was my favorite kind of governor. presidentthat ran for and lost. >> al, you are right. a campaign can require wardrobe changes. lou genes in the morning, suits for lunch entrees are, sport coat for dinner. it is nice to where would we wear around the house. >> watch the out smith memorial foundation dinner with hillary clinton and donald trump thursday night on c-span and c-span.org. listen and 9:00 pm eastern with the c-span radio app. next on american history tv, a panel of scholars discusses the history of evangelicals and 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. gary weier: well, good evening, and welcome to bob jones university and the series of the first of three forms on balancing piety and pragmatism, evangelical and politics. we appreciate you being with us this evening. if we could, let's begin our program tonight with a 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. and we pray that those of us who know you would live godly lives will be able to influence those 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 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 in exile to seek the welfare of the city where i have caused you to be carried away as captives. pray to the lord, for the peace , or the welfare 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 an era 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

their civic 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 engaged 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 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're interested in asking a question make sure you get a , card from our volunteers. if you have not already done that. 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 american 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 -- in mass culture from from 1920 to 1940," 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. in addition, he studied at the sorbonne in paris.

the university of north carolina capitol hill. and harvard divinity school. and then dr. jim guth, who is on your far right, he is the science professor at furman university. he has served as the chair for political university and initiated the washington intern program, which has sent over 1000 furman university students to washington. as a specialist in american politics, dr. guth assessed the effect of religion on the process. and on public policy in the clinton, bush, and obama administrations. 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. tom mach who is from cedarville university. he is the assistant vice president for academics, a

professor of history, and the director of the cedarville honors program. he teaches courses in 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 institute ofn 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. dr. mach holds a ba from cedarville university, and a phd from university of ohio at akron. finally, center right, is kellen funk. he is a phd candidate in the jacobistory in and fellow 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 codification 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 jd 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 question to kellen and 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, new lights, new divinity, new measure, revivalists, which had all different personalities, types ofs, aims, and thinking about reforms in politics. clearly, there were emphases and strands and things held in common among these groups. and so, historians debate

whether the term 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 go together, whether 4 there should be more than 4. probably other panelists 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. so bevington's four qualities, that mark and evangelical, the first is bobo schism -- bibli cism. 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 gospel, belief in obedience to 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 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 , which don'tsm focus on converting people the way the revivalists dead and are more interested in the sacramental lives of the church. 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 doing that soul winnings that evangelicals talk about. 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. century,, in the 19th 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 denominational lines. , alongt evangelicals with liturgical's like catholics, almost always reliably vote democratic, from jackson to the late 19th century democratic party, for reasons we can get into. while methodists and presbyterian evangelicals, calvinist congregationalists, maybeepiscopalian, lutherans and dutch reform, fairly 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 gets 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 as 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 have 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

is the same coalescence that crosses denominational boundaries, culturally and socially with these different movements, also starts to happen politically, where conservative evangelicals all sort of our -- sort of are 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 by a sociologist at princeton. so briefly that leads me to define one more distinction. hopefully, the stage 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 definition. it points to the fact that fundamentalists, if you are thinking through the historical ,abel of evangelicalism fundamentalism is a subset of a pointcalism that has of militancy. fundamentalists were especially dedicated to take a stand for the gospel for those four emphases and willing to sunder ties, with the liberal theologians they felt threatened those emphases and other evangelicals who were not sundering ties with those theologians. the term evangelicalism comes into action and actual history around the 1950's when eddie's

-- 1950's when 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 in the same way they are very 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 in polls between how fundamentalists vote

and how evangelicals vote, and where pentecostals are on that scale. today, 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 fundamentalists, even to talk about conservative roman catholics, who, in the 19th century would not have all 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 past, and having these panelists 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 hearing from the other panelists. gary weier: so, as i said, what seems to be a simple question about defining what an evangelical is, when you look at it from historical perspective, 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? carl abrams: 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? is that what they are all about? there were other sort of shorthand words that were used. to get to your question, i would argue that and i was surprised by this, it is a very odd source 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, 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 the 1830's is a

little early, but he 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] gary weier: so you are adding a 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 trace this historically now.

tom's expertise, as i mentioned in the introduction is the best , 19th century u.s. history. how did evangelicals of the 19th century involve themselves in politics? what were the significant social or political issues important to them? perhaps even some of the key figures 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. the 1820's, 1830's, 1840's. 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. they are many and they are ferried. -- our varied. 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' theology, and i know he focused

on a key phrase that humans have a natural ability and a human -- and a moral inability. he meant humans have a natural ability to do positive things and good works, but their struggle is in 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 concerns about antinomianism, his response to that was after christ, afterow your justification, you have to live the faith. they must be evident in how you live your life. too muchsuggest far credit was given to the individual and the justification process. kellen referred to one of the many news that he mentioned. the new divinity was the next generation of edwardians. they included bellamy, a

hopkins, and many others. they took that a step further and this is where i see that connection to the second great awakening. they talked about something called disinterested benevolence. in it, what they suggest that in order to really demonstrate, that you understand to god is, that you have 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. edwards would teach that love comes before faith and belief in the justification process. in the new divinity, theologians took that further. they said in your christian life, you should do good works. they referred 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. you do it because of the and if it that someone 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 figure out, am i part of the 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 -- a belief that this nation is the chosen nation of god to bring in that millennium. being the united

states, which runs through a lot of the country's history. 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. sometimes referred to as the benevolent empire, taking us back to disinterested benevolence. you see individuals like charles finney and his disciple, theodore dwight will, who are 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 in the community in which they lived. that manifested in temperance, abolition, prison and asylum reform, even education reform, their goal is to create a better society. what i think is intriguing for our -- coming from this time

period, because you see how much they apply to the current moment. finney said this on social involvement. the promotion of elegant private -- promotion of public and 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 social and political involvement following the 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 -- ask to inquire if they are licentious or not. whether they are for virtue or no virtue moral purity or no , moral purity. it is a small affair for most voters.

evangelicals at the time period, they would reflect upon the character of the candidate. it is a question that is coming up quite a bit in the current election. gary weier: 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 -- in the political scene. what were the key issues or methods of political involvement we saw among evangelicals? >> the most obvious one is prohibition. getting the 18th amendment. it is almost like if you think about it rationally, it is such a bizarre story. that you could get 347 the states -- get three fourths of the states to stop the manufacture and sale of alcoholic averages. it happened by 1920. with the 18th amendment. the key, 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. again, you have to use your historical imagination and get 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. -- it affected the health of their workers, problems with absenteeism, so forth. the violence that came with it. in new york city in 1900 there were 10,000 saloons, which we now call bars. alcohol was such a big problem

that evangelicals were part of middle america in getting the political support to get the amendment passed. 1920'sblem came in the when you tried the noble experiment to enforce it. enforcement was the problem. they thought it was the problem. they are, a lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists lost the broad base of support, which you needed to sustain it. this is more counterintuitive, something i discovered a couple of years ago. if you look at the 1920's and slowly arengelicals becoming 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, because they are better informed than most americans about the plight of jews, for example, in germany through missionaries and the .eriodicals the plight of jews in germany, i think american evangelicals 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. unfortunately, many evangelicals were anti-semitic. especially, couple, what really generates the support for jews is the idea that israel has to be rebuilt. it is part of pre-millennialism. it is part of their epistemology. this is before 1948.

the prophecy that there will be an israel. 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 protect them, let's help them. zionism is popular among evangelicals at a time when it is not generally known about or supported. gary 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 did evangelicals in the mid-20th century, up to the late 20th century thinking to the , 1980's, how did evangelicals involve themselves in politics

and social issues? who were the key issues involved -- key figures involved in that era? >> moving right along as we say, if you think there is a lot of discussion among defining evangelicals among scholars the , 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? there is an old saying among 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. people tend to be mono causal. to see one being the definitive answer as to why evangelicals are more involved in american politics in the 1970's in the 1980's with the appearance of christian right organizations of all sorts. one of the first, a little bit supporthis period, has by a few historians and political scientists. i would summarize by labeling the theory "the cold war did it." that especially the confrontation between the united states and the soviet union was 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.

a christian anti-communism crusade. i used to go to the crusade meetings when they were in milwaukee, wisconsin near where i lived. attended bygs were a lot of conservative christians. there were a variety of other organizations as well. this as anians saw extension of the mccarthy era of the early 1950's. 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 level of evangelical support donald trump has had. is long, ormy is perhaps immigrants them elsewhere. in any case, the notion is that somehow it is 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 of the 1940's and 50's. i remember at my church in wisconsin in the 1950's how excited everyone was with the establishment of israel. i watched a program called report from the when -- from the u.n. in the early 1950's because it was dealing with the israeli crisis in one way or another. that is one theory.

this goes back to the blind men and the elephant, or the blind scholars and the elephant. the attack on christian schools did it. during the 1960's there was proliferation in many parts of christiany, in schools. beginning in the carter administration, the irs began to investigate schools to determine if whether they were simply "segregation academies." the carter and reagan administrations took steps to withdraw tax exemptions. everyone here is familiar with that effort. a lot of scholars argued if that was the tripping point for the creation of new christian right organizations. there is some truth to that.

with christiand school administrators and others with a stake in a christian education. peace if youal well. other scholars go a different direction. they argue an idea that is familiar to many of you that it was ae v wade that motivating force for evangelicals to get involved. evangelicals are not the first to move on that. the catholic church reacted much faster and with much more force initially. over time, evangelicals responded in great numbers. in the 1980's, the issue of abortion is a major one. a matter of concern to many conservative christians and has remained so. another theory related to the third one is that it is the 1960'srevolution of the

where the most important factors motivated evangelicals. from the 1960's on, there is an increase in local organizations all over the country dealing with issues of controlling pornography, trying to prevent prostitution, prohibit ordinances, recognizing gay rights. and more recently, we have had mobilization against same-sex marriage and things like that. a lot of scholars see abortion as 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 had some truth to it. if you look at each of them, you find evangelicals were concerned with each of these sets of issues. there are others as well. the basic underlying factor is not so much the specific questions or issues or strategy of republican politicians which have to have something to work with, but rather the sense among conservative christians 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, i think the same kinds of concerns underlie the contemporary discontent with the way in which our national institutions are functioning. that 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 it 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. 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? flowhere been an ebb and 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 in politics and social issues? or has there been a significant amount of diversity to that? tom? >> i'm interested in those comments. i agree with him. what 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 this opinion that the united states is a chosen nation by god to bring democracy and freedom to the world. it is a continuation of the puritan theme of being a model to 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 suggestion, i remember a great historian though not an , evangelical, he portrayed american history as this -- god-ordained movement of progress toward the great and all. certainly there are a lot of excellent qualities of democracy. it was almost as if there was a divine appointment for america to head in this direction. i do think there is a consistency among some evangelicals of this fame. -- 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 certainly predicated on judeo-christian values. we can debate the notion of a christian nation all night. we don't need to do it. 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 a system and bring biblical principles to bear in the public square. while i might critique the messianic view of america, i also believe evangelicals recognize my faith ought to have a public outworking. and i have the opportunity in democracy to express biblical principle. it would be best for our nation to operate based on it. so why don't i pursue it in the public square? i think there has been some consistency as the issues evangelicals changed in terms of their involvement.

there has been some consistency through time. >> [indiscernible] some data i have analyzed 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 they have some special role, or is united states just another nation in the world of politics? evangelicals above all other religious groups 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. or that we have responsibility for what happens in our world. >> the notion of american exceptionalism.

>> strongest among evangelicals. and think of 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 turn to you next on legal matters. , among evangelicals today there is a lot of focus and concern about court decisions. and legal matters. could 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 particularly 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 , regulation, and the court cases that inevitably come out of these types of reform movements. to blend some of this answer with the previous question, as an historian, 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 see some of the strong continuities others are more willing to see. relationsurch-state

may be one of those places where the 19th century remains a lost world. and in some ways, an undiscovered world. i think one of the most fascinating issues in church law coming from the 19th century that people don't 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. the baptists 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 or every other saturday, you would meet for the discipline session. members would bring forth accusations. brother so-and-so cursed this

week. the deacons would hear the accusations. they would examine the accused. did you curse? they would get an admission. evidence,ining the 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 down at communion with each other. 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 adjudication and even pay in fines for the support of the churches that were being run. so, in light of this, one of the leading points of evangelical

baptist political theology was always the question of jurisdiction. who is best equipped and able and competent to be enacting a given social reform or another? a lot of evangelicals who were not baptist on the whig side were working in these benevolent societies, sending of petitions into congress to get things done. a lot of evangelicals on the baptist side 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 their way out into antislavery or all of these various reforms you are trying to get at. just briefly survey why these things 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. but they do not run these discipline sessions. 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 and escape the discipline system. then it is no longer a matter of evangelizing them to bring them into the discipline of the church because the disciples of christ are evangelicals. and the people are converted. then you have this difficult question of, how do you reach them? what is the proper mechanism for getting social reform? that is when you see a lot of evangelicals increasingly turn to states or federal power to overcome these problems. i would say that feature of the 19th century of churches as their own site of governance is

an important part of the history that starts to fade away over time. it is also especially important for the largest subgroup of evangelicals in the country, black or african-american evangelicals who are slaves before the civil war or friedman -- freed men afterwards. a lot of political engagement was not open to them until after the civil rights revolution. the type of governance i surveyed often was. if you owned your own church, 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 sue as a church, because the church had a legal identity. the church itself could collect on debts or enforce property rights what christians could not

otherwise assert in the courts, the legislature, or in these other political arenas. i think that is an important part of the history of how law related innce have politics over time. >> we have focused on the path. -- the past. our next forum 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 today in politics, whether it be through the legal branch, the legal realm or otherwise. how involvement today perhaps differs from the past. what would evangelicals of the past 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? >> i think probably someone like william jennings bryan would think he is in a lost century probably. if you start looking at the profile of who was a fundamentalist hero at the scopes trial, but if you start digging into his background, i think 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, fundamentalist evangelical. , he was a progressive. for that day, it would be the word liberal we would use now. he was anti-imperialist. in his mind, he could put all of

those things together. my take on it is in terms of eschatology he was 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 so you have to be antiwar. alcohol doesn't work with the millennium. you want to get back 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. it may look a little different. >> even today. don't in the current climate don't expect monolithic views. because they are not there typically. >> tom? >> 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 the church functioned in a fashion society appreciated. you see other examples of this in the 19th century as we head toward the civil war era. one of the institutions that tie this country together our -- are the churches. the vines begin to break. henry clay, a senator from

if the pastorsid can get together, how can you expect politicians to get along? significant henry point. clay is no evangelical. his reputation was anything but. but he makes an important point that resonated with people. it seems to me if we were to bring some 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? first of all, why isn't the church a major player in the societal conversation? second of all, how is that what you believe allows you to arrive at the position you have come to with regard to whatever political issue you want to choose. they weren't pursuing a governmental solution. they were trying to solve them

on their own as private institutions. he did a good job of explaining how that transitioned to government. they would probably react to that. more importantly, they would ask what is it the bible teaches , that allows you to arrive at this conclusion? i think there would be some questions. >> very interesting. >> this is not anything that is easy to do but he used the example of prohibition. one of the things most of the historical literature talks about, what a glorious failure that was. but 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 out of

prohibition, the only reason it was successful was because of widespread cooperation of evangelicals and sometimes they are not inclined to cooperate with other people of different backgrounds. those kinds of things urged us to be humble about our choices. our choices of allies. our choices of issues. we ought to look at our allies and say, are these the allies who we want to be associated with or not? those are tough questions. they are not easy questions. we often think of them of being far too easy. issues are easy targets. and who we are going to work with 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 inevitability of supporting the republican candidate. there have been questions about what to do in this particular presidential election. all of that to say, what lessons are there from the past and evangelicals' participation in politics for today? whether it involves specifically this presidential election or the general political landscape?

what lessons should we take from evangelicals and their approach in the past for today? whether that be based on missteps in the past or successes they have taken in the past? what wonderful advice do you have for our audience out here? >> i will start out. as citizens, we all make choices. we have to make choices. evangelicals in recent years have voted republican. about 80% in the last several presidential elections, which raises the questions about are , you evangelical or are you republican? or are you both? one of the real risks we run is idolatry. we come to see candidates of a

particular party or a particular candidate we identify with as having maybe the right values, religious affiliation, or policy prescriptions. we come to get too close and identify that candidate with the cause of christ which i think is a fundamental error. >> with that particular answer and for any students, this probably will come as no surprise to them. i alluded to it earlier in the opening remarks. if you are a student, a citizen and you have not read cal toma'' book,nd ed dobson's entitled "blighted by mike," 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 commend that book to you. what other lessons? some the end of the day, 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. freedom of speech and religious liberty, continuing to focus on that. they are so obvious. but sometimes we forget.

>> along those lines, 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 particular 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 about evangelicals in the 19th century evaluating evangelicals in the 21st century, i think they would want to encourage evangelicals in this country to reassert the once playedrch great the way that is done is 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 the issues that matter in the nation in the 21st century, maintaining a truly christian approach to them. that goes to his comments as well. a lot of students have asked recently, how do you evaluate candidates in this particular election? a recent piece survey showed if you compare the vote from the previous election, 15-17% voted for president obama. most voted in favor of him as opposed to anti-romney. a recent study had 15% of evangelicals say they would vote for secretary clinton. 12% 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. we have a two-party system in this country for a reason. it doesn't meet the candidates don't matter. but when you've got candidates that have issues on both sides to put it kindly, problems on both sides, the platforms matter. thankfully, we have a system where 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 to consider the platforms and i encourage people , to vote even when they are frustrated. >> as i listen to what you had to say, tom, i think we had an era of party-center politics that shifted more to candidate-centered politics. moved toward the culture-centered politics. the notion of the importance of parties is good advice. it sounds like you have the last

word for this part. >> as an officer of a federal court i am thankfully relieved , of being able to say anything about present politics. i will go back to the 19th century. here is the neat thing about the 19th century. some of the legal issues we have antislavery with and temperance, and 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 in the cases in which they are successful there , is often a clear antislavery logic behind the turn to politics. that's one of the reasons that

the baptist argument that you go out and evangelize and discipline people in the church. one of the reasons that failed with slavery was because it was such a totalizing system. you could not evangelize the slaves without the permission of the slave master. you even 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 was funded and carrots were supported 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. to find a way to cure the problem of exit. people can always leave and go find a church that will support what they are doing. if you look at the other regulations that grow out of evangelical reform in the 19th century, the ones that are most successful follow on the same logic. prohibition is likened to a slave holder. alcohol is the slave master. you can never actually appropriately reach someone with the gospel if they are enslaved to alcohol and never have that capacity for choice. prostitution, anti-gambling measures follow along the same logic. people often have the misimpression that the 19th century was this time when christians in america were making the law of god the law of the land and that is just how it

worked. that is what christians were doing and not to be doing. but there are quite a lot of sins that don't end up in the legislature. they were regulated highly in the colonial era but they fall off the board in the 19th century. part of it is 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 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. whereas things like prostitution, gambling, slavery are tied to this idea of slavery through addiction or liberal slavery through slaveholding. -- literalteral slavery through slaveholding. there has to be some temporal

power that can break those chains for the gospel to go out. i guess the question is how much , of that logic has hung on into the 20th and 21st century, or drives the logic that evangelical reform? it is a question i get to ask without answering. so thank you. >> 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 10 or 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 and the christian coalition were so strong at one point and then headed into virtual extinction? i think dr. guth might be good to start with for an answer. >> i think there are several answers to that. the first answer is they were to o personality centered. they were started by falwell and 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. from first-generation to second-generation leadership. all those organizations because of their association with recognized leaders of particular segments of the evangelical

community didn't have much attraction for other segments. jerry falwell attracted baptist bible fundamentalists and that was about it in terms of organization. had lots of people on his mailing list but it never was much of an organization. pat robertson attracted mostly pentecostal charismatics and did not extend far in other directions. that tends to be a pattern. since these organizations depend on the voluntary subscriptions of individuals and contributions of individuals, one of the things many of these organizations like organizations on the left have to do is take relatively extreme positions in order to raise money. we know the direct-mail fundraising tends to emphasize divisive, highly combustible rhetoric. if you do that, you're going to 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 by the way, you also tend to attract hostile attention of the media and groups on the other side of the spectrum. that is not usually very helpful either. >> very good. >> 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? [laughter] >> 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's prayer decision was this written out, prescribed prayer in new york. was not a spontaneous prayer from the heart teachers were allowed to offer. it was this card that they read to the benevolent creator of prayed in the name of jesus or anything. when the supreme court struck it down, carl mcintyre rejoiced and said this is no prayer at all. get this out of the schools, we don't need to have it. the tide swiftly turned when the same sort of logic was applied

to striking down bible readings. which, again, was very restricted in most schools. withouteading a passage note or comment. it was supposed to be how it was implemented. if any of you remember bible reading in the schools, 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 or encouragement to believe it, whether that constituted an act of worship or not. intended to be conservative evangelicals. mcintyre was not a fan of that decision. 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 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 critical mail from evangelicals who didn't necessarily commit death threats. but mailing anything to the supreme court is incredibly rare. they don't get mail. to get hundreds of decisions was the mesh to get hundreds -- to get hundreds a day about decisions 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 really misting with evangelicals from other christians at that time. view on more nuanced how much that got things going. >> we have several good questions here. here is a very thoughtful one to make us stop and think. how essential should we view freedom of religion and speech to the vitality of american evangelicalism given the greatest growth of christianity is occurring in countries where those freedoms are nonexistent? kellen and jim are often local that one because you have answered questions already. do you want to dive in on that

one? [laughter] questionis no 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 shame and 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. absolutely god works in all , circumstances and in times of persecution. but 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 big believer in the concept that in a republican system which we have, it the mesh the dictates of 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 and maintains the opportunity for us to have religious liberty. to me, it is not only a preference or belief that to

whom much is given much is required. but it is also a stewardship responsibility scripture gives to us. >> it's a very thoughtful question, based upon your answer it is almost implying a false choice between the two involved there. >> i would add probably 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 is grace in suffering and going through the experience of suffering. religious persecution can be a means of grace, which would allow you by god's grace to be more fervent in your practice of religion. >> and in 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' utilitarian in some utilitarian utilitarianism 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? i think this gets into the theme of these forums, balancing pious published piety -- balancing piety and pragmatism. as a citizen of two different kingdoms. >> that is not a complete thought. matthew 10 refers to being as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. we are talking about a political system which is a human institution that involves human beings who are 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. 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 in everything. it is not a biblical principle. [laughter] but there is some application to our political system. we have to make difficult choices were completely remove ourselves from the system. withd that challenging regard to biblical principle and applying it to our lives. sometimes that means voting for areividuals we know

fallen. >> i think in the history of evangelicals, something remarkable happened in the 1920's. a lot of evangelicals were very anti-catholic. by the late 1930's, they figured something out. the catholics figured something 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 a decade before would not speak to each other. 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 cooperation in societal kinds of issues. it would be easy to end right now since we have two minutes left. but this is a really 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, it is 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 political liberals. now, the connection is not always clear. why it is a 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 more conservative political positions and religious herbalism with more liberal political positions as

conventionally defined. there are lots of people who violate those rules but they are sinful tendencies in political science. >> very good. 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 necessary logical , relation between them. the history of evangelicalism in the 19th century was there wasn't a relation between those two. as we are heard with williams jenning bryan who had very few ideas that were conservative politically, even as he was conservative 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. become the 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 you for being here tonight. i would encourage you to come back october 13 at 7:00 right here for our next panel where our focus will be on the present. ,e will have a professor here charles, who is here tonight, a retired professor from clemson professor atnd a

furman. thank you for being here tonight. you are dismissed. [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] cspan3, thisnd on evening at 6:00 eastern, the historian on the battle of spotsylvania courthouse which pitted the armies of grant against lee. >> in the wilderness, the armies fought for a couple of days, came to stalemates, and grant move left and south. they have been at spotsylvania for a couple of days. they fought to a stalemate.