Moral Majority gave glowing reviews t o Staver strongly opposed the application of the First Amendment to the states. (See Mathew D. Staver, Take Back America [Orlando, FL: New Revoluti on Publishers, 2011], pp. 54 55.)

PAGE 484

484 2000 first practicing law in his hometown of Geneva, Ohio and then 2000 2003 teaching at a Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama. He then came to Liberty University to help in the founding of a law school in 2003 and has remained there since. 261 Though a law professor, Tuomala reflected on the dynamic relationship Liberty Law h ad to public interest law firms like Liberty Counsel. He defined public interest law as focusing on hot button issues that dealt with restrictions on religious liberties and involved interpretation of the First Amendment. But more broadly he noted that th is category of law tended to have two foci protecting individual liberties and broad policy changes (like universal healthcare). In other words, Christian law firms focused upon preserving certain values versus liberal groups like the ACLU, which tried to shape the culture by transforming, for example, American notions of rights. Tuomala claimed that the ACLU saw law itself as a change agent, but Christians saw the church in that role. He listed the rights to evangelize, to have equal access to schools, to fight abortion, to picket, and to homeschool as basic to the list of demands of Christian believers. The ACLU, on the other hand, attempted to remove religion from the public square by using the force the removal. 262 Tuomala reflected on the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling of 1987, concluding that the only way the Bible might find a place in science classes was if it were seen as applicable there as it was in an English literature class; however, given the legal complaints about the establishment of religion, it was unlikely in his view that Genesis would be taken seriously in the public school 261 Jeffrey C. Tuomala, interview by author, August 28, 2012. 262 Ibid

PAGE 485

485 including the education of people with different religious perspectives should establish schools as they did before the twentieth centu among Christians seeking alternatives for their children, including homeschooling. 263 Tu omala spoke about interest groups and sociologically driven lawmaking. He drew a le more than the will of the majority, and that this problem was aggravated by the fact that the basis for shared values founded in shared faith has dissolved, since he believed that national unity required more than a shared humanity. He warned that allow ing law to have a sociological basis made the law infinitely uncertain and mutable as sociology changed. Tuomala added that without the Bible as a fixed standard politics increasingly dissolves into the chaos of interest groups vying for power over other all (at the beginning of this chapter) was actually a cause for frustration for Tuomala. 264 The political and legal activities of the Religious Right exploded after 1976. Buried in the midst of public battles lay the old issue of the Reformation vs. the Enlightenment in the topic apex in A Christian Manifesto as outlined in the previous chapter, during the Arkansas Balanced time argument. But 263 Ibid. 264 Ibid

PAGE 486

486 various communities of Christian leaders were emerging during this era, of which the fundamentalists following Jerry Fa lwell were but one. Henry Morris and Wendell Bird had links multiple fruits, including the career of George Marsden, who testified against creationism on behalf of Schaeffer, we turn last, bringing the story of Machen and Scopes trial of 1925 full circle to the ution. The Academic Story: Responding to the Enlightenment and the Left As evangelicals and fundamentalists came into politics, they engaged three com munities the legal system, interest groups such as African Americans and the ACLU, and the Enlightenmen t university. The topic of evolution pitted evangelicals against the ACLU and evolutionary scientists simultaneously in the courts. Three players in the evangelical story from 1976 onward will be considered here. First, the testimony of John Morris about his father Henry will serve to elucidate how the most important creationist in the Reagan years looked at the mpts to question Darwinist certainties on society were essentially forced into a dualistic frame by Schaeffer and his allies, a group of like mi nded conservative white Protestant men that included Henry Morris and Jerry Falwell.

PAGE 487

487 John Morris (1946 ) deeply rooted conservatism based on his views of the Bible. So conservative was the elder Morris that he believed the Scopes questioning of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow Morris] saw that evolution and old eart Morris commented. 265 On the topics such as the feminist revolution and public education, Henry Morris held to given role f or the sponsored prayer and Bible reading, John Morris said his father saw th e decisions as were an unbiblical concept entirely. There is no hint in Scripture that government should ever never really supported the concept of giving creationism equal time in public schools because he neither supported public schools (and court mandates) nor did he want non Christian teachers teaching creatio form of legislation, Henry Morris hoped creationism would secure an equal place in the schools, given the opportunity for creationists to make their case in the science classes. 266 Pol 265 John Morris, interview by author, August 10, 2012. 266 John Morris, interview by author, August 17, 2012.

PAGE 488

488 closer education gets to the individual the better; the more it gets to the federal minority. upon his science degrees; Bird consulted with other Christian attorneys and ultimately won the federal case with a declaratory judgment. Creationists firmly embraced the vocabul ary of rights by the fighting its influence was a moral issue for Christians. 267 Charles Thaxton (1939 ) Charles Thaxton had a different trajectory from Henry Morris but faced similar o f life issues in the seventies was a transformation from being a young man uncertain whether Christians could explore secular thought to a scientist were making th immediately associated with fundamentalist extremism by watchdogs for evolutionary theory. earth position went too far and was unnecessary for the Christian worldview, but he observed that Schaeffer remained closer to Morris than to theistic evolutionists. 268 This was because, as Numbers has observed, Morris and his co author John Whitcomb provided a comforting and simple synt hesis of science with 267 Ibid 268 Charles Thaxton, interview by author, February 11, 2012.

PAGE 489

489 269 Thaxton himself came to see the early 1960s, when Morris and Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood as a period of heightened public awareness of the importance of science and of the need for Christian theology to prove its continued relevance. In this context, the age of the earth was actually less important to the diverse creationists who read Morris and W hitcomb than the attempt to respond to the academy. Conservative Christians I knew had respect for science and they had respect for the the one many people looked to. His books that it [ The Genesis Flood ] was young earth was maybe a plus for some churches, but not all churches were young earthers. A lot of churches were interested in the subject even if they were in an old earth church. A lo t of Presbyterian churches were not young I rather have a feeling that it was post Sputnik and people were interested in it before. And then when [President] Kenned 270 The Christian community was forced to decide publicly its position on the relation between science and the meaning of Genesis as science ascended in its prestige. T here had been no need to reconcile the relationship precisely until this moment. earth position nor the theistic evolutionism of the American Scientific Affiliation and began to wonder about the claims that life could have arisen spontaneously from inorganic matter and if there were a third ists in this period dismissing the whole topic of the origin of life as a waste of time. He became aware in his graduate work of the 269 Numbers, The Creationists p. 371. 270 Charles Thaxton, interview by author, February 11, 2012.

PAGE 490

490 distinction between empirical sciences that involved immediately observable phenomena and historical sciences such as cosm ology, geology, and evolutionary biology. Thaxton chose to challenge the naturalistic assumptions of the historical sciences, but to do so he had to cooperate with activists engaged in the culture war of the 1970s. Among these was Norman Geisler, a Chris met Geisler when both were working in Dallas, Thaxton at Probe Ministries, an apologetics institute b egun in 1973, and Geisler at Dallas Theological Seminary. 271 Probe Ministries, through meetings called Forums, was on the forefront of a growing culture war on college campuses. One such Forum saw Thaxton and Geisler co debate professors at Temple Univers ity in Philadelphia. Thaxton recalls on other Forums speaking in science departments at universities where meetings were arranged by religious groups such as Campus Crusade. Campus Christian leaders would request class time from professors for visiting Pr obe speakers to present a Christian perspective on various topics. For a time this ttacked uncertain. But Thaxton learned between 1976 272 Lastly, 271 Ibid Ambassa 39/k.AF17/Probe_Ministries.htm (accessed July 3, 2012.) 272 Ibid

PAGE 491

491 civil law to the American legal system. 273 Thax ton was a living connection between the insular and subcultural world of Reformed churchmen and the academic world; Probe Ministries was an introduction to the culture war that sparked in the gap between these realms. As conservative Christians began to fight the culture war on numerous fronts, from abortion and homosexuality, to religious expression in the public sphere, academics like Thaxton and a direct product of Reformed Christianity, George Marsden, were forced to relate the worlds of academe and f aith to the issue of rights. Marsden concluded that working with the Left, at least the ACLU, might actually serve Christian purposes. The interactions Marsden had with Schaeffer illustrated how complex communities of Americans dealt with serious differen ces even within the boundaries of evangelicalism. George M. Marsden (1939 ) George Marsden was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. His father Robert was a follower of Machen who left Princeton with him to attend Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929. He Marsden maintained a friendship with Carl McIntire in this period, but after McIntire split from the OPC to found the Bible Presbyterian Church the two parted ways for good. George Marsden claimed to have grown up very aware of McIntire and that becoming a historian of 273 Ibid Origin and stated that Bahnsen was an extremely lucid debater for presuppositi onal apologetics in the tradition of five). Thaxton claimed to have met Rushdoony only once and understood how people might have been alienated by h --writing, especially in the field of education.

PAGE 492

492 fundamentalism was a task he had been bred for, as his father had been friends with both McIntire and Harold Ockenga. 274 On the matter of the Reformed an the whole Reformed movement as racist. The Dutch Reformed had a legacy of starting Christian schools that pre dated the Baptist school movement of the 1960s of which Jerry Falwell was a part. 275 In this context Robert Marsden founded a Christian school in 1944 and it was racially integrated with a few black students. When he became executive secretary at Westminste r he encouraged racial integration at that institution as well. The Reformed view of education in general terms celebrated the integration of faith and learning the academy was not to be feared but brought under the lordship of Christ. 276 bodied this integrated ideal. He graduated from Haverford College in 1959 and did one year at Westminster Seminary before going to graduate school in American Studies at Yale for one year. Marsden decided then to return to Westminster to finish his degre e; finally, he completed his Yale doctorate in American Studies in 1965, writing a dissertation on the New School Presbyterians. He arrived at Calvin College immediately after graduation and taught there until 1986, publishing his second book Fundamentalis m and American Culture in 1980 and underway and Francis Schaeffer was at the height of his political influence. Marsden spent six years at Duke Divinity School (198 6 1992) before finishing his career with an endowed chair at 274 George M. Marsden, interview with author, August 14, 2012. 275 Ibid. The newer Christian schools were exempt status the Internal Revenue Service threatened to revoke, as noted earlier in this chapter. Nonetheless Marsden reflected that 276 Ibid

PAGE 493

493 Notre Dame (1992 2008). He published various books about American evangelicalism and its relation to education, including Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (1991) and The Soul of th e American University (1994). In 2004, Marsden reached the pinnacle of the history profession by winning the Bancroft Prize for his book Jonathan Edwards: A Life Since his days at Calvin, Marsden has been a member of the Christian Reformed Church. 277 Mar sden was taught to respect the doctrine of creation but to give space for an old earth and not to expend too much energy haggling over evolution. when the doctrine becomes trivialized. I think getting hung up on the issue of biological evolution as though the doctrine of creation Christians make. I was brought up that evol an old earth. In the tradition there could be evolution, except for the creation of a big thing in my upbringing. I have alwa ys thought that the real issue is did God answers to, and I am not expert enough on the science to be dogmatic on what might or might not have happened, and what means God used to create. earth creationism in the early 1960s, Marsden assumed that there was no possibility evangelicals would allow Morris to turn them away from old earth thinking once it had become a commonplace among Christians. se of equal Christian Manifesto 277 Ibid.

PAGE 494

494 [as] the example of tyranny we might need to go the streets and be fighting against. And I was just astonished t 278 dualistic framework served political ends. For political purposes it is much easier to represent everything as an e ither or kind ve a set of middle categories Christian. 279 eristic of the fundamentalist thinking Schaeffer was unable to shake in the 1970s despite his reputation for It is there in fundamentalism from the beginning of fundamentalism, that you have these black and white categories and forces of good and forces of evil arrayed against each other, and you understand everything in that context. And that was the way fundamentalists dealt with individual political issues. [With] the Moral Majority suddenly they are dealing with it as a n organized political force and [this approach] translates really well into politics. Marsden reflected that popular success in book publishing resulted from a simplification of categories, and the political process encouraged such simplification as well. somewhat appalling that these [arguments] were passing for the Christian answer to complex straightforward story of good versus evil. Marsden commen this whole business that is such a folk religion mixed up with genuine Christianity so that it 278 Ibid 279 Ibid

PAGE 495

495 matter for the country and t he Supreme Court, but was again simplified by fundamentalists. One of the things that strikes me about the Religious Right, and Schaeffer as an example of it, is there is no pluralistic category. There is no way of dealing with religious pluralism for one humanist nation. 280 has a lready been in noted in chapters five and six in his statements about Brown v. Board of Education and in the book How Should We Then Live? Schaeffer engaged Marsden and fellow A Christian Manifesto and a comment by Noll in a 1982 issue of Newsweek stating that Schaeffer was not a scholar. 281 positive comments about Schaeffer Woodward did not use in the article. With regard to the 282 Noll discounted the the Founding Fathers. As their interaction progressed, Christian side of the culture 283 280 Ibid 281 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer pp. 209 211. Hankins cited a November 1982 Newsweek article by Kenneth t Schaeffer had not joined the academic community through its normal rites of passage. 282 Ibid ., p. 211. The Noll quotation is taken from Hankins, note 63, which cites a piece of personal correspondence from Noll to Schaeffer, dated November 3, 1982, with 283 Hankins, Francis Schaeffer p. 216.

PAGE 496

496 Furthermore, despite the overwhelming conclusions of the scholarly community, founding. Schaeffer wanted to separate the American Revolution from the French Revolution whereas Noll saw a much closer relationship between the two compared to the American 284 John Whitehead openly for creating a false history of America in The Second American Revolution again as a non scholar. 285 Marsden, Noll, and Nathan O. Hatch eventually responded The Search for Christian America early America 286 Reformation, the authors saw a country that was the fr uit of a mixed reality, including a contribution from the Enlightenment. firstly concerned with evangelism above all else, Marsden did not feel dismissed even as he and founding came up. he talks about the Renaissance, he means secular humanism. When he talks a bout 284 Ibid ., pp. 216 217. 285 Ibid ., pp. 223. 286 Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989), p 17. An earlier edition was published by Crossway Books in 1983, prior to

PAGE 497

497 the Enlightenment, he means the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution. So he was incapable of having a category of the American Revolution as being a to Samuel R utherford. His set of categories forced him to do that. It [was] made that as a preach er, black and white is more effective, and then that kind of attitude translates very well into fundamentalist politics. 287 Marsden believed that Schaeffer was primarily motivated ideologically (to further the gospel). listic and he had a hard time understanding scholarly cobelligerent. out case from a lawyer affiliated with the ACLU, Marsden overcame his initial reluctance to work with the civil liberties organization when he digested the duali stic framework the Arkansas legislature wished to mandate. He concluded that it was not in the interests of Christianity as I understood it to have such a law, mainly because the law was based on a faulty premise, that is that there were essentially two vi ews, one was naturalistic evolution, the other was young earth creationism. And that simply did not cover the spectrum of all the views that were represented. knew. 288 Still, w hy should creationism seize such public attention at this moment, in 1981? The present work has demonstrated that except for activities on the margin of society (such as Harry s) only a rather small number of conservative Christians, representing a small subset of Americans, paid serious attention to Darwinism between 1925 and the mid 1970s in terms of organizing a mass 287 George M. Marsden, interview with author, August 14, 2012. 288 Ibid

PAGE 498

498 campaign to combat the conclusions of the Enlightenment uni versity. But the 1980s represented the resurgence of conservative politics unlike anything since the 1920s. Since political narratives thrived on the simple dualisms that fundamentalist narratives employed, the creation evolution controversy found new lif e in a new world substantively transformed from the America of Dayton, Tennessee and of William Jennings Bryan. Though the university scientists may have dismissed creationism, Marsden commented on the power of the imagery for fundamentalists struggling to contain modernity and find their own political voices. The creation evolution issue had terrific symbolic weight going back to the Scopes aside from the other political issu this is an issue you can really get people behind. 289 289 George M. Marsden, interview with author, August 14, 2012.

PAGE 499

499 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION In the eyes of fundamentalists and evangelicals, th e dualisms of the twentieth century were abundant. In the era of Machen and Bryan, theological conservatives and theological liberals fought over Princeton Theological Seminary as Machen attacked the New Deal. With coming of Cold War, Carl McIntire relish ed labeling his foes as Communists. With the 1960s story of Francis Schaeffer, one finds an unexpected openness for cultural dialogue from a man restlessness among colleg e people and confusion about authority. But the 1970s for fundamentalists was a period of immense fear about the future and about the progressive transformation of the definition of the family. Schaeffer was not a disciple of Henry Morris, but fell in li ne with other Presbyterians willing to entertain an old earth; nonetheless, in the case of creationists against the religious liberals, the ACLU, and fellow Mache n admirer George Marsden. And with Schaeffer stood Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John Whitehead, and a new generation of rights activists, both fighting the political Left and mirroring its tactics. In the midst of this fracas occurring with the rise of cons ervative champion Ronald Reagan, an old battle between fundamentalists and Enlightenment science reared its head. The Supreme Court had organized a body of decisions to reduce the circus like atmosphere that surrounded Dayton to a methodical, inch by inch surrounding 1980 decided the terms of the engagement between the GOP and Religious Right on one side and Enlightenment science and the political Left on the other.

PAGE 500

500 REFERENCES Books Beale, D avid O. In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 Greenville, South Carolina: Unusual Publications, 1986. Berkman, Michael, and Eric Plutzer. Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity Press, 2010. Bowler, Peter J. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Evolution: The History of an Idea Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of C alifornia Press, 1989. Brinkley, Alan. Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression. New York: Vintage Books, 1983. Bryan, William Jennings. The Bible and Its Enemies Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 192 1. In His Image New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1922. Seven Questions in Dispute New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1924. Carpenter, Joel. Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism New York: Oxford University Press, 1 997. Cesarani, David. Arthur Koestler: The Homeless Mind New York: The Free Press, 1998. Clabaugh, Gary K. Thunder on the Right: The Protestant Fundamentalists Chicago: Nelson Hall Company, 1974. Clark, Harold W. Crusader for Creation: The Life and Writings of George McCready Price Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1966. Cole, Stewart G. The History of Fundamentalism New York: R. R. Smith, Inc., 1931. Cortner, Richard C. The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of R ights: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1981. de Camp, L. Sprague. The Great Monkey Trial. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.

PAGE 501

501 DeWolf, David K., Stephen C. Meyer, and Mar k E. DeForrest. Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook Richardson, TX: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1999. Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008. Falwell, Jerry. Falwell: An Autobiography Lynchburg, VA: Liberty House Publishers, 1997. Flippen, J. Brooks. Jimmy Carter, The Politics of Family, and the Rise of the Religious Right Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2011. Furniss, Norman. The Fundamentalis t Controversy, 1918 1931 New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1954. Gatewood, Jr., Willard B. Controversy in the Twenties: Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Evolution Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969. Gosse, Van, and Richard Moser, eds. T he World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. Gregory, Frederick. Nature Lost: Natural Science and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard Univers ity Press, 1992. Natural Science in Western History Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Hankins, Barry. Francis Schaef fer and the Shaping of Evangelical America Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Hart, D.G. Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994. Himmelstein, Jerome L. To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Hodge, Charles. What is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company, 1874. Hoeveler, Jr., J David. The New Humanism: A Critique of Modern America, 1900 1940. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1977. Hofstadter, Richard. Anti Intellectualism in American Life New York: Knopf, 1963. Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The S truggle to Redefine America New York: Basic Books, 1991.

PAGE 502

502 Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Press, 1997. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education Dow Jorstad, Erling. The Politics of Doomsday: Fundamentalists of the Far Right Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970. Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory, Michal M. Sokal, and Bruce V. Lewestein. The Establishment of Science i n America : 150 Years of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 3 rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Kuyper, Abraham Lectures on Calvinism New York: Cosimo, 2007. LaHaye, Tim. The Battle for the Mind Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1980. LaHaye, Tim, and David Noebel. Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium Nashville: Word Publishing, 20 00. Lambert, Frank. Religion in American Politics : A Short History Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Larson, Edward J. over Science and Religion Cambridge: Harvard Univ ersity Press, 1999. Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution 3 rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Lienesch, Michael. In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution M ovement Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007. Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1993. Lively, Donald E. Landmark Supreme Court Cases: A Reference Guide Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999. Livingstone, David N. Theology and Evolutionary Thought Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1984.

PAGE 503

503 rs: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought Grand Rapids, MI and Edinburgh, Scotland: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and Scottish Academic Press, 1987. Longfield, Bradley J. The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamental ists, Modernists, and Moderates New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Machen, J. Gresham. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1947. The Virgin Birth of Christ New York: Harper and Brothers, 1 930. What is Faith? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Eva ngelicalism Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Martin, William. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America Rev. ed. New York: Broadway Books, 2005. A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story New York: William Morrow Company, 1991. Mathews, Shailer. The Faith of Modernism. New York: MacMillan Company, 19 25. Mayr, Ernst. This is Biology: The Science of the Living World Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997. McIntire, Carl. Twentieth Century Reformation 2 nd ed. Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1945. Mo dern Tower of Babel Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1949. Servants of Apostasy Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1955. The Rise of the Tyrant: Controlled Economy vs. Private Enterprise Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1945. Author of Liberty Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon Press, 1946.

PAGE 504

504 Mencken, H.L. H..L. Mencken, The American Scene: A Reader Edited by Huntington Cairns. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. Miller, Robert Moats. Harry Emerson Fo sdick: Preacher, Pastor, Prophet New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Moore, R. Jonathan. Conservative Christians in the Courts Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishi ng Company, 2007. Muether, John R. Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008. Nelkin, Dorothy. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools New York: W.W. Norton and Company 1982. Noll, Mark A., ed. The Princeton Theology 1812 1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Warfield Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Noll, Mark A., Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden. The Searc h for Christian America Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989. Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design Expanded edition. Cam bridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White New York: Harper and Row, 1976. Price, George McCready. The New Geology: A Textbook for Colleges, Normal Schools, and Training Schools; and for the General R eader 2 nd ed. Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923. Ribuffo, Leo. The Old Christian Right : The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983. Roberts, Jon H. Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859 1900 Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Ruse, Michael. Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies Reading, MA: Addison Wesle y Publishing Company, 1982. Rushdoony, Rousas J. Intellectual Schizophrenia : Culture, Crisis, and Education 1961. Reprint, Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974. Freud Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

PAGE 505

505 This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History 1964. Reprint, Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, 1978. Russell, C. Allyn. Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1976. Sandeen, Ernest. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800 1930 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Sandeen, Ernest. The Origins of Fundamentalism: Toward a Historical Interpretation Philadelphia: Fortres s Press, 1968. Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History 2 nd ed. How Should We Then Live?:The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture Old Tappan, NJ: F leming H. Revell Company, 1976. A Christian Manifesto Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982. Schaeffer, Francis A., and C. Everett Koop, M.D. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979. Sekulow, Jay, and Keith Fournier. And Nothing But the Truth Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996. Smith, John Maynard. The Theory of Evolution 1958. Reprint, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1977. Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty. Unifying Biology: The Evo lutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Staver, Mathew D. Faith and Freedom: A Complete Handbook for Defending Your Religious Rights 2 nd ed. Orlando, FL: Liberty Counsel, 1998. Take Back Ameri ca Orlando, FL: New Revolution Publishers, 2011. Stephens, Randall J., and Karl W. Giberson. The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011. Szasz, Ferenc. The Divided Mind of Prot estant America, 1880 1930. University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1982. Toumey, Christopher P. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994.

PAGE 506

506 Trollinger, William Vance. William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun Brown. Religion and Politics in the United States 6 th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011. Whitehe ad, John W. The Second American Revolution 1982. Reprint, Charlottesville, VA: The Rutherford Institute, 2004. Whitehead, John W., and Wendell R. Bird. Home Education and Constitutional Liberties Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984. Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877 1920. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1967. Wilcox, Clyde, and Carin Robinson. Onward Christian Soldiers?: The Religious Right in American Politics 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2011. Articles Alpern, David M., H Newsweek 97, issue 5 (February 2, 1981): pp. 59 60 and 63. Scientific Research 2, no. 11 (November 196 7): pp. 59 66. The Yale Law Journal 87, no. 3 (January 1978): pp. 517 570. Christianity Today XVIII, no. 11 ( March 1, 1974): pp. 644 651. Evolutionary Studies, 1936 Isis 84 (1993): pp. 1 25. American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 8 (August 1956): pp. 727 730. American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 8 (August 1956): pp. 730 732. The Journal of American History 77, no. 2 (September 1990): pp. 499 524. Newsweek 143, issue 21 (May 24, 2004): pp.45 50.

PAGE 507

507 Hendershot, Heat Right American Quarterly 59, no. 2 (June 2007): pp. 373 396. Horizon 10, no. 2 (Spring 1968): pp. 34 43. Christian Work 117, no. 524 (December 13, 1924): pp. 686 690. The P resbyterian 95, no. 4 (January 22, 1925): pp. 6 7. The Woman Patriot 9, no. 5 (March 1, 1925): p. 39. Princeton Theological Review 24, no. 1 (January 1926): pp. 38 66. American Bar Association Journal 42, no. 8 (August 1956): pp. 723 726 and 793 798. Chemistry and Engi neering News 45, no. 35 (August 21, 1967): pp. 54 66. The Saturday Evening Post 235, no. 35 (October 6, 1962): pp. 22 27. State, and Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3 (1982): pp. 21 31. Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3 (1982): pp. 101 180. Whitehead, John W. Journal of Christian Jurisprudence 3 (1982): pp. 49 99. Parts of Edited Collections Fundamentalisms Observed e dited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, pp.1 65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Adventism in America: A History edited by Gary Land, pp. 36 65. Grand Rapids: Willia m B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

PAGE 508

508 Twentieth Century Shapers of American Popular Religion edited by Charles H. Lippy, pp.256 263. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 195 196. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, p. 298. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Darwin, Sir Charles, Sir Julian Huxley, Harlow Shapley, Adlai Stevenson, Sol Tax, and Irv Evolution After Darwin: The University of Chi cago Centennial Discussions vol. 3, Issues in Evolution edited by Sol Tax and Charles Callender, pp. 41 65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Davis, Edward B. Introduction to The Antievolution Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer vol. 6 of Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903 1961 edited by Ronald Numbers, pp. ix xxviii. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. A Preaching Ministry: Twenty One Sermo ns Preached by Harry Emerson Fosdick at the First Presbyterian Church in the City of New York, 1918 1925 edited by David Pultz, pp. 189 204. New York: The First Presbyterian Church in the City of New York, 2000. America: A New Democratic Order in a Second Gilded The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America edited by Van Gosse and Richard Moser, pp.1 36. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 134. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Organization of Knowledg e in Modern America, 1860 1920 edited by Alexandra Oleson and John Voss, pp. 3 18. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edi ted by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 34 36. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, p. 296. New York: Oxford University Press, 19 99.

PAGE 509

509 The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 84 85. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Oxford Guide to U nited States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 1 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Adventism in America: A History edited by Gary Land, pp. 139 169. Grand Rapids: Wi lliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. Adventism in America: A History edited by Gary Land, pp. 208 230. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 47 58. Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967. Murphy, Paul L. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, p. 106. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Oxford Guide to United Sta tes Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 330 331. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions edited by Kermit L. Hall, pp. 239 240. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Price, George McCready. Q.E.D.; or, New Light on the Doctrine of Creation In Selected Works of George McCready Price edited by Ronald L. Numbers, vol. 7 of Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903 1961 edited by Ronald Numbers, pp. 97 238. 1917. Reprint, New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. Price, George McCready. The Phantom of Organic Evolution In Selected Works of George McCready Price edited by Ronald L. Number s, vol. 7 of Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903 1961 edited by Ronald Numbers, pp. 239 459. 1924. Reprint, New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. Price, George McCready. Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory In Selected Works of George McCready Price edited by Ronald L. Numbers, vol. 7 of Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten Volume Anthology of Documents,

PAGE 510

510 1903 1961 edited by Ronald Numbers, pp. 1 96. 1906. Reprint, New Yo rk: Garland Publishing, 1995. Websites American Center for Law and Justice. mission/about aclj (accessed November 24, 2012.) Center for Science csc/fellows.php (accessed November 23, 2012). (accessed August 3, 2013). Dierenfield, Bruce Engel v. Vitale Supreme Court Collection. 422 17841 935058 (accessed January 17 2011). First Things August/September 2001. passing of r j rushdoony 40 (accessed September 14, 2011). Editorial research reports 1924 DC: CQ Press. (accessed December 29, 2010). Huffington Post. h ttp:// election gop candidates evolution _n_934045.html (accessed September 4, 2013). north/north33.html (accessed September 14, 201 1). c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4213839/k.AF17/Probe_Ministries.htm (accessed July 3, 2012.) Univer sity of Arizona Library. exhibits/udall/ congrept/88th/ 640522.html (accessed January 17, 2011).

PAGE 511

511 Audiorecordings Schaeffer, Francis A. The Change in the Concept of Law in USA Library at Chesterton, IN: Sound Word. CD. 95.2. The Change in the Concept of Law in USA Chesterton, IN: Sound Word. CD. 95.3. Chance and Evolution Part 2 dio Library at Chesterton, IN: Sound Word. CD. 12.1b. Spring 1968. Chance and Evolution Part 3 Chesterton, IN: Sound Word. CD. 12.2a. Spring 1968. Chance and Evolu tion Part 4 Chesterton, IN: Sound Word. CD. 12.2b. Spring 1968. Dissertations Bowling Green State University, 198 4. Government Documents U.S. Congress. Congressional Record 65 th Cong., 2d sess., 1918. Vol. 56, pt. 1. U.S. Co ngress. The Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, and The Committee on Education, House of Representatives. Proposed Department of Education: Joint Hearings Before the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, and The Commi ttee on Education, House of Representatives 69 TH Cong., 1 st sess., February 24, 25, and 26, 1926.

PAGE 512

512 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joshua Baiju Abraham was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1970. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in biology from Yale Uni degrees, in secondary education from West Virginia University in 1996. He worked for four years as a public school teacher in the middle and high school system of North Carolina from 1997 to 2001. As a transitio College in Christian Studies in 2003. His doctoral work in the history of American creationism began at the University of Florida History Department in 2003. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the spring of 2014.