cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable provider. next on american history tv, a panel of scholars discuss the history of evangelicals in american politics, from the early 19th century to present day. topics include prohibition at , and the u.s.ment supreme court case roe v wade. bob jones university hosted this event. it is an hour and a half. togood evening, and welcome bob jones university. formss our first of three on bouncing piety and pragmatism , evangelical and politics. we appreciate you being with us this evening. oure could, let's begin program of the word of prayer. heavenly father, we do thank you for the opportunity that we have here at bob jones university to learn more about our civic

responsibility and the great nation that you have blessed us to be a part of. we do pray for our nation. we pray for our elected leaders. we pray for president obama particularly, has he leads this nation, that you might grant him wisdom, and that your sovereign hand might be directing the .ecisions that he may -- makes we think of the tragedies that have happened recently, the attacks on the well-being of citizens. we pray that you protect the life come and pray that those of us who know you, who live godly lives will be able to influence those horror around us. i pray that we can do that for your glory. we pray that you bless this discussion tonight that we might learn something that would make us more effective citizens. we ask this in christ's name. amen. this evening's panelists, i want to take a few

minutes and set the context and purpose for the tonight's discussion. it is my opinion that believable's -- believers, or evangelicals, should engage in civic responsibilities on the .asis of their faith i hold this opinion for a couple reasons. first, scripture assumes that a follower of christ will seek opportunities for influence. jeremiah,xample, in 29 for seven -- verse seven. those who seek the welfare of the city will cause you to be carried away as captives. frail the lord, for the piece thereof shall you have peace. it is natural for evangelicals to seek opportunities to influence both people and social institutions, including government, because we see that scripture. second, evangelicals engage in

political activity as an outgrowth of their faith, because faith is not simply part of the christian's life, but it is central to his or her identity as a person. evangelicals see themselves as send that as citizens of king -- as citizens of two kingdoms -- an earthly one and a heavenly one. we render unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and we seek those things which are above. responsibility of citizens in this earthly kingdom, we do so in keeping with our identity as followers of christ. the involvement of evangelicals in american politics as evangelicals should come as no surprise. however, the most appropriate ways to carry out this call to influence and to participate in our representative democracy is not always straightforward. sadly, evangelicals have not always exercised this responsibility and wisdom and

meekness. sometimes, we are so enamored of the political power of this world that we become, in the word of cal thomas, why did by mine -- by might -- blinded i might. christians must understand how to carry out specific responsibilities in meekness and in wisdom. it is my hope that tonight's form will accomplish two and -- two ends. first, an understanding of how the individual eagles have -- how the evangelicals have taken part in the american experiment. also, the missteps of evangelicals half that are instructive to our lives today. the format today is simple. after interviews our panelists, i will ask some distance, and involving those questions, we will take time to answer some from the greatbatch from the audience. to ask a question,

make sure you get a card from our volunteers. tonight, we have the privilege of hearing from four distinguished panelists, each bringing a unique perspective to our topic. let me introduce it one of them to you. first of all, carl abrams, who is on your far left. i don't mean anything -- [applause] -- [laughter] political by that, i assure you. dr. abrams is frequently sought by the media as an expert on religion in american culture. ,e is the author of two books

including conservative constraints. he holds three degrees in from bob jones university, an an a from north carolina state university, and a phd from the state university of maryland. dr. jim cooper -- mark cannon -- he has served as furniture for the faculty and radical science department. he initiated for men's intern -- as a specialist in american politics, he recent -- his recent work assessed the effect of religion on the process.

he holds a bachelor of science from the university of wisconsin and a phd from harvard university. centerleft, we have dr. mack, who is the assistant vice president for academics, a professor of history, and the director of cedar mills on her program. he teaches united states history and worldview integration. his research area is 19th-century america, especially the political history of the american civil war in the gilded age -- and the gilded age. his research also includes the role of ohio and its politicians in national politics during the 19th century. yet they be a cedarville

-- he has a ba from cedarville university. is a phdon the right atdidate in american history princeton university. his area of focus is 19th-century american legal institution, both practice and theory, the development of a legal profession, the reform of civil trial practice, the debates over the complication of the common law, and the intersection of american law and american christianity. he recently assumed the position of law clerk chief judge lee at the u.s. district court for the southern district of texas. he has received legal history fellowships from yale law school , the hearst institute at the university of wisconsin law school, the american society for legal history, and he has also

received a legal religious history fellowship from the center for study -- four religious study at princeton. would you please welcome our panelists for tonight? [applause] >> we are going to begin tonight with what might seem like somewhat of a simple western, but i think definitions are very important. i'm going to direct this kellen come and ask them to define what an evangelical is, and how would you distinguish evangelicals and other religious groups? >> thank you for inviting me. thank you for the question, and hopefully we will have about two minutes after i have answered to

have the rest of the panel. it does seem like a simple question, a good question to start off by defining the term where good to be using is the panel and in panels to come. --is also a cool question cruel question for an american religious historian. we debate rather furiously what evangelical means, and who that label applies to. ist of that reason for that that the word evangelical really does not have much meaning until the 20th century. clearly, the evangelicals of the 20th century have their roots going back further. were movements and groups in the 18th and 19th centuries , new by all sorts of names nights, new divinity, , they have all

different personalities and theologies and dame and types of thinking about reform in politics. clearly there were emphases and strands and things held in common among these groups. historians debate whether the term evangelical is appropriate for these groups. one historian of evangelicalism named david bevington has offered four emphases that mark what an evangelical is. these criteria, nobody agrees with. everybody disagrees over whether these are actual emphases, whether all four get together. probably other panelists will want to disagree with it. precisely because everybody wants to argue about it, it is a convenient benchmark to start with.

mark andqualities that is a highl, the first regard for the authority and sufficiency of the bible. the second he calls crucio centrism, which is a fancy way of saying the cross and the theology of the atonement is central to evangelical identity. the third is conversion, the emphasis that individuals ought conversion to the gospel, believing in obedience in the gospel very the fourth , which iss activism not just in the political sense of being politically active, although performing oneself and reforming society is part of activism. it upns especially that to change a person's life, and

that a person ought to be active in changing their life because they have converted and believe the gospel. the four emphases that are suggested to define an evangelical. i should emphasize that they are emphases. the point is not that evangelicals are the only christians who think that the bible is important. these are supposed to be the things that are at the center of evangelical identity, as opposed to a lot of what 19th-century historians would call liturgical s. this would be strands of christianity like catholicism or episcopalian is him -- epi scopalianism, which don't focus on going out in converting people, but are more focused on the sacraments of the church, of worshiping through liturgy, of

gathering around the sacraments, of raising up and waits in the church and not so much -- of raising up families in the church and not so much going out in converting people like evangelicals. from the 19th century to now, which will fill in a low fill-in aefinition -- little more of the definition. basically in the 19th century, you're thinking about evangelical involvement in politics. you find the people that historians would call evangelicals basically on every side of every issue on every side of every political party. maybe there are arguable emphases which we will get to. they are sort of everywhere. they support temperance reform, they oppose temperance reform. aree are evangelicals that

ardently anti-slavery, there are evangelicals who defend the institution of slavery. there are evangelicals who are democrats and republicans and gs and populists in the hole it me of parties that went to the 19th century. there are certain generalizations you can make. baptists along with some of the liturgical's almost always reliably vote democratic, from jackson into the late 19th century democratic party, for reasons we can get into. ande methodists presbyterian evangelicals, calvinists congregationalist, and some of the more respectable gicals, a episcopalian, lutherans, debtor firm -- dutch

reform, they would reliably vote for the whig party. that is a very different story from what happens in the 20th century. in the 20th century, it is no longer that you can sort of divide evangelicals along denominational lines and sort of figure out who was politically active where and who is voting for whom. after the rise of liberal theology and the fundamentalist , as thet controversy fundamentalist movement get started, it is attracting people from across denominational boundaries. methodistinstance, a fundamentalist founded a school that has a lot of presbyterian fundamentalist on staff. anyone know school and talking about? what happens to this fundamentalist movement is people realize that very often,

they have more in common with other fundamentalist across denominational divides than they do with people within their own denomination. a fundamentalist methodist has more in common with a fundamentalist baptist bandwidth necessarily a liberal methodist in his or her own denomination. over the course the 20th century, what starts to happen coalescence across denominational boundaries, culturally and socially with these different movements, also starts to happen politically, where conservative evangelicals are all sort of together on one side of the political spectrum in a way that has not always been true of evangelicals in the 19th century. is broadly referred to as the restructuring of american religion, which is a term coined by a sociologist at princeton.

that leads me to define one more distinction. what is the difference between a -- amentalist the historian of american religion humorously defines a fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry about some -- about something. [laughter] definition,elpful and it points to the fact that fundamentalists, if you are those fourrough emphases i mentioned, a fundamentalist is basically a subset of evangelicalism that has this added point of militancy. especiallyists were ready to take a stand for the gospel and willing to sunder , institutional ties,

denominational ties, with the liberal theologians, and with other evangelicals who were not sundering ties. when it comes to actual history, around the 1950's, it is used by people like really graham -- billy graham. they were using the term evangelical to kind of distance themselves from that militancy point. sometimes people referring to this as new evangelicalism. title isnow if that very helpful, or has any meaning, because really, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are new in the 1950's in significant ways as they are both significantly old in a 1950's. often useerent groups those labels to make sure you know the they are not the other one.

even though they all share those four emphases about what historically marks evangelicals. to bring the story up to today, the political media and political pollsters have no kind of patience for this nuance. there is no break and pulls between how fundamentalist vote and how evangelicals vote, and where pentecostals are on that scale. the popular media, evangelical is used to describe conservative, politically conservative christianity of any kind. often that term is used interchangeably to talk about evangelicals, to talk about the mentalist, to even talk about conservative roman catholics, who in the 19 century would not have fit the category. a long and meandering way to say i have not given you a precise definition, because history does

not give us a precise definition. i think that is part of the helpfulness and usefulness of starting with a panel on the past, and having his panelists to see what the change over time is, and why they matter to what is going on right now. i'm looking forward to hear from the other panelists. >> as i said, what seems to be a simple question about justifying an evangelical. kellen in his answer invited -- i will send this question out to ever wants to jump on it. i think kellen suggested his answer to the question, but when it evangelicals become ,ecognized as a political force or as a political movement historically in the united states.

we point to a particular time when either historians are political scientist have said that evangelicals should be recognized as some sort of a political wars, or some sort of a political movement? >> i would add a working definition to simplify what kellen just laid out for us. the 1920'sntalist in and 30's, they have a simple way of communicating what they meant. they talked about believing in supernatural christianity. got to whatickly they were really all about, which would include what kellen just elaborated on. , don't agree with some of them , and amillennialism debate between militants.

there were other sort of shorthand words that were used. to get to your question, i would argue, and i was surprised by tocqueville,xis de when he came to america in the 1830's and went back and wrote his book, one of the biggest impressions he had about america was the importance of religion that he saw americans. and the way he elaborated on it was in a very positive way, that religion, and he called it "trad religion," which may be suggests evangelicalism. ,t made americans less selfish it made them more civic minded,

it's neutralized individualism, it made them better citizens across the board. for a foreigner to come to america and recognize that there is some traditional and different about american , maybe 1830's is a little early, but he saw something. even if americans were not conscious of their identity, he was aware of it apparently for them. when you think about what is going on politically, he was here during the jacksonian president the -- presidency. despite that, he still saw some very positive things about religion. having more precisely to what kellen said that an evangelical would be somebody who believes in the supernatural , contrasted with or have

somebody of a mainline christian denomination. i want to point the next question to you. tom's expertise as a messenger the electric -- as i mentioned is the best uction involveevangelicals himself politically? important issues, and maybe even some of the key figures that were involved? >> i want to focus on the timeframe that dr. abrams raised , the early 19th century. in that time, we see the second great awakening as the historians refer to it. i want to talk a little bit about the evil -- the

theological roots. it goes our conversation about evangelicals. fromargue there is a link the first great awakening in the theology of jonathan edwards. think there is evidence to say that is correct. i don't pretend to be an expert on it, but i know that he no caps on -- i know that he focused on a key phrase that humans have a natural ability and a human inability. they could do positive things in good works, but their struggle is in there will, and only god can correct that. the reason that that is significant is the influence ,hat had not only at the time and he said that you have to live out the faith and that must be evident how you live your life.

that youalso suggest should give credit to the role of the individual and the justification process. kellen referred to one of the many news that he mentioned. new divinity was only in hopkins and a number of others. they took that a step further, this is where i really see the connection to the second great awakening. they talked about something called disinterested benevolence. in it, they suggest that in order to really demonstrate that , thatderstand who god is you have an appreciation for who he really is, you demonstrate love simply because of who he is, not because he is going to save you or prevent you from going to hell, or bless you in this earthly life, but simply because you wreck is who he is. that comes before faith and believe in the justification process.

the new divinity theologians took that one step further and said that in your christian life, you should do good works, but they refer to it as disinterested benevolence. you do not do good because of the benefit to you, you do it because of demonstrate the love of god. it is a benefit that some bias receives from it. that hit mice is a great deal of the second great awakening. there is more of a second great awakening about theological strains. of a focus onore the role of a human being in the justification process, the ability to choose, to accept, to believe. outle were trying to figure and i of the path chosen by god? there is some that has come out of methodism, the belief that after justification, you can abide -- arrive at a state of relative perfection. that means doing good works, benevolence, trying to improve

society. then you see the logical step to millennialism, the belief that the church is bringing in the kingdom of god. some believe this make them that this nation is the chosen nation to help bring in the millennium. of course, revivalism is part of it. that is sort of the framework out of the second great awakening. this gets your question, which is how they get involved politically. meetscond great awakening -- like charlesiduals , who ared his disciple very focused on temperance and abolition. you see henry beecher, who was andlved in temperance trying to improve the american society that we live in, with a goal of bringing god's law to

bear the community in which they live. abolition, present asylum reform, even education reform, their goal is to create a better society. what i think is intriguing coming from this time. is because as he listened to him, you will see how much it applies to our current moment. finney said this -- the promotion of elegant private order and happiness is one of the most indispensable means of saving souls. in his mind, improving society was not just bringing the kingdom, or just benevolent work, but was actually creating an atmosphere in which the gospel could go forth and we want to emphasize that piece too much of that involvement following this second great awakening. it was driven by the gospel.

this relates to the nomination of individuals to the present e-men are putting nomination for president. how few we talk about the -- ask how few hope to whether there listened to some not. for merrill. you are no more appeared -- moral purity or no moral purity. on a bench l at the it. would reflect upon the character -- i'm evangelical at the time period would reflect upon the character of a politician. >> if you could expand from that , moving into the 20th century again, how did evangelicals involve themselves in the early 20th century on the political scene, and what were some of the key issues or methods of political and ultimate that we saw from you and helical's -- evangelicals? >> the most obvious one is prohibition. getting the 18th amendment.

if you think about it rationally it is a bizarre story. you can get three fourths of the states to stop the manufacture and sale of alcoholic averages. it happened by 1920. , a lot of people think it was just billy sunday and the evangelicals. it wasn't. the evangelicals along with the antislavery campaign basically were part of the mainstream thinking of the day. you have to use your historical imagination and get back into the early 20th century. most americans thought alcohol ban drunkenness was a problem. it wasn't just evangelicals. business people didn't like it

because it affected work. problems with absenteeism and so forth. things like about in new york city, there were 10,000 saloons which we now call bars. problemwas such a big evangelicals were part of middle america, getting the political support to get that amendment. the problem came in when you tried to -- the noble experiment to enforce it. enforcement was the problem. they are a lot of the evangelicals lost that broad base of support which they would need to sustain it. counterintuitive. something i discovered a couple

years ago. if you looked at the 20's and 30's, evangelicals are becoming the greatest supporters of american jews. not just in america but also germany. it shouldn't be that strange when you think about it. they are better informed than most americans about the plight of jews in germany. throughries, and also the periodicals, the plight of the jews in germany. american evangelicals are more a aware of it. sadly some of the support is not because they are enlightened on racial views. many evangelicals were anti-semitic. there were a couple, what really

generates the support for jews is the idea that israel has to be rebuilt. theirpart of epistemology. the prophecy that there will be in israel, and when that is done in that timetable christ will return. part of the enthusiastic support for the jews is to help facilitate that timetable. let's help them. popular among evangelicals at a time when it is not generally known about or supported. >> let's move towards the mid-20th century and perhaps late 20th century.

for some of us it is interesting to be talking about that from an historical perspective. some of us live this time. how do evangelicals, thinking to the 1980's, how did evangelicals involve themselves in politics and social issues? who were the key issues involved in that? say,ving right along as we if you think there is a lot of scholars, theong role of evangelical involvement into the 1980's with the so-called christian right is subject to a great deal of disagreement. who was it and what was it that brought evangelicals into the

process? saying amongld those of us who study, if you have for political scientists in a room and asked them that question there will be at least nine different answers. i'm going to give you briefly some of the answers scholars have suggested. -- they tendo be to see one factor as being the prime or definitive answer as white evangelicals tend to be more involved. one of the first, it is a little , a theory that has a lot of support from a few historians. the cold war did it.

that especially the confrontation between the united union was the soviet something that really got conservative christians concerned about the future of the united states and the future of the world. you saw the appearance of a series of organizations like fred schwartz. i used to go to the crusade meanings. and it was attended by a lot of conservative christians. there are a variety of organizations. some historians solve this and solve this an extension of the mccarthy era. some journalists have revived the notion that evangelicals

especially had a paranoid style. they saw enemies everywhere. they were an important enemy religiously and politically. some people are not doing that paranoid style among americans and religious groups. they use that to explain the evangelical support donald trump has had. islam ornemy is immigrants. thaty case the notion is it is defining and it on it. sometimes it is the enemies of israel. i remember in my little church in wisconsin in the 1950's how excited everybody was with the

establishment of the state of israel. programd watching a called report from the u.n.. it was all of this dealing with the israeli crisis in one way or another. that is one theory. this goes back to the old blind men and the element. -- here is the attack on christian schools and did it. during the 1960's. there was proliferation in many parts of the country of christian schools. beginning in the carter administration. investigaten to determining whether they were simply segregation academies. the carter administration and the reagan administration took

steps to withdraw tax exemptions. everybody here is familiar with that effort. wast of scholars argue that the tripping point for the creation of new christian right organizations. there is some truth to that. they were filled with christian school administrators and others that have some sort of steak in a christian education. another partial peace if you will. other scholars go a different direction. an idea of is familiar to you that it was roe versus wade, that was a motivating force for a great many evangelicals to get involved in politics. they were not the first to move on that. the catholic church reacted much faster and with more force. over time they did respond in

great numbers. abortion have become a major one. it has remained so to the present day. another theory is kind of related, it is the sexual revolution of 1960. indeed in the 1960's on there is local organizations all over the ofntry that deal with issues controlling pornography, trying to prevent prostitution, , recognizingnances gay rights. same-sex marriage, things like that. a lot of scholars see abortion as this --

[inaudible] party -- ublican [inaudible] a low level of voting turnout. activatedt could be by republican politicians. and republican activists and , theyals rather cynically used evangelical protestants as cannon fodder in the electoral wars with the democrats. i think each of these theories had some truth to it. if you look at each of them you find some were concerned with each of these sets of issues. there are others as well.

factor isunderlying not the specific questions or issues or strategy of republican politicians which have to have something to work with but rather the sense that american culture has moved away from their values. i think this is a general feeling that underlies these specific concerns which are often determined by where you happen to be in a particular point in time. which things you are sensitive to. in one way or another the same kinds of concerns underlie the with theary discontent way in which our national institutions are functioning. we are moving away from or dislocating from the historic values evangelical christians and others have held to for a great many years. that is a start.

we will get into more later on. >> i think that is a very compelling overview in the time that we have of tracing evangelical participation in politics going back to the 19th century. something along the lines for the next question, is there a common theme across these many years of evangelical participation in politics six or has it been diverse? an ad and flow to it depending on the era or the issues the nation was facing? how does that relate to affiliation with paul -- political parties. has there been an evan floated that? has there been a dominant theme in terms of evangelicals and their involvement?

or has there been a significant amount of diversity to that? in thoseterested comments. he was speaking, in the 19th century after the second great awakening we see among some of , the involved united states is a chosen nation by god to bring democracy and freedom to the world. we can be a christian nation. we can demonstrate how a nation ought to function. even to the point of some , though not an evangelical, he portrayed american history as this movement of progress toward the great and all. certainly there are a lot of

excellent qualities of democracy. a was almost as if there was divine appointment to head in this direction. there is a consistency among some evangelicals of this fame. while i would critique it, there is a flip side to that. there is certainly a recognition that america is a western civilization. yous predicated on judeo-christian values. were a country that was at least influenced by christian thought and biblical principle. evangelicals have latched onto that and wanted to participate in the system. while i might critique the messianic view of america, i believe evangelicals recognize my faith ought to have a public outworking. ability to express

biblical principle. it would be best for our nation to operate based on it. i think there has been some consistency as the issues changed in terms of their involvement. tendency. >> we look at some data i have analyzed just recently. if you ask americans as a whole whether or not they think the united states has some special role in the world, you don't mention god, whether either united states -- or is united states just another nation in the world of politics? evangelicals above all are still more likely to say the united

states has a special role to play in the world. i can't tell you what they think of that role as being. there is still that special idea we can be a model. we have responsibility for what happens in our world. >> the notion of american exceptionalism. the imagesan, one of or phrases he was known for was america being the shining city on a hill. that particular notion. next, on legal matters. among evangelicals today there is a lot of focus and concern about court decisions. legal matters.

can you talk to us about what particular legal issues have been important to evangelicals from an historical perspective? are there any particular that stand out that would demonstrate that is not unique to the day in which we live now? >> everything. as a legal historian it's my professional duty to say law is everywhere. that is true in the things that we have been talking about. you can't really discuss antislavery or prohibition or christian schools without thinking about the legal dimensions of the legislation and the court cases that inevitably come out of these types of reform movements. blend with the previous

question, i am generally inclined to look at the 19th century. . foreign country they do things different there. think in a church state relations it may be one of those it remains a lost world. an undiscovered world. one of the most fascinating lawes in church state coming from the 19th century, that churches and early american history looked very much like states. you can't go through every denomination. i will focus on the baptists. systemn their own court through the mechanism of having church discipline.

up until around the 1820's in kentucky, if you were a baptist you would go to church on sunday. on saturday you would meet for the discipline session. members would bring forth accusations. brother so when so cursed this week. the deacons would hear the accusations. did you curse? they would get an admission. after examining the evidence they would levy fines which would be paid into the support of the church. if it was a dispute between church members they would mediate, they would reconcile the parties until they were ready to sit together. baptist discipline became so famous for its justice and efficiency that even nonmembers, instead of taking their civil

suits to the territorial courts of the united states would take them to the local baptist church to get you do dictation and would pay for the support of the churches that were being run. this, one of the leading points of evangelical the elegy was always the question of jurisdiction. who is best equipped and competent to be enacting social reform or another? were of evangelicals who on the whig side were working in these benevolent societies, sending of petitions to get things done. kind ofe rejecting that approach and saying if you want to get social reform done you convert people, bring them into the church and the church

discipline processes will work into antislavery or all of these various reforms you are trying to get out. just to briefly survey why they go away, part of it is american diversity. the diversity of evangelicals out there, especially when the disciples of christ come to kentucky. they are very much like baptists. you can go next door or sometimes in the same building and worship with the disciples of christ. a matter ofo longer evangelizing them to bring them into the church because they are evangelicals. how do you reach them? what is the proper mechanism for

getting social reform? that is when you see them increasing the turn to states or federal power to overcome these problems. that feature of the 19th century of churches, their own governance is a part of the history that starts to fade away over time. largestportant for the subgroup of evangelicals in the country, black or african-american evangelicals who are slaves before the civil war or friedman afterwards. engagementlitical was not open to them until after the civil rights revolution. type of governments i surveyed often wise. , youu own your own church had your own incorporation. black evangelicals

who could not sue in their own name in the court because they were black could sue is a church , because the church had a legal identity. the church could collect on debts or i enforce property rights. that is part of the history of how law and governance has related and politics over time. path.have focused on the -- the past. i want us to take a few minutes before we have questions from the audience to think about how the past, this history relates to the present. perhaps we can spend a few minutes talking about how the involvement of evangelicals

today and politics, whether it be through the legal branch, the legal realm or otherwise. how involvement differs from the past? what would evangelicals be surprised about? today in terms of how they go about civic responsibilities in the public sphere? who wants to take a stab at that one? >> william jennings bryan would think he is in a lost a century probably. ofyou look at the profile who was a fundamentalist hero at the scopes trial. he is one of the most fascinating characters which use our, drives us to historical imagination to fair

how he could be all of these things. evangelical.fist, he was a progressive. he was anti-imperialist. mind he could put all of those things together. my take on it is he was post-millennial. reform thed, you world and things get better and back., then christ comes you engage in all of those things. it doesn't work with the millennium. alcohol doesn't work with the millennium. you want to get that is a reform. you do all of these things. looking at his life is a lesson

in how complex evangelicals can be. the non-evangelicals who often look at us look at us as monolithic. but we are not. sometimesreat variety within the individual even. >> you suggest that complexity exists today. >> even today. climate the current expect monolithic views. because they are not there typically. commentsstruck by his about the baptist church operating the way it did. it reminded me how important the church was in society. it was an institution that was respected. the church functioned in a nation appreciated.

institutions that tie this country together our churches. and henry to break clay, a senator from kentucky, he said of the pastors can't get together have you expect politicians to get along? clay is no evangelical. his reputation was anything but. he makes an important point that resonated with people. towe bring some evangelicals this point in time they would yourand ask how is it that faith, what you believe is impacting how you are looking at issues? why isn't the church a major

player in the conversation? believehat what you allows you to arrive at the position you have come to with regard to anything you have chosen. they weren't pursuing a governmental solution. they were trying to solve them on their own. they would probably react to that. the bible teaches that allows you to arrive at this conclusion? i think there would be some questions. anything that is easy to do but he used the example of prohibition. one of the things historical talks about, what a glorious failure that was. if you look at the evidence of american drink, and the social and physical ills, that was an

obvious target. i think that tells us, be careful of obvious targets. sometimes the obvious target is one you should not shootout -- shoot at for a variety of reasons. it was successful because of why cooperation. sometimes they are not inclined to cooperate with other people of different backgrounds. of her just tond be humble about our choices. our choices of allies. allies who we want to be associated with or not? those are tough questions. being farf them of

too easy. issues are easy targets. they are not easy decisions. i did not mean to cut you off. with your response, you anticipated the question i wanted to end with. is, what lessons are there from history, for evangelicals today? can point to the presidential election. we heard a lot of questions because therecals was a strong affiliation with the republican party and the inevitable supporting of the republican candidate.

there have been questions about what to do. there from thee , for today? whether it involves specifically this presidential election or the general political landscape? ?hat lessons should we take , or successes they have taken in the past? what wonderful advice to you have for our audience out here? >> i will start out. as citizens we all made choices. -- evangelicals have voted republican.

several% in the last presidential elections, which raises the question, are you evangelical or are you republican? or are you both? one of the real risks is idolatry. we come to see candidates of a particular party or a particular candidate. valuesng maybe the right or right policy prescriptions. we come to get close and we identify that candidate with the cause of christ which i think is a fundamental error. >> with that particular answer, it earlier into opening remarks. if you are a student, a citizen

and you have not read cal toma'' entitled blinded by might recounting their leadership role in the moral majority of the 1980's, i highly recommend that. they get into this issue of the tendency among some evangelicals to make involvement in politics and supporting particular candidates as a form of idolatry. what other lessons? >> some of the basic things we need to remember. freedom of speech is very important when you think about preaching the gospel. but theit for granted

continuity in american history, 19th century until today, the important issues. freedom of speech and religious liberty, continuing to focus on that. they are so obvious. sometimes we forget. >> i'm often reminded in today's world the first amendment does not simply protect the right to hold certain beliefs but actually to behave, to act upon them. ofdeals with the exercising religion and not just holding that believe. the freedoms that are afforded in this country which we would want protected for people of diverse viewpoints is very important. >> going back to my previous evangelicalsuating

, i think they would want to encourage evangelicals in this country to reassert the role the church wants played -- once played, not by following society or culture. it is providing something distinctive in the culture. the point i was getting at, maintaining the theological matters,n of what maintaining a christian approach to that. a lot of students have asked recently how do you evaluate candidates in this particular election. the vote from the previous election, 15-17% voted for president obama. as opposedin favor

to anti-romney. evangelicals say they would vote for secretary clinton. 20% said it was an anti-trump vote. i understand that. you doestion to them as need to pay attention to what the parties stand for. it doesn't meet the candidates don't matter. but when you've got candidates that have issues on both sides -- problems on both sides, the platforms matter. the president is not an absolute dictator. there are some boundaries left. hopefully the parties can keep them accountable the platforms they stand on. and i encourage people to vote even when they are frustrated. >> we had an air of politics

-- we have moved toward a culture centered politics. the importance of parties is good advice. word forve the last this part. >> i am thankfully relieved of anything ofo say politics. >> here is the neat thing. some of the legal issues we have talked about, slavery and temperance, the decision of whether these reforms can be carried out, or whether you need some kind of state mechanism to reach them, the reason a lot of

evangelicals in the 19th century , there isthe state often a clear antislavery logic behind the turn to politics. reasons that the you go out and evangelize and then discipline people in the church. one of the reasons that failed was because slavery was such a totalizing system. you could not evangelize the slaves without the permission of the slave master. evangelizingd time the slave master with the restrictions put on the males with all of the difficulties of travel after gradual emancipation. if you were a good evangelical in massachusetts, that felt guilty about the sin of slavery

in your country because you recognized your clothes were labor,tured by slave there wasn't anything you could do to reach that, even through evangelical means. this is the formation of an anti-slavery politics. people can always leave and go find a church that will support what they are doing. if you look at the evangelical reform, they follow on the same logic. samebition is likened to a -- slave holder. you can never actually appropriately reach someone with the gospel if they are in slave to alcohol and never have that capacity for choice.

prostitution, anti-gambling measures follow along the same logic. impression that the 19th century was this time when christians were making the law of god the law of the land and that is just how it worked. of there are quite a lot things that don't end up in the legislature. they were regulated there he highly the colonial era. don't have this anti-slavery logic to them. if you commit adultery it is evidence you have choice. you're making poor choices. you are not enslaved. there doesn't need to be a politics or law that is going to free you from anything.

you just need to stop making bad choices. slaverytion, gambling, are tied to this idea of slavery through slaveholding. there has to be some temporal power that can break those chains. how much of that logic has hung on into the 20th and 21st oftury, or what is the logic evangelical reform? it is a question i get asked without answering. questions take some from the audience. if you can pass them to the aisles. we will have some individuals pick them up.

we will start with this particular question. it was one i thought might come up. why do you believe evangelical political groups like the moral majority in the christian at oneon were so strong point and then headed into virtual extinction? >> i think there are several answers to that. they were two personality centered. personality centered organizations usually don't

survive the political or the real demise of the founder. it is hard to make that sociological transition. all those organizations because of their association with recognize leaders of particular segments didn't have much attraction for other segments. jerry falwell attracted baptist bible fundamentalists and that was about it. lots of people on his mailing list but it never was much of an organization. pat robertson did extend far and other directions. that tends to be a pattern. onse organizations depend the voluntary subscriptions of individuals. one of the things many of these organizations like organizations

on the left have to take extreme positions in order to raise money. we know the direct-mail fundraising can emphasize divisive, highly combustible rhetoric. if you do that you limit your appeal across the broader community and you're likely to wear out your welcome even with the enthusiasts who support you. there are a whole variety of things like that. you tend to attract hostile attention of the media and groups on the other side of the spectrum. that is usually not very help full. >> he mentioned the court case roe v wade as motivation for

some evangelicals. could others have similar effects such as prayer and bible reading, or just a similar liberal court blanket idea? why are you all looking at me? the fascinating things about the school prayer and bible reading decisions is that these were actually a pair of decisions evangelicals were all over the map on. do with the has to particulars of the case. the prayer that was struck down washe 1960 prayer decision this written out, prescribed prayer in new york. prayer,t a spontaneous it was this card that they read to the benevolent creator of

.ife when the supreme court struck it rejoiced andntyre said this is no prayer at all. turned when the same sort of logic was applied to striking down bible readings. restricted in most goals. if you remember bible reading in the school your memory may vary on how it was carried out in different localities. even their there were evangelicals who disputed about whether that did any good to read the bible without any actual interpretation, whether that constituted an active

worship or not. not a fan of was that decision. the bible is in fact the bible and the word of god. that did mobilize evangelicals. probably more than roe v wade would. that tended to have consequences that were rolled out later down the road. he was receiving hundreds of death threats a day from people upset about these decisions and evangelicals who didn't necessarily commit death threats. mailing anything to the supreme court is incredibly rare. they don't get mail. to get hundreds of decisions was unimaginable before it happened.

>> i have lived in massachusetts at the time of the decision. read there was the dewey version of the bible. catholics were reading their own version. i have done some work on the public support. evangelicals were not very distinctive. everybody was opposed to the decision in terms of the mass public. i'm not sure how much that the stin distinguished evangelicals. i have a more new wants to view on how much that got things going. >> we have several good questions here. here's a thoughtful one. to make us stop and think. is freedom of religion and speech to the

vitality of evangelicalism. -- you have answered questions already. [laughter] >> there is no question. -- god works in lands of persecution to prosper his church. inview on this has always the american church and the liberties it has allowed it to evangelize and share the gospels in ways the persecuted church cannot. it is to our detriment we have not valued the freedoms we have in ways that allow the church to grow and prosper the way we see in some persecuted countries.

but i think we have to be good stewards of what we have at the moment. it is difficult for me to encourage the church to sit by and watch as freedoms dissipate and not seek to prevent that from happening. not only here but around the world. i get the point. god works in all circumstances and in times of persecution. i would pray the american church do what it ought to be doing in ,ime of freedom and liberty those freedoms seem to be closing in on us. i'm a believer in the concept that in a republican system which we have, it dictates the scripture about the role applies to us. if romans 13 suggests we have a role in justice, a role in our

government there is a certain stewardship responsibility to maintain what our governing documents maintain which is the constitution, the opportunity for us to have religious liberty. it's not only a preference of much isat to whom given much is required. >> it's a very thoughtful question, based upon your answer it is almost implying a false choice between the two involved there. >> the best answer would be a theological one, not necessarily a political one. there is great and suffering. going through the experience of suffering, religious persecution grace,a means of

which would allow you to be more fervent. worldview,vangelical god's power surpasses any human power in terms of limitations that might be artificially placed on the gospel. >> you look at church history and you see good examples. the first century onward. millsthe philosophy of adversely affected the development of evangelical political values, did the greatest good argument argue evangelicals to ignore the moral failings of candidates that they support? >> bits gets into the theme of these forums, balancing pious he and pragmatism.

as a citizen of two different kingdoms, -- >> that is not a complete thought. we are talking about a political system which is a human institution that involves human beings. there are not going to be perfect solutions. we have to make difficult choices. sometimes that demands shrewdness. i deman use that rather than compromise. the challenge for us as christians is recognizing there are some absolute principles upon which we are not willing to compromise and that makes being involved in the situation challenging for us. my grandfather used to say moderation and everything. it is not a biblical principle. there is some application to our political system.

we have to make difficult choices or not -- or remove ourselves from the system. voting forhat means individuals we know our fallen. in the history of evangelicals, something remarkable happened. a lot of evangelicals were very anti-catholic. late 1930's they figured something out. the catholics figured out. they had a common enemy, communism. this was before the cold war. the common denominator of anti-communism drove fundamentalists and catholics to work together. before would not speak to each other. of findingter good

something that was anti-religious and atheistic and violent, those differences between two different groups of christians didn't seem as important. >> that has been a theme throughout history. evangelicals in christian the purity ofing the gospel, but then looking for areas where there might be cooperation, appropriate and societal kinds of issues. rightld be easy to end now since we have two minutes left. this is a good question. is a dicey one to end on. can you comment on the term liberalism. what is religious liberalism?

is it the same as political liberalism? are the two related? you have 30 seconds. [laughter] anybody want to tackle that question? to give anry empirical answer to it. is aious liberalism phenomenon we are familiar with, deviation from traditional orthodoxy. is it related to political liberalism? yes, it is in american politics. are more liberals likely to be a political liberals. now, the connection is not always clear. , itt is a particular set may be that they simply go together because they represent some underlying bigger

phenomenon of liberalism of all sorts. is the the restructuring conformity of religious religious -- there are lots of people who violate those rules but they are central tendencies and political science. >> anything to add? >> you can have a similar discussion about the word conservative and whether there of been a conflation conservative the elegy with conservative politics and if there is a logical relation between them. the history of evangelical news evangelicalism, there wasn't a relation between those two.

there were very few ideas that were conservative politically, even as he was conservative the -- theologically. where was i going with this? i guess that is one question of history that moves from the 19th century. how did it become a way a conservative the elegy would become tied to what was known as the conservative politics? >> you get the last word this evening. would you join me in thanking our panelists? [applause] i want to thank each one of you for being here tonight. i encourage you to come back

october 13 in stratton hall for next panel, where our focus will be on the present. panelists will have the dunn,sor at bju, charles who i believe is here tonight. a retired from clemson university, also grown city college. and finally a professor at furman. again, thank you for being here. you are dismissed. [chatter] >> you are watching american history tv, all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation like us on facebook at the same -- at

cpsnahistory -- c-span history. >> john demos leads a class on the americas in the colonial era. he explores how indian, european, and african populations converged and exchanged germs, food, ideas, and cultural practices. this is about one hour and 20 minutes. prof. demos: yesterday our topic was discovery. today it's going to be plantation. but there is something else that sort of bridges the two that we should not pass over without comment. and the headline for it would be quite simply conquest. thte