throughout our history, americans have always fought side in defense of their country , since the first days of the waslution when the country forming, through the past 160 years, the bill johnson's of today have fought and died to bring victory to our audience. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching "american history tv," all weekend every weekend on c-span3. >> 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 christian leader henry lord beecher, prohibition, and the 18th amendment, and the u.s. supreme court case roe v wade. bob jones university hosted this event. it is an hour and a half. >> well, good evening, and welcome to bob jones university. and the series of the first of three forms on bouncing piety -- balancing piety and pragmatism, evangelical and politics. we appreciate you being with us this evening. if we could, let's begin our program of the word of prayer. heavenly father, we do thank you for the opportunity that we have here at bob jones university to learn more about our civic responsibilities and the great nation that you have blessed us to be a part of. we do pray for our nation. we pray for our elected leaders. we pray for president obama particularly, as he leads this

nation, that you might grant him wisdom, and that your sovereign hand might be directing the decisions that he makes. we think of the tragedies that have happened recently, attacks on the well-being and even life of many citizens. we pray that you protect the life come and pray that those of us who know you would live godly lives will be able to influence those horror around us. i pray that we can do that for your glory. we pray that you bless this discussion tonight that we might learn something that would make us more effective citizens. we ask this in christ's name. amen. before i introduce 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 believers, or evangelicals, should engage in political activity or civic responsibilities on the basis of their faith commitment.

i hold this opinion for a couple reasons. first, scripture assumes that a follower of christ will seek opportunities for influence. this is just one example, in jeremiah 29:7, god instructs his people to seek the welfare of the city where i have caused you to be carried away as captives. pray to the lord, for the piece -- peace thereof shall you have peace. it is natural for evangelicals to seek opportunities to influence both people and social institutions, including government, because we see that in scripture. second, evangelicals engage in political activity as an outgrowth of their faith, because faith is not simply part of a christian's life, but it is central to his or her identity as a person. evangelicals see themselves as citizens of two kingdoms -- an

earthly one and a heavenly one. we have responsibilities, some of which are distinct in both kingdoms, we render unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and we seek those things which are above. as we carry out responsibilities of citizens in this earthly kingdom, we do so in keeping with our identity as followers of christ. so the involvement of evangelicals in american politics in american politics as , evangelicals, should come as no surprise. knowing, however, the most appropriate ways to carry out this call to influence and to participate in our representative democracy is not always straightforward. sadly, evangelicals have not always exercised this responsibility and wisdom and in meekness. sometimes, we are so enamored of the political power of this world that we become, in the words of cal thomas and ed thompson, blinded by might.

in a world where evangelicals are increasingly pressured to keep their faith in their private life and away from the public sphere christians must , understand how to carry out specific responsibilities in meekness and in wisdom. it is my hope that tonight's forum will accomplish two ends. first, an understanding of how evangelicals have taken part in the american government will be expanded. also, the missteps of evangelicals of the past that are instructive to our lives today. our format tonight is simple. after interviews our panelists, -- after i introduce our panelists, i will ask some questions, and then following those questions, we will take time to answer some from the audience. if you want to ask a question, make sure you get a card from our volunteers. if you don't have one, you could slip your hand up really quickly and our volunteers can get you one of those cards. tonight, we have the privilege

of hearing from four distinguished panelists, each bringing a unique perspective to our topic. and let me introduce each one of them to you. first of all, carl abrams, who is on your far left. i don't mean anything - [laughter] political by that, i assure you. first is dr. carl abrams, professor of modern and european history here at bob jones university. dr. abrams is frequently sought by the media as an expert on religion in american culture. he is the author of two books, selling the old-time religion, american fundamentalist in that culture from 1920 21940, and conservative constraints, north carolina and the new deal. dr. abrams holds three degrees in history, a ba from bob jones university, an ma from north carolina state university, and a

phd from the state university of maryland. additionally he said studied at the -- he studied at the sorbonne in paris. and then dr. jin -- jim guth, who is on your far right, he is the william r junior science university professor. he has served as furniture for the faculty and the political science department. in 1998 he initiated washington's intern program, which sent over 1000 students to washington. as a specialist in american assessed dr. guth the effect of religion on the process. dr. guth holds a bachelor of science from the university of wisconsin and a phd from harvard university. and then in our center left, we have dr.

mach who isr. tom from cedarville university. he teaches united states history and worldview integration. his research area is 19th-century america, especially the political history of the american civil war in the gilded age. he was selected to attend the american history seminar on the gilded age sponsored by the larry institute of american history and the council of independent colleges posted by stanford university. his research also includes the role of ohio and its politicians in national politics during the 19th century. fromach holds a ba cedarville university, and a phd from university of ohio at akron. finally on the right is kellen funk.

he is a phd candidate in american history at princeton university. his area of focus is 19th-century american legal institutions both practice and , theory, the development of a legal profession, the reform of civil trial practice, the debates over the complication of the common law, and the intersection of american law and american christianity. he recently assumed the position of law clerk for chief judge lee rosenthal at the u.s. district court for the southern district of texas. mr. funk has received legal history fellowships from yale law school the hearst institute , at the university of wisconsin law school, the american society for legal history, and he has also received a legal -- religious history fellowship from the center for religious study at princeton. mr. funk holds the ba in history and a ma for church history here and a phd from yale law

school. would you please welcome our panelists for tonight? [applause] we are going to begin tonight with what might seem like somewhat of a simple question, but i think definitions are very important. so i'm going to direct this kellen and callan -- ask him to define what an evangelical is, and how would you distinguish evangelicals from other religious groups? kellen funk: thank you for inviting me. thank you for the question, and hopefully we will have about two minutes after i have answered to have the rest of the panel. it is it does seem like a simple , question, a good question to start off by defining the term that we are going to be talking about for the panel and then in panels to come.

but it is also a very cruel question for an american religious historian because historians debate rather furiously what evangelical means, and who that label applies to. and part of that reason for that is the word evangelical really didn't have much meaning until the 20th century. but clearly, the evangelicals of the 20th century have their roots going back further. there were movements and groups in the 18th and 19th centuries known by all sorts of names, pietists, , revivalists,ity they have all different personalities and theologies and aims and types of thinking about reform in politics. but clearly there were emphases and strands and things held in common among these groups.

and so historians debate whether , the term evangelical is evangelicalism is appropriate for these groups. one historian of evangelicalism named david bevington has offered four emphases that mark what an evangelical is. and these criteria, nobody agrees with. everyone disagrees over whether these are actual emphases, whether all for go together, whether there should be more than probably other panelists four. will want to disagree with it. but precisely because everybody talks about it and wants to argue about it, it is a convenient benchmark to start with. --bevington's for qualities four qualities, the first is -- the first is a high

regard for the authority and sufficiency of the bible. the second he calls crucio centrism, which is a fancy way of saying the cross and the theology of the atonement is central to evangelical identity. the third is conversion, the emphasis that individuals ought to be choosing conversion to the obedience tof in the gospel. and the fourth category is activism, which is not just in the political sense of being politically active, although reforming oneself and reforming society is part of activism. it means especially that it up -- the belief and conversion ought to change a person's life, and that a person ought to be active in changing their life because they have converted and believe the gospel. so these are the four emphases that are suggested to define an evangelical. i should emphasize that they are

emphases. the point is not that evangelicals are the only christians who think that the bible is important. not on the first point. these are supposed to be the things that are at the center of evangelical identity, as opposed to what a lot of 19th-century historians would call liturgicals as opposed to evangelicals. this would be strands of christianity like catholicism or or a biscoe -- or a piscopo -- 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. so let me sort of sketch a

timeline of the 19th century to now, which will let me fill in a little more of the definition. basically in the 19th century, when you are thinking about evangelical involvement in politics, you find the people that historians would call evangelicals basically on every side of every issue on every side of every political party. maybe. maybe there are arguable emphases which we will get to. they are sort of everywhere. evangelicals that support temperance reform, evangelicals that oppose temperance reform. there are evangelicals that are ardently anti-slavery, there are evangelicals that defend the institution of slavery. there are evangelicals that are democrats and republicans and whigs and populists in the hole -- and the whole list of parties

that went to the 19th century. there are certain generalizations you can make. and those generalizations tend, in the 19th century, to run along the national line, where challenge illegals, along with some of the liturgicals almost always catholic, almost always reliably vote democratic, from jackson into the late 19th century democratic party, for reasons we can get into. while along -- methodists and presbyterian evangelicals, calvinists congregationalist, and some of the more respectable liturgicals at that time episcopalian, lutherans, debtor , -- dutch reform, they would reliably vote for the whig party and then are later involved in the republican party after they evolved from the whigs. that is a very different story from what happens in the 20th century. in the 20th century, it is no longer that you can sort of divide evangelicals along denominational lines and sort of

figure out who was politically active where and who is voting for whom. after the rise of liberal theology and the fundamentalist modernist controversy, as the fundamentalist movement get s started, it is attracting people from across the denominational boundaries. that, for instance, a methodist fundamentalist found a school that has a lot of presbyterian fundamentalist on staff and a lot of baptist fundamentalists attending the stick -- attending the students. anyone know the school i am talking about? [laughter] what happens to this fundamentalist movement is people realize that very often, they have more in common with other fundamentalists across denominational divide than they do with people within their own denomination. a fundamentalist methodist has a lot more in common with a

fundamentalist baptist than necessarily a liberal methodist in his or her own denomination. and over the course the 20th century, what starts to happen coalescence that crosses denominational boundaries, culturally and socially with these different movements, also starts to happen politically, where conservative evangelicals all sort of our together on one side of the political spectrum in a way that has not always been true of evangelicals in the 19th century. this is referred -- this thesis is broadly referred to as the restructuring of american religion, which is a term coined -- coined term by bob with low a , sociologist at princeton. so briefly that leads me to define one more distinction. hopefully the state has been set. what is the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelicalist, for the purposes of this discussion?

the historian of american religion george morrison humorously defines a fundamentalist as an evangelical who is angry about something. [laughter] kellen funk: which, he means it humorously, but it is a helpful denniston -- definition. if you are picking through the historical labels -- a fundamentalist is basically a subset of evangelicalism that has this added point of militancy. fundamentalists were especially dedicated to take a stand for the gospel for those for info sees -- four emphases and willing to sunder ties, with the liberal theologians they felt at ends with. theologian comes to

actual history, around the 1950's, it is used by people like billy graham and the editor of christianity today. they were using the term evangelical to kind of distance themselves from that militancy point. sometimes people refer to this as new evangelicalism. i don't know that that title is very helpful, or has any meaning, because really, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are both new in the 1950's in significant ways as they are both significantly old in the 1950's in significant ways. what happens from that point onward is these different groups, fundamentalists and evangelicals often use those , labels to make sure you know the they are not the other one. even though they all share those four emphases i mentioned about what historically marks evangelicals. now bring the story up to today, the political media and political pollsters have no kind

of patience for this nuance. right? there is no break and pulls between how fundamentalists vote and how evangelicals vote, and where pentecostals are on that scale. in the popular media, evangelical is often just used to describe conservative, politically conservative christianity of any kind. and often that term is used interchangeably to talk about evangelicals, to talk about the -- talk about fundamentalist to , even talk about conservative roman catholics, who, in the 19th century, would not have fit in the category at all as fundamentalists use it. a long and meandering way to say i have not given you a precise definition, because history does not give us a precise definition. but i think that is part of the helpfulness and usefulness of starting with a panel on the panelistshaving these

here to think through what the change over time is, and why they matter to what is going on right now. so thank you again for inviting me. i'm looking forward to hear from the other panelists. so, as i said what , seems to be a simple question about defining what an evangelical is is complicated. kellen in his answer invited discussion on this, so i want to send out this next question to the entire panel, whoever wants to jump on it. i think kellen suggested his answer to the question, but when did evangelicals become recognized as a political force, or as a political movement historically in the united states? can we point to a particular time when either historians or political scientists have said that evangelicals should be recognized as some sort of a political force or some sort of a political movement?

anybody? >> i would just add a working definition to simplify what kellen just laid out for us. for fundamentalists in the 1920's and 1930's, they had a simple way of communicating what they meant. they talked about believing in supernatural christianity. that very quickly got to what they were really all about, which would include what kellen just elaborated on. one other thing that they would add, some of them -- i don't agree with them -- but some of them would add premillennialism, and there was a big debate between, is militant the answer or is it premillennialism? there were other sort of shorthand words that were used. to get to your question, i would argue that and i was surprised source, it is a very odd

to start with, but alexis de tocqueville, when he came to america in the 1830's and then went back and wrote his book, one of the biggest impressions he had about america was the importance of religion that he saw in americans. and the way he elaborated on it was in a very positive way, that religion, and he called it as it was translated, "traditional religion," which may be suggests evangelicalism. he is talking about traditional religion. it made americans less selfish, it made them more civic-minded, yet neutralized individualism, -- it neutralized individualism, it made them better citizens across the board. and so, for someone a foreigner

, to come to america and recognize that there is some traditional and different about american religion, maybe 1830's -- the is a little early, but he 1830's saw something. even if americans were not conscious of that identity, he was aware of it apparently for them. and when you think about what is going on politically, this is he , was here during the jacksonian presidency. despite that, he still saw some very positive things about religion. [laughter] are adding ao you more precisely to what kellen said that an evangelical would be somebody who believes in the supernatural, the new birth specifically contrasted with or , have somebody of a mainline christian denomination. that is a characteristic of an evangelical. tom, i want to appoint the next question to you.

we are going to trade this historically now. tom's expertise as i mentioned in the introduction is the best history.ury u.s. how did evangelicals of the 19th century involve themselves in politics? what were the important social and political issues that were important to them, perhaps even some of the key figures that were involved? tom mach: there is a lot i want to talk about. i want to focus in on the time frame 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 theological roots of the second great awakening. it goes our conversation about evangelicals. some historians argue there is a link from the first great awakening and the theology of jonathan edwards.

there is some compelling evidence to say that is correct. there is a lot to edwards' focused, and i know he on a key phrase that humans have a natural ability and a human inability. he meant humans have a natural ability to do positive things and good works, but their struggle is in there will -- their will and only god can , correct that. the reason that that is significant is the influence that had not only at the time, because he was addressing ,oncerns about antinomianism after your justification, you have to live out the faith. it must be evident in how you leave your life -- live your life. he would give far too much credit to the justification process -- to the individual in the justification process. kellen referred to one of the many news that he mentioned. the new divinity was the next

generation of edward ian's -- edwardians. they took that step further, and this is where i see the connection to the second great awakening. they talked about something called disinterested benevolence. in it, what they suggest that in is that in order to really demonstrate that you understand who god is, that 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 world this earthly life, , but simply because you recognize who he is. edward said that comes before faith and believe in the justification process. the new divinity theologians took that one step further, and they said in your christian life, then you should do good , works, but they refer to it as disinterested benevolence. you don't 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

-- somebody else receives from it. this epitomizes a great deal of the second great awakening. there is more of a second great awakening about theological strains. there is an armenian strain in the second great awakening. certainly more of a focus on the role of a human being in the justification process, the ability to choose, to accept, to believe. for many, it was relieving the anxiety trying to feel like if i am predestined, those chosen by god? there is some that has come out of methodism, the belief that after justification, you can arrive at a state of relative perfection. for the second great awakening, that meant doing good works, benevolence, trying to improve society. and then, you see the logical step to the third area, which is millennialism, the belief that the church is bringing in the kingdom of god. and for some of them -- we'll get to this later perhaps -- they believe they chose a nation to help them bring in that

millennium. this nation being united states, which is a tough topic and went through a lot of the country's history. of course, revivalism is the message then. that is sort of the framework out of the second great awakening. this gets your question, which is how they get involved politically? the second great awakening was the age of reform. you see individuals like charles finney and his disciple, who are who are dwight will , very focused on temperance and abolition. you see henry beecher and lyman, lyman's son who was involved in , temperance and trying to improve the american society that we live in, with a goal of bringing god's law to bear the in the community in which they lived. temperance, abolition, present -- prison and asylum reform, even education reform, their

goal is to create a better society. what i think is intriguing for our -- period,rom this time because you see how much they apply to the current moment. finney said this on social involvement. the promotion of elegant private order and happiness is one of the most indispensable means of saving souls. so in finney's mind, improvement wasn't just bringing in the kingdom or benevolent works but also creating an atmosphere in which the gospel could go forth , and i really want to emphasize that piece to much of the following involvement following this second great awakening. it was driven by the gospel. this is more telling for our time period, and it relates to the nomination of individuals to presidency. how few we talk about the voters, how few hope to -- ask whether there listened to some not. for virtue or no virtue moral

, purity or no moral purity. it is a small affair for most voters. periodicals at the time , they would reflect upon the moral character of the candidate . that is coming up quite a lot in this election. carl, if you could extend 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 >> 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. -- beverages. it happened by 1920.

the key there is 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 and 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. and the violence that came with it. if you think about things like

in new york city in 1900, there were over 10,000 saloons, which we now call bars. alcohol was such a big problem evangelicals were part of middle america, getting the political support to get that amendment. the problem came in the 1920's when you tried the noble experiment to enforce it. enforcement was the problem. there, i think, a lot of the evangelicals lost that broad base of support which they would need to sustain it. this is more counterintuitive. something i discovered a couple years ago. if you looked at the 20's and 30's, evangelicals are becoming slowly the greatest supporters of american jews. not just in america but also

in places like 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. missionaries, and also through the periodicals, the plight of the jews in germany. american evangelicals are more a -- are more aware of it than most americans are aware of it at the time. 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. it is part of premillennialism,

it is part of their eschatology. this is before 1948. 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. zionism is 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 actually lived this time. -- this time period.

how do evangelicals, thinking to the 1980's, how did evangelicals involve themselves in politics and social issues? who were some of the key figures involved in that era? >> moving right along as we say, if you think there is a lot of discussion about how to define evangelicals among scholars, the role of evangelical involvement into the 1980's with the so-called new christian right is subject to a great deal of disagreement. who was it and what was it that brought evangelicals into the process? there is an old saying among those of us who study, if you have four 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. unfortunately, people tend to be mono causal.l -- they tend to see one factor as being the prime or definitive answer as white evangelicals -- as why evangelicals tend to be more involved. one of the first, it is a little a theorye this period , that has a lot of support from a few historians. i could summarize it by the labeling theory the cold war did it. that especially the confrontation between the united states and the soviet union, the godless communist, was something that really got conservative christians concerned about the future of the united states and the future of the world.

in that period, you saw the appearance of a series of organizations like fred schwartz and the anti-communist crusade. i used to go to the crusade meetings. those meetings were attended by a lot of conservative christians. there are a variety of other organizations. some historians solve this as -- saw this as an extension of the mccarthy era. evangelicals especially, but -- christians in general, but 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 level of evangelical support donald trump has had. now the enemy is islam or perhaps mexicans or perhaps immigrants from elsewhere. is thatase, the notion it is somehow defining an opponent that has activated evangelicals over the years. sometimes it is the enemies of israel. carl pointed out how important israel was in the political thinking in the 1940's and 50's. i remember in my little church in wisconsin in the 1950's how excited everybody was with the establishment of the state of israel. i started watching a program called report from the u.n. it was all of this dealing with the arab-israeli crisis in one way or another.

that is one theory. this goes back to the old blind men and the element. -- and the elephant, or maybe it is the blind scholars and the elephant. the trunk is the cold war did it. is the attack on christian schools did it. during the 1960's, there was proliferation in many parts of the country of christian schools. beginning in the carter administration, the irs began to investigate 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. a lot of scholars argue that was the tripping point for the creation of new christian right organizations.

there is some truth to that. a lot of the early christian right organizations were filled with christian school administrators and others that ke in ame sort of sta christian education. other scholars going of -- go a different direction. that roe versus wade was a motivating force for a great many evangelicals to get involved in politics. evangelicals were not the first to move on that. the catholic church reacted much faster and with more force. over time, evangelicals did respond in great numbers. by the 1980's, the issue of abortion have become a major -- had become a major one. it has remained so to the present day.

another theory is kind of related, it is the sexual revolution of the 1960's. indeed in the 1960's on there is a steady increase in local organizations all over the country that deal with issues of controlling pornography, trying to prevent prostitution, prohibit ordinances, recognizing gay rights. more recently, we have had mobilization against same-sex marriage, things like that. a lot of scholars see abortion as part of this [inaudible] >> the republican party --

[inaudible] a low level of voting turnout. values that could be activated by republican politicians. and republican activists and officials rather cynically, they used evangelical protestants as cannon fodder in the electoral wars with the democrats. i think each of these theories has some truth to it very -- 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. the basic underlying factor is 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. what local issues are, which things you are sensitive to. in one way or another the same kinds of concerns underlie the contemporary discontent with the 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.

jim, at the end of your answer, you suggested something along the lines for the next question, is there a common theme across these many years of evangelical participation in politics, or has it been diverse? has there been an ad and flow to and flow to it, depending on the era or the issues the nation was facing? how does that relate to affiliation with political parties? has there been a dominant theme in terms of evangelicals and their involvement? or has there been a significant amount of diversity to that? tom? >> i'm interested in those comments. when i was thinking about as he

was speaking, in the 19th century after the second great awakening we see among some of those involved in the reform movement, the sort of opinion that the united states is a chosen nation by god to bring democracy and freedom to the world. sort of a continuation of the puritan ideal of being a model for the rest of the world. we can be a christian nation. we can demonstrate how a nation ought to function. even to the point of some suggesting, though not an evangelical, he portrayed american history as this got ordained movement of progress toward the great and all -- end all. must a divine appointments to head in this direction. there is a consistency among

some evangelicals of this theme. while i would critique it, there is a flip side to that. there is certainly a recognition that america is a western civilization. it is predicated on judeo-christian valleys -- values. certainly we 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. and bring biblical principle to bear in the public square. while i might critique the messianic view of america, i believe evangelicals driven by their theology recognize my faith ought to have a public outworking. i have the ability to express biblical principle. since it is truth, it would be best for our nation to operate based on it. why don't i pursue it in the public square? i think there has been some

consistency as the issues changed in terms of their involvement. there has been some consistency. >> 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 in connection about it, just whether it united states had a special world -- a special role, or is the 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. nevertheless, 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. >> strongest among evangelicals. >> ronald reagan, one of the images or phrases he was known for was america being the shining city on a hill. that particular notion. kellen, maybe you 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 that perhaps is not unique to the day in which we live right now question -- right 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 , the regulation, and the court cases that inevitably come out of these types of reform movements. to blend with the previous question, i am generally inclined to look at the 19th century as a lost world, or a foreign country. they do things different there. i am less inclined to season of

the strongest continuities that maybe some others are more willing to the -- to see. i think a church state relationship may be one of those areas where it remains a lost world. an undiscovered world. one of the most fascinating issues in church state law coming from the 19th century, that people don't really recognize today, is that churches in early american history looked very much like states. you can't go through every denomination. i will focus on the baptists. they ran their own court system 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.

they would say brother so and 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 over property and contracts to the territorial courts of the united states would take them to the local baptist church to get you do -- adjudication, and would pay a pine -- a fine for the support

of the churches that were being run. so, in light of this, one of the leading points of evangelical baptist theology was always the question of jurisdiction. who is best equipped and able and competent to be enacting social reform or another? a lot of evangelicals who were not baptists who were on the whig side were working in these benevolent societies, sending of -- sending in petitions to congress to get things done. a lot of baptists were rejecting that kind of 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. get at.hat --

,art of that is the diversity the diversity of evangelicals out there, especially when the disciples of christ come to kentucky. they are very much like baptists. if you are brother so and so with a cursing problem, you can go next door or sometimes in the same building and worship with the disciples of christ. then it is no longer a matter of evangelizing them to bring them into the discipline of the church, because the disapproval's -- the disciples of choice -- of christ are evangelicals. how do you reach them? what is the proper mechanism for getting social reform? that is when you see them increasingly turn to states or federal power to overcome these problems. i would say that feature of the

19th century of churches, their own governance is a part of the history that starts to fade away over time. it is important for the largest subgroup of evangelicals in the country, black or african-american evangelicals who are slaves before the civil edmen afterwards. a lot of political engagement was not open to them until after the civil rights revolution. the type of governments i surveyed often was. church,wned your own you had your own incorporation. very often black evangelicals who could not sue in their own name in the court because they were black could see was a could sue as a

church, because the church had a legal identity. the church could collect on debts or in enforce property rights. i think that is an important part of the history of how law and governance has related and -- related within evangelical politics over time. >> we have focused on the past. form coming up, we will focus on the present. 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 , whether it becs through the legal branch, the legal realm or otherwise. how involvement differs from the past? what would evangelicals be

surprised about? today come in terms of how evangelicals 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 -- in a lost century, probably. if you look at the profile of who was a fundamentalist hero at the scopes trial. if you start digging into his background, he is one of the most fascinating characters which makes us, drives us to use our historical imagination to figure out how he could be all of these things. he was a pacifist, a fundamentalist, and evangelical. he was a progressive. he was anti-imperialist.

how in his mind he could put all , my takengs together on it is he was probably in terms of eschatology post-millennial. so you build, you reform the world and things get better and better, then christ comes back. you engage in all of those things. war doesn't work with the millennium, slade have to be antiwar -- so you have to be antiwar. alcohol doesn't work with the millennium. you want to get that as 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.

there is great variety sometimes within the individual even. >> you suggest that complexity even exists today. >> even today. don't in the current climate expect monolithic views. because they are not there typically. >> i was struck by his comments 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. it was an institution that functioned in a fashion the nation appreciated. you see other evidence of this in the 19th century as we head towards the civil or era -- civil war era. one of the institutions that tie this country together our churches.

when they split apart over slavery, they begin to break and henry clay, a senator from kentucky, he said of the pastors -- if the pastors can't get together, how do you expect politicians to get along? henry clay is no evangelical. his reputation was anything but. he makes an important point that resonated with people. if we bring some evangelicals to -- evangelicals from the 19th century to this point in time they would look and ask how is it that your faith, what you believe is impacting how you are looking at issues? why isn't the church a major player in the conversation? how is it that what you believe 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. more importantly, what is it the bible teaches that allows you to arrive at this conclusion? i think there would be some questions. >> this is not anything that is easy to do but he used the example of prohibition. one of the things historical literature 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 shoot at for

a variety of reasons. another example coming out of prohibition, the only reason it was successful was because of wide cooperation among evangelical protestants and a bunch of other folks. sometimes they are not inclined to cooperate with other people of different backgrounds. those things kind of urge us to be humble about our choices. our choices of allies. we are to look at our allies -- we ought to look at our allies -- are these the allies who we want to be associated with or not? those are tough questions. we think of them of being far too easy. something we can just make up our minds about. issues are easy targets. with, are going to work that is another easy decision to make. they are not easy decisions. >> i did not mean to cut you off.

jim, with your response, you anticipated the question i wanted to end with. that is, what lessons are there from history, for evangelicals today? my sense is we can point to the presidential election. we heard a lot of questions among evangelicals because there was a strong affiliation with the republican party and the inevitable supporting of the republican candidate. there have been questions about what to do. what lessons are there from the past, for today? whether it involves specifically

this presidential election or the general political landscape? what lessons should we take? whether that be based upon missteps they have taken in the past, or successes they have taken in the past? do younderful advice have for our audience out here? >> i will start out. as citizens, we all make choices. we have to -- evangelicals have in recent years voted republican. about 80% in the last several 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 who we identify with as having maybe the right values right religious affiliation 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, and for any students i have out here, this will probably come as no surprise, i alluded to it earlier in opening remarks. if you are a student, a citizen and you have not read cal toma''

book, 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. i would highly recommend that book to you. what other lessons? >> some of the basic things we still need to remember -- freedom of speech is very important when you think about preaching the gospel. we take it for granted but the continuity in american history, 19th century until today, the important issues of 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. it deals with the exercising of religion and not just holding that belief. 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 comment, even -- evaluating evangelicals and the 21st century, i think they would want to encourage evangelicals in this country to reassert the role the church 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 evaluation of what matters, maintaining a christian approach to that. a lot of students have asked recently how do you evaluate candidates in this particular election. a recent pew survey showed that if you compare the vote from the previous election, 15% to 17% voted for president obama. most voted in favor as opposed to anti-romney. 15% of evangelicals say they would vote for secretary clinton. 12% of them said it was an anti-trump vote. i understand that.

my suggestion to them is you do need to pay attention to what the parties stand for. it doesn't meet the candidates -- does not mean the candidates do not 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 to the platforms they stand on. there is room and i encourage people to vote even when they are frustrated. of party an era politics that shifted more toward candidate centered politics, and today i would suggest we have moved toward a culture centered politics. the importance of parties is

good advice. kellen, it sounds like you have the last word for this part. >> i am thankfully relieved of being able to say anything of 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 through evangelism and church discipline, or whether you need some kind of state mechanism to reach them, the reason a lot of evangelicals in the 19th century turned to the state mechanisms, there is often a clear antislavery logic behind the turn to politics.

that's one of the reasons that 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. you had a hard time evangelizing 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 manufactured by slave labor, your industry and terrorists were all funded by slave labor, tariffs were all

funded by slave labor 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, the ones that are most successful follow on the same logic. prohibition is likened to a slave holder. out is the slave master. you can never actually appropriately reach someone with the gospel if they are a slave to alcohol and never have that capacity for choice. prostitution, anti-gambling measures follow along the same logic. impressione the mis

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. but there are quite a lot of things that don't end up in the legislature. adultery and blasphemy and these were regulated very highly in the colonial era. those all of the board in the 19th century, partly because they 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 have that coalition. volition. 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. prostitution, gambling, slavery are tied to this idea of slavery through slaveholding. there has to be some temporal

power that can break those chains. i guess the question is how much of that logic has hung on into the 20th and 21st century, or what is the logic that drives evangelical reform? it is a question i get asked without answering. >> we will take some questions from the audience. if you can pass them to the aisles. we will have some individuals pick them up. we will take about 10 to 15 minutes to answer some of these questions.

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 -- and the christian coalition were so strong at one point and then headed into virtual extinction? >> i think there are several answers to that. they were too personality centered. they were started by falwell, robertson. 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

recognized 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 mostly attracted charismatics, and did not extend far in other directions. that tends to be a pattern. these organizations depend on 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. if you are doing that, you tend to attract hostile attention of the media and groups on the other side of the spectrum. that is not usually very help all. -- helpful. >> he mentioned the court case roe v wade as motivation for some evangelicals. could other liberal supreme court decisions be thought to have similar effects such as prayer and bible reading, or just a similar liberal court blanket idea? why are you all looking at me?

>> one of the fascinating things about the school prayer and bible reading decisions in the 1960's is that these were actually a pair of decisions evangelicals were all over the map on. part of that has to do with the particulars of the case. the prayer that was struck down in the 1960 prayer decision was this written out, prescribed prayer in new york. it was not a spontaneous, from the heart prayer that teachers were allowed to offer. it was this card that they read to the benevolent creator of life. when the supreme court struck it down carl mcintyre rejoiced and said this is no prayer at all. get this out of the schools.

the tide turned when the same sort of logic was applied to striking down bible readings. which was very restricted in most schools, where it was reading ace -- reading a passage, often from the king james bible, without comment. if you remember bible reading in the school your memory may vary on how it was carried out in different localities. even there, there were evangelicals who disputed about whether that did any good to read the bible without any actual interpretation, whether that constituted an active -- act of worship or not. carl mcintyre was not a fan of that decision. unlike the prayer in new york, the bible is in fact the bible and the word of god.

that did mobilize evangelicals. i think probably more than roe v wade would. that tended to have consequences that were rolled out later down the road. justice black, who was instrumental in these 1960's opinions, he was receiving hundreds of death threats a day from people upset about these decisions, and also just critical mail from 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 letters about a decision every day was unimaginable before it happened. >> i have lived in massachusetts at the time of the decision. the bible was read there was the dewey version of the bible. catholics were reading their own version. i have done some work on the

public support or opposition to that. evangelicals were not very distinctive. mainline protestants and catholics -- everybody was opposed to the decision in terms of the mass public. i'm not sure how much that the -- distinguished evangelicals. i have a little bit more nuanced 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. how is sent so should we view of religion and freedom of speech to the vitality of a american evangelicalism, given that the greatest growth of christianity is occurring in countries where those freedoms are nonexistent? maybe callan and jim are off the hook on that one, since you have

answered questions already. [laughter] >> there is no question. persecution -- god works in lands of persecution to prosper his church. my view on this has always been that the american church and the liberties it has 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. because of the benefits they do provide to us in sharing the gospel, 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 time of freedom and liberty, as 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 -- the 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 belief that to whom much is given much is required. it is also stewardship and responsibility that i think scriptures give to us. >> 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. it is something this generation does not want to hear, but there suffering, and going through the experience of suffering, religious persecution can be a means of grace, which would allow you to be more fervent. >> and an evangelical worldview, 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. >> has the philosophy of mills utilitarianism adversely affected the development of evangelical political values, did the greatest good argument allow evangelicals to ignore the moral failings of candidates that they support? >> i think this gets into the theme of these forums, balancing piety and pragmatism. does pragmatism play a role in the evangelicals participation question mark 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 who have fallen. there are not going to be perfect solutions. we are put in a situation where we have to make difficult choices. sometimes that demands shrewdness. i use that word rather than compromise, although our clinical system is predicated on the notion of 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 system rather challenging for us. my grandfather used to say moderation in everything. it is not a biblical principle. but there is some application to our political system. we have to make difficult choices, or completely remove ourselves from the system. i find that challenging. sometimes that means voting for

individuals that we know our fallen -- are fallen. >> in the history of evangelicals, something remarkable happened in the 20's. a lot of evangelicals were very anti-catholic. by the 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. people that before would not speak to each other a decade before. in the greater good of finding 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 ministry guarding the purity of the gospel, but then looking for areas where there might be cooperation, appropriate and -- in societal kinds of issues. it would be easy to end right now since we have two minutes left. this is a good question. maybe it 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?

>> i will try to give an empirical answer to it. religious liberalism is a phenomenon we are familiar with, deviation from traditional orthodoxy. is it related to political liberalism? it is not the same thing. but is it related? yes, it is in american politics. religious liberals are more likely to be a political liberal. now, the connection is not always clear. particular set, it may be that they simply go together because they represent some underlying bigger phenomenon of liberalism of all sorts. part of the restructuring is the conformity of religious orthodoxy with mark conservative

political positions and religious liberalism with more liberal political positions. there are lots of people who violate those rules but they are central tendencies in political science. >> anything to add? >> you can have a similar discussion about the word conservative and whether there has been a conflation of conservative theology with conservative politics and if there is a logical relation between them. the history of evangelical news -- evangelicalism in the 19th century was that there was not necessarily a relation between those two. with william jennings bryan, who had 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 into the 20th century is how did it become a way a conservative theology 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 at 7:00 in stratton hall for next panel, where our focus will be on the present. -- panelists will be a professor at bj you, charles dunn, 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. americane watching history tv, all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation come like us on facebook at seized and history. -- at c-span history. >> each week, american history tvs american artifacts takes you to museums and historical places ev