The Evangelical Left and the Move from Personal to Corporate Responsibility

UWP: Schäfer: American Evangelicals and the 1960s page209

I I I

takingittothestreets?

newperspectives

onevangelicalmobilization

UWP: Schäfer: American Evangelicals and the 1960s page210 blank


211

10

The Ev an gel i cal Left and the Move from Per sonal to Cor po rate Re spon sibil ity

davidr. swartz

In 1947 the theo lo gian Carl F. H. Henry pub lished The Un easy Con science of Mod ern Fun da men tal ism. This semi nal tract of the “new ev an gel i cal ism” de cried the ob scu rant ism of his fun da men tal ist re li gious her i tage. Mod er nity, Henry began, was re plete with so cial evils, among them “ag gres sive war fare, ra cial ha tred and in tol er ance, liq uor traf fic, and ex ploi ta tion of labor or man age ment, which ever it may be.” But fun da men tal ist ev an gel i cals, mo ti vated by an an i mus against re li gious mod ern ism, had given up on worthy hu man i tar ian ef forts. Henry and his new ev an gel i cal col leagues in tended to fully apply the gos pel.1

Henry’s clar ion call, how ever, had lim its. As a grad u ate of Whea ton Col lege in Il li nois, and ed i tor of Chris ti an ity Today, Henry em bod ied a pas sive con ser vatism that char ac ter ized much of Billy Grahamstyle ev an gel i cal ism. In Un easy Con science, for ex am ple, Henry’s clear est sug ges tion for so cial change iron i cally had less to do with party pol i tics and so cial ac ti vism than with in di vid ual ef fort. Au then tic so cial trans for ma tion could be sparked only by per sonal spir i tual trans for ma tion, he de clared. Henry’s con cep tion of so cial en gage ment con sisted


212 E partiii: takingittothestreets?

largely of plac ing re deemed in di vid u als into po si tions of so cial im por tance more than spec ify ing par tic u lar pro grams to over see so ci ety. Not with stand ing fun damen tal ist mo bil iza tion in Cal i for nia in the 1960s, this in di vid u al ist ap proach rep re sented a sig nifi cant strain within the di verse, fluid re al ity of Cold War ev an gel i cal pol i tics. The his to rian John Turner, who charted the po lit i cal ac ti vism of Cam pus Cru sade, states that “many ev an gel i cals re mained wary of the messy na ture of po lit i cal ac ti vism and wanted to con cen trate on preach ing the gos pel.”2

By the 1980s, ev an gel i cal pol i tics looked very dif fer ent. Many ev an gel i cals, going well be yond Henry’s vi sion of in di vid u al is tic so cial trans for ma tion, were par tic i pat ing in un em bar rassed po lit i cal ad vo cacy. The Moral Ma jor ity of fered very spe cific pol icy pre scrip tions on is sues as di verse as abor tion reg u la tion, prayer in school, eco nom ics, and di plo macy. Mil lions of ev an gel i cals lifted Jimmy Carter to vic tory in 1976. Over fifty mil lion Americans claimed to be bornagain Chris tians. Major news mag a zines ran cover sto ries on the re cent surge in ev an gel i cal po lit i cal and cul tural power. News week even dubbed 1976 the “year of the ev an gel i cal.” Ev an gel i cals, many clearly in a postpietist con text, no longer had to leg i ti mize par tic i pa tion in de bates over the pub lic good.

What fac tors led to this ev an gel i cal surge? And why the sud den bur den to ex tend ev an gel i cal re spon sibil ity from the per sonal to the cor po rate and so cial realms? Clues to this re mark able shift can be seen in the urban and northern centered ev an gel i cal Left of the 1960s and 1970s. Groups such as the Post American com mu nity in Chi cago, the Chris tian World Lib er a tion Front (CWLF) in Berke ley, Cal i for nia, and pro gres sive fa culty and stu dents at ev an gel i cal lib eral arts col leges helped ar tic u late this new shift to ward cor po rate re sponsibil ity. Pro foundly shaped by the civil rights move ment, Viet nam pro tests, the in itia tives of the War on Pov erty, and other key ele ments of the counter cul ture, the ev an gel i cal Left am plified a post war will ing ness to en gage so cial and po lit i cal systems.

Civil Rights

No issue bet ter re flected the in di vid u al ist or ien ta tion of mid cen tury ev an gel ical ism than race. View ing ra cism pri mar ily in terms of will ful op pres sion by one in di vid ual to ward an other in di vid ual, most con demned per sonal ra cism. “My par ents,” re mem bered one young ev an gel i cal, “re buked the ‘col ored jokes’ we kids brought home from our friends and their par ents.” But their re sponse to in sti tu tional ra cism was very dif fer ent. Par tic i pa tion in the civil


Swartz / Evangelical Left and Responsibility E 213

rights move ment, they main tained, leaned to ward the So cial Gos pel, which in ev i ta bly led away from the more im por tant mis sion of evan gel ism. In fact, evan gel ism it self would pro mote ra cial eq uity and peace more ef fec tively than the forced in te gra tion pro posed by the civil rights move ment. An in di vid u al istic con cep tion of ra cism typ ified the ma jor ity ev an gel i cal re sponse to that move ment.3

The story of young John Al ex an der, how ever, re flects a shift among some white ev an gel i cals away from soulwinning as the sin gu lar fix for ra cism. Al ex ander, with a South ern Bap tist back ground and a grad u ate ed u ca tion in phi lo so phy from North west ern Uni ver sity, taught phi lo so phy at the flag ship ev an gel i cal lib eral arts col lege Whea ton and ed ited a civilrights mag a zine called Free dom Now. In the early 1960s Al ex an der stressed the im por tance of in di vid ual be hav ior. He eyed Mar tin Lu ther King Jr.’s con nec tions with so cial ists and com mu nists with sus pi cion. He wor ried that King’s pro tests might pro voke white back lash. Black con trib u tors also ar tic u lated these con cerns. Re port ing on bus boy cotts in the South, Bill Pan nell ed i to ri al ized that it “illbehooved a min is ter to med dle in civic af fairs.” William Banks of Moody Bible In sti tute in Chi cago re peat edly urged read ers to prac tice pa tience and mod er a tion. Banks wrote, “The so cial gos peler who thinks that chang ing the en vi ron ment and rais ing the stan dards of liv ing is the an swer is badly mis taken. . . . He must not pros ti tute his call ing by dab bling in pol i tics and stress ing the phys i cal as pects of life.” Through 1965, the same year that the Vot ing Rights Act fi nally passed Con gress, Free dom Now echoed the mid cen tury ev an gel i cal man tra that chang ing hearts, not laws, could best trans form so ci ety.4

As the 1960s wore on, how ever, Al ex an der began to doubt the ef fi cacy of evan gel ism to spark so cial change. After all, many of the con verted ev an gel i cals that Free dom Now’s con trib u tors knew best—Bap tists in the South, peo ple in their con gre ga tions, even their own par ents—re mained fla grantly ra cist. How, asked a dis par ate but grow ing group of younger ev an gel i cals, could their parents’ gen er a tion sing about blacks being pre cious in God’s sight, yet fail to con demn seg re ga tion? How could they decry the march on Wash ing ton as a “mob spec ta cle”? How could they con demn inter ra cial mar riage? Mean while, Al ex an der and likeminded ev an gel i cals saw prog ress in the flurry of ac ti vism and civ il rights leg is la tion in the mid1960s. Though many states re mained re cal ci trant in in te grat ing pub lic schools, oth ers in te grated quickly and peacefully. At Whea ton, stu dents in 1962 in te grated the city’s bar ber shops by lob by ing the local cham ber of com merce and pub li ciz ing the in jus tice in local news papers. These suc cesses con vinced an emerg ing ev an gel i cal Left to bring, how ever be lat edly, po lit i cal power to bear on ra cial in jus tices.5



one line short

The as sas si na tion of King in 1968 ac cel er ated this tra jec tory. Ac cord ing to Al ex an der, who la mented that “we had been fid dling while Rome burned,” King’s death “pressed home a sense of ur gency.” Free dom Now’s tone and method abruptly shifted: “The time for po lite dis cus sion is past. . . . It is time for you, for your po lit i cal party, for your de nom i na tion to be come in volved in a mas sive ac tion pro gram.” In a Whea ton chapel ser vice, Al ex an der told stu dents to quit “think ing white” and de manded that blacks com pose 20 per cent of the stu dent body. A Free dom Now cor re spon dent re ported on his par tic i pa tion in the Poor People’s Cam paign, a march by a “multi ra cial army of the poor” from Mis sis sippi to Wash ing ton, D.C., over the course of sev eral months in 1968. Sixty Whea ton stu dents, led by Al ex an der and the college’s So cial Ac tion Forum, marched in Chicago’s west ern sub urbs in sol i dar ity with the cam paign. Free dom Now also urged the bus ing of white and black chil dren to en sure in tegrated schools and com plained about the lack of fed eral funds for Up ward Bound, Head Start, the rural South, and the inner city.6

Prom i nent civil rights lead ers re in forced Alexander’s call to ac tion among a broader set of ev an gel i cals. At a 1965 meet ing of the Na tional Con fer ence on Re li gion and Higher Ed u ca tion, ev an gel i cal par tic i pants were stunned and im pressed by the my riad stu dent pro jects launched by main lin ers. They were re build ing burnedout black churches in the South and serv ing povertystricken res i dents of the inner city. One Inter Var sity ad min is tra tor, used to work ing with ev an gel i cal stu dents at state uni ver sities, re ported that Paul Pot ter of Stu dents for a Dem o cratic So ci ety (SDS) made “our sum mer pro gram of camp ac tiv i ties seem rather super fi cial.” Four years later, at the 1969 U.S. Con gress on Evan gel ism or ga nized by Billy Gra ham in Min ne ap o lis, an other prom i nent civil rights leader spoke to nearly five thou sand ev an gel i cals. The South ern Chris tian Lead er ship Council’s Ralph Aber na thy en cour aged ev an gel i cals to ac knowl edge the systemic sources of ra cial in equal ity. He quoted the bib li cal proph ets, ex hort ing the del e gates to “let jus tice roll down like the wa ters.”7

A chorus of black ev an gel i cals also urged white ev an gel i cals to ex tend the focus be yond soulwinning. William Bent ley, a black Pen te cos tal preacher with a de gree from Fuller Semi nary in Pa sa dena, crit i cized govern ment pri or ities “that priv i leged the mil i tary bud get over ed u ca tion, child care and pov erty re lief.” Tom Skin ner, a for mer Har lem Lords gang leader and cur rent evan gelist, wrote that black Amer ica would not fol low a “white Christ,” by which he meant a “de fender of the American system, pres i dent of the New York Stock Ex change, head of the Pen ta gon, chair man of the Na tional Re pub li can Commit tee, a flagwaving pa tri otic American—and against every thing else.” John



one line short

Per kins, whose evan gel is tic work in the early 1960s in rural Mis sis sippi pre cluded socialoriented work, began in the late 1960s to link ra cial jus tice to eco nomic re dis tri bu tion. Frus trated with lack of prog ress since the pas sage of the Civil Rights Acts—seg re ga tion per sisted and more than half of black fam i lies in Simp son County lived under the pov erty line—Per kins is sued a doc u ment ti tled “De mands of the Black Com mu nity.” It in sisted on 30 per cent black em ployment in all Men den hall busi nesses, the de seg re ga tion of pub lic spaces, a minimumwage cam paign for do mes tic work ers, paved streets in black neigh borhoods, re moval of the po lice chief and his co horts, and a thorough over haul of ar rest pro ce dures. Perkins’s new focus sig naled an im por tant shift in young black ev an gel i cal thought: that true rec on cil i a tion could come only through cul tural eq uity and the re dis tri bu tion of eco nomic re sources.8

A broad en ing of ev an gel i cal vo ca tion af firmed the in sis tent chorus of black ev an gel i cals. Nearly every con trib u tor to Free dom Now held a job in ed u ca tion or the so cial ser vices. The fields of so ci ol ogy and so cial work grew sub stan tially at ev an gel i cal col leges in the 1960s and 1970s. At Whea ton, the emerg ing ac a demic de part ments of so ci ol ogy and po lit i cal sci ence en cour aged stu dents to con sider struc tu ral di men sions of so ci ety. Lam berta Voget, a pop u lar pro fes sor of so ci ol ogy, took stu dents on urban im mer sion trips to Chi cago. A founder of the Na tional As so ci a tion of Chris tians in So cial Work, she spon sored many of the new organization’s con fer ences at Whea ton. Voget drove the growth and vi tal ity of the so cial sci ence di vi sion it self, help ing to hire young, ag gres sive PhDs from re spected uni ver sities across the coun try. By the 1970s Wheaton’s de part ment of so ci ol ogy fea tured di ver sity that the rest of the col lege lacked: the African American Ozzie Ed wards, Ka Tong Gaw, Voget, and Zon dra Lind blade. The de part ment did much to pro mote the Peace Corps pro gram in the 1960s and the Human Needs and Glo bal Re sources (HNGR) pro gram. Stu dents and fa culty in the so cial sci ences dom i nated the Clap ham So ci ety, a group of selfproclaimed “lib eral” stu dents, who ve he mently argued against cap i tal pun ish ment, nu clear pro life ra tion, ele ments of free en ter prise, and in vited Dem o cratic Party can di dates to speak to their club. A suc ces sion of clubs—the Na tional As so ci a tion for the Ad vance ment of Col ored Peo ple (NAACP), So cial Ac tion Forum, Americans for Dem o cratic Ac tion, the Young Demo crats, and the Jon a than Blan chard As so ci a tion—car ried on this pro gres sive tra di tion through the 1980s.9

Ev an gel i cals else where also drew from pro gres sive sources. Semi nar ians in Chi cago, for in stance, read dogeared cop ies of Soul on Ice (1967), the Black Pan ther El dridge Cleaver’s col lec tion of lyr i cal es says on ra cial lib er a tion. They



one line short

stud ied The Other Amer ica (1962), the Cath o lic so cial ist Mi chael Harrington’s ex pose on pov erty in the United States. Of the Kerner Re port on the 1967 race riots, Jim Wal lis wrote, “I must have read that re port at least five times, stud y ing its more than sixhundred pages with a thorough in ten sity. It com pletely con firmed my ex pe ri ence of the black com mu nity. The causes of urban vi o lence were pov erty and its ac com pa ny ing mis er ies: bad hous ing and in ad e quate ed u ca tion, lack of med i cal care, high un em ploy ment.” Tak ing so cial sci en tific stud ies se ri ously in ev i ta bly led young ev an gel i cals away from the tra di tional ev an gel i cal no tion of evan gel ism as the pri mary en gine of so cial change. In stead of under stand ing ra cism as a long se ries of per sonal whiteonblack abuse, they in creas ingly thought of ra cism as built into eco nomic, so cial, and cul tural systems. Each sug gested the need for cor po rate, not merely per sonal, re spon sibil ity.10

Pro gres sive ev an gel i cal rhet o ric re flected these new in flu ences. Many used lan guage such as “cul tures of pov erty,” “in sti tu tional struc tures,” “the maldis tri bu tion of the nation’s wealth and re sources,” cit ing the psycho log i cal dam age of in sti tu tional ra cism, and the in eq ui ties of eco nomic struc tures lead ing to urban ri ot ing. James O. Bus well III, a Whea ton anthro pol o gist, urged au thor ities to place blacks in po si tions of power in order to help fight the Sambo myth. Charles Fur ness, a so cial worker in New ark, New Jer sey, as serted that race riots were rooted in in tol er able eco nomic con di tions. The Chris tian World Lib er a tion Front, an ev an gel i cal in ten tional com mu nity in Berke ley, Cal i for nia, vir u lently crit i cized white flight, spoke of ra cism as “em bed ded” in American so ci ety and re li gion, and com posed bib liog ra phies on “race and pov erty.” The ev an gel i cal so ci ol o gist David Mo berg re leased a pop u lar book that de nounced “so cial sin.” The pro mo tion of ra cial civil rights in the 1960s led quickly to a con sid er a tion of crime, hous ing, and eco nomic struc tures.11

The en coun ter with civil rights thus added a struc tu ral com po nent to evangelicalism’s so cial the ory. From an em pha sis on in di vid ual ac tions to help dis en fran chised south ern blacks emerged a ho lis tic ef fort to raise the psycholog i cal, eco nomic, and po lit i cal health of a race. In the case of Al ex an der and Free dom Now, these struc tu ral con sid er a tions about race led to de bates over cap i tal ism, peace and war, gen der, and sim ple liv ing. In fact, the mag a zine was re named in 1970 from Free dom Now to the Other Side to re flect this broad ened agenda. Ar ti cles treat ing the struc tu ral sources of pov erty even ap peared in the con ser va tive Chris ti an ity Today. The ev an gel i cal en gage ment of civil rights has often been char ac ter ized solely by re ac tion ary white seg re ga tion acad e mies. But the move ment in fact also sen si tized many to cor po rate re spon sibil ity of the sort trum peted by the lib eral main stream.



one line short

Viet nam

The ma jor ity ev an gel i cal re sponse to Viet nam, as An drew Pres ton has chron i cled in chap ter 9, con sisted of stead fast anti com mu nism and a staunch antiantiwar pos ture. But as the war ground to a stale mate, tra di tion al ist neoevangelical stal warts ex pressed am biv a lence and younger pro gres sive ev an gel i cals vir u lently dis sented to mil i tary inter ven tion in In do china. Like civil rights, Viet nam in itially in spired a vis ceral re ac tion to human pain. Pro gres sive ev an gel i cals couched their cri tique in moral re pug nance, de cry ing the na palm, the de fo li ation of for ests, the frag ging of of fi cers, the kill ing of ci vil ians, and the dam aged psyches of sol diers. An Inter Var sity stu dent mourned the “bloated corpses float ing down the river some where in Cam bo dia or Viet nam.” By the early 1970s, how ever, this anti war in stinct hard ened the ev an gel i cal at ten tion to so cial struc tures begun by the civil rights move ment. Pro gres sive ev an gel i cal angst— rooted in an in stinc tive sense that seg re ga tion and Viet nam were wrong—ma tured into a more sub stan tial struc tu ral cri tique and a more di rectly po lit i cal ap proach to the na tion.12

The prob lem with Amer ica, ev an gel i cal pro gres sives began to argue, was not that a par tic u lar gen eral made a wrong de ci sion to bomb an in no cent Viet na mese vil lage or that a south ern ra cist had called some one a nig ger. Rather, a so ci ety “com mit ted to the right ness of white ness” and a church com plicit in systemic evil was to blame. At InterVarsity’s 1970 con ven tion, the evan gel ist Leigh ton Ford said, “Maybe once upon a time we could think of the mis sion ary as a super ior soul from Can ada the good, or Amer ica the beau ti ful, going to set the poor heathen right. But no more. We’ve seen the burned out ghet toes . . . the rural slums . . . the bod ies at Kent State . . . the stu pid ity and greed that has killed Lake Erie. No longer can we labor under the il lu sion that God is our great white father and that Jesus Christ wears red, white, and blue.” Mem bers of the Chris tian World Lib er a tion crit i cized the “huge de fense contracts” that kept the United States from phas ing out its mil i tary ac tiv ity in Viet nam. The United States, rather than a source of jus tice or even a be nign in sti tu tion, was in stead a pur veyor of in jus tice.13

These con clu sions were in part in debted to the New Left. Crit i cal of the ex pan sion ist foreign pol icy and un lim ited eco nomic growth of the post war lib eral con sen sus, groups like SDS op posed the es ca la tion of the Viet nam War. In the late 1960s Jim Wal lis joined Mich i gan State University’s SDS chap ter, which pro tested the university’s heavyhanded treat ment of pro test ers, rev e lations of cam pus ties to de fense contrac tors and the CIA, the May 1970 Kent



State shoot ings, and the U.S. mil i tary in cur sion into Cam bo dia. By his sen ior year Wal lis en joyed a na tional pro file, claim ing to be able to ac ti vate ten thou sand peo ple in a few hours’ time for pro tests. He was a key or ga nizer in the na tional stu dent strike in the spring of 1970.14

When Wal lis began his theo log i cal stud ies at Trin ity Ev an gel i cal Di vin ity School near Chi cago in the fall of 1970, he car ried along these same New Left com mit ments. Ev an gel i cal ism “was a church,” Wal lis in sisted, “whose god is American, white, cap i tal ist, and vi o lent; whose si lent re li gion and im a gined neu tral ity goes hand in hand with ‘nigger’ and ‘na palm.’” Cap ti vat ing doz ens of fel low semi nar ians with his pas sion and cri tiques, he formed the Post Americans, which be came an in ten tional com mu nity and then a mag a zine. The first issue of the Post-American, is sued in the fall of 1971, fea tured a cover with Jesus wear ing a crown of thorns and cuffed with an American flag that also cov ered his bruised body. Amer ica, the de pic tion im plied, had recrucified Christ. The ap pli ca tion of New Left so ci ol ogy onto ev an gel i cal piety and theol ogy res o nated with sur pris ingly high num bers of young ev an gel i cals. Within two years, twelve hun dred peo ple had sub scribed to the Post-American; within five years, nearly twenty thou sand. A sim i lar mag a zine pub lished by CWLF printed even more cop ies full of anti war rhet o ric.15

Ev an gel i cal an i mus against the Viet nam War also had roots in a less ex pected and more main stream source. Mark Hat field, a Re pub li can sen a tor from Ore gon and the most prom i nent ev an gel i cal pol i ti cian in Amer ica, spoke out early and often against the war. His op po si tion, which cul mi nated in the 1970 Hatfield–McGovern Amend ment to end the Viet nam War, re flected broader am biv a lence to ward the na tion. “Our in volve ment in In do china was mis taken, got out of hand,” ex plained Hat field, “and raised ques tions about our na tional char ac ter.” He argued that the war had laid bare American abuses of im pe ri al ism for eco nomic gain, in fringe ments on do mes tic free doms, and the idol a try of pres i den tial power. Ac cord ing to Hat field, the war also ex posed ev an gel i cal ism at its worst: a tra di tion with a watereddown faith will ing to bap tize what ever the na tion did. To be sure, Hat field ex plained as the war ground to a stale mate in the early 1970s, civil re li gion, rooted in a Con stan tin ian leg acy that bound Rome and Je ru sa lem, was not uniquely ev an gel i cal or American. But the meld ing of the pro fane and sa cred in the Roman Em pire in the fourth cen tury had ap peared again in an American civic re li gion that re volved around re pu di a tion of “god less inter na tional com mu nism.” Viet nam, echoed Bill Lane, a Post-American con trib u tor who helped pro duce a twenty minute slide show with re corded music and a script that crit i cized civil re li gion, “has high lighted the fact that the basic gen er at ing prin ci ples of cit i zen ship in



the sec u lar so ci ety and in the cit i zen ship in the king dom of God are mu tu ally ex clu sive. . . . Our al le giance to the coun try is tem po ral and con di tional. There can be no Chris tian sup port for what we have done in Viet nam.” Ev an gel i calism, crit ics de clared in main stream and pro gres sive ev an gel i cal mag a zines alike, had suc cumbed to de vo tion of a per ni cious civil re li gion, un will ing to as sume a pro phetic pos ture in the face of Amer ica’s sins.16

Ac cord ing to Hat field, this egre gious fail ure re quired not only a crit i cal pos ture to ward the na tion it self but also re pen tance. Hatfield’s re buke of Pres i dent Rich ard Nixon dur ing the Na tional Prayer Break fast speech in 1973, in which the sen a tor de clared, “Today, our prayers must begin with re pen tance. . . . We must turn in re pen tance from the sin that scarred our na tional soul,” was merely the most fa mous riff in a jer e miad that ex tended through Hatfield’s en tire ca reer. A year later in Sen ate cham bers, Hat field pro posed such a pro cess of re pen tance, for mal ized by a na tional day of hu mil i ation. Mod eled after Lincoln’s “Proc la ma tion of a Day of Hu mil i a tion, Fast ing, and Prayer” in 1863, Hatfield’s pro po sal called for Americans to “con fess our na tional sins,” cit ing idol a try of na tional se cur ity and a fail ure to share na tional pros per ity with the world, among other sins. Thomas A. Car ruth, an ev an gel i cal pro fes sor at As bury Theo log i cal Semi nary in Ken tucky, rented a “widearea tele phone line” to lobby Con gress to pass the res o lu tion. Though the bill it self lan guished in the House after pass ing the Sen ate, thou sands of con gre ga tions ob served the day.17

As the Wa ter gate scan dals emerged in 1973, grow ing num bers of ev an gel icals re pented of con flat ing faith and na tion. Civil re li gion, argued the Fuller Semi nary pro fes sor Jack Rog ers, sa cral ized the status quo. He faulted ev an gel icals for ob sess ing about the strug gle between com mu nism and de moc racy when the “real is sues” were between “rich and poor, strong and weak, and white and non white.” Nixon’s pol i cies—bap tized by Billy Gra ham who all but endorsed the in cum bent in 1972—per pet u ated this pre oc cu pa tion with com mu nism and ex posed “the per ni cious na ture of this civil re li gion—the re li gion of American ism.” Graham’s July 4, 1970, ser mon at an Honor American Day in Wash ing ton, D.C., based on 1 Peter 2:17, a scrip ture pas sage which read “Honor all men . . . Fear God. Honor the King,” par tic u larly hor rified the ev an gel i cal Left. Gra ham preached that ev an gel i cals should honor the na tion, be moan ing that “lately our in sti tu tions have been under at tack: the Su preme Court, the Con gress, the Pres i dency, the flag, the home, the ed u ca tional system, and even the church!” “On that day,” wrote a trio of ev an gel i cal anti war his to rians—Rob ert Linder (Kan sas State), Rich ard Pie rard (In di ana State), and Rob ert Clouse (In di ana State)—“hon or ing Amer ica and God was im pli citly



syn on y mous with sus tain ing Nixon’s aims in South east Asia.” Hat field and oth ers began to con front Gra ham in the pages of mod er ate ev an gel i cal jour nals about being “used” by the White House for po lit i cal gain.18

Hatfield’s res o nance with the New Left, dis gust with the Viet nam War, and dis taste for civil re li gion, how ever, stopped short of his most rad i cal ev an gel i cal comrades’ pes si mism. Hat field still saw re demp tive po ten tial in the na tion and sought to en gage American po lit i cal cul ture more than damn it. The na tion, while fal len, hu mil i ated, and in need of re pen tance, was not ir re triev ably lost. Un like the PostAmericans, Hat field never ex pressed con tempt to ward the na tion by cor rupt ing pa tri otic phrases into “Am e rika” or “the American Way of Death.” Rather, Hat field sought to re pair the na tion and to in vest it with spir i tual re sources. From state sen a tor to governor to U.S. sen a tor, he worked his way up po lit i cal struc tures seek ing jus tice from within the system. Pol i tics, he con tended, was “a le git i mate ex pres sion of Chris tian faith ful ness” on par with “fulltime Chris tian ser vice.” Hat field thus leav ened his re vul sion to ward an apos ta tiz ing na tion with a com pul sion to re shape it. This con struc tive im pulse made Hat field rep re sen ta tive of grow ing ev an gel i cal trends.19

Pol i tics as an Ev an gel i cal Vo ca tion

As pro gres sive ev an gel i cals moved from an in di vid ual to cor po rate or ien ta tion, they began to fol low Hatfield’s lead into pol i tics. Doz ens of books in the late 1960s and early 1970s jus tified po lit i cal in volve ment theo ret i cally. Then in 1972, an i mus against the Viet nam War and per sis tent ra cial in equal ities took electo ral form as the Mes siah Col lege pro fes sor Ron Sider launched Ev an gel i cals for McGov ern. The pro gres sive ev an gel i cal vi sion may not have car ried the day in the decades that fol lowed, but it did help es tab lish pol i tics as an ev an gel ical vo ca tion.

This po lit i cal inter est was rooted in a grow ing con fi dence in tech ni cal ex per tise and the government’s abil ity to cor rect so cial ills. Since most felt that spir i tual con ver sion in it self could not res cue the urban poor from pov erty and dis crim i na tion, they began to rely on so cial sci ence. Free dom Now’s John Al ex ander wrote, “The best means are found by hardheaded anal y sis and ex per i menta tion, not by ap peal to rev e la tion. . . . If a per son is a Chris tian he will know he should be con cerned about high un em ploy ment, but he won’t auto mat i cally know whether un em ploy ment can best be de creased by tax cuts, govern ment con struc tion pro jects, or un bri dled com pe ti tion in an open mar ket. This is a very com pli cated, tech ni cal ques tion of eco nom ics which the Chris tian as such



has no spe cial com pe tence to judge. That is a ques tion which, like it or not, has to be left to ex perts.” Com fort able in the halls of the acad emy, pro gres sive ac a de mi cians as so ciated with the Re formed Jour nal held out hope that re search ers could solve glo bal hun ger, pov erty, even mil i tar ism. James Daane of Cal vin Col lege wrote, “Be cause of the ad vance of sci ence and tech nol ogy, and par tic ularly with the com ing of auto ma tion, the po ten tial wealth of the world is for all prac ti cal pur poses in fi nite. For the first time in his tory it is tech ni cally pos sible to elim i nate pov erty on a world scale.” In one of the first or ga nized meet ings of the ev an gel i cal Left, del e gates in toned the lyr ics of the hymn “From Thee All Skill and Sci ence Flow.”20

The emerg ing ev an gel i cal Left turned to pol i tics to im ple ment so lu tions to com plex struc tu ral prob lems. Ev an gel i cals needed to work within the system, to prac tice a “pro gres sive re al ism,” in the words of Ste phen Mon sma, a po lit i cal sci en tist at Cal vin Col lege and a Dem o cratic mem ber of the Mich i gan House of Rep re sen ta tives from 1974 to 1978. Good pol i ti cians, argued the Ev an gel i cal Free lay per son and 1980 pres i den tial can di date John B. An der son, “are at tempt ing to create pub lic pol i cies and po lit i cal de ci sions which are faith ful to their own view points in so far as po lit i cal re al ity al lows. They re al ize that to aban don the field of pol i tics to those who hold prin ci ples other than their own is to ab di cate their own moral re spon sibil ity.” Ed ward Loucks, a govern ment re searcher in Cal i for nia, wrote, “The Chris tian has cer tain po lit i cal re sponsibil ities which he can not jus tifi ably shirk. . . . He must par tic i pate mean ing fully in the po lit i cal pro cess be cause he is scrip tu rally ob li gated to care for his neighbor.” By 1973 a book aptly ti tled Po lit i cal Evan gel ism by Cal vin pro fes sor Rich ard Mouw (now pres i dent of Fuller Theo log i cal Semi nary) had come to typ ify the ap proach of a new guard that began to see pol i tics as a le git i mate, even di vinely ap pointed of fice.21

Even Jim Wal lis, fired by anger to ward Nixon, par tic i pated in electo ral pol i tics as a re gional man ager for McGovern’s cam paign. While the lib eral can di date “does not yet deal ad e quately with . . . the need for basic and fun damen tal change in our eco nomic and po lit i cal in sti tu tions, our con su mer pat terns, or most im por tantly, the basic spir i tual cri sis of val ues we face as a na tion,” McGov ern did rep re sent “a defi nite change in di rec tion and can be a first ray of hope in the midst of wide spread de spair.” Vot ing out of des per a tion to end the war, Wal lis em braced, tem po rar ily at least, the com pro mis ing pol i tics of re form ist ev an gel i cal ism. The PostAmericans, as they de vel oped an ev an gel i cal the ory of non vi o lent di rect ac tion, in creas ingly ex plained that ex hi bi tions of dis sent were ap pro pri ate only after at tempts to work within ex ist ing power struc tures. In other words, they urged nego ti a tion be fore the use of con ten tious



tac tics. Be fore pro test ing at a super mar ket chain, they talked with the man ag ers to see if they might agree to carry United Farm Workers’ grapes and let tuce. “Meet with the key pol i cy mak ers,” urged the PostAmericans, “and see if they can be per suaded to change.”22

The emerg ing re form ists, newly tol er ant of the am bi gu ities and com pro mises of pol i tics, sought to avoid overly pes si mis tic at ti tudes to ward na tional pol i tics. Too many ev an gel i cals, wrote Paul Henry, a po lit i cal sci en tist at Cal vin who launched the an nual Cal vin Con fer ence on Chris ti an ity and Pol i tics and his own po lit i cal ca reer in the early 1970s, “have shunned pol i tics as a dirty, worldly, and hu man is tic en deavor alien to the con cerns of the gos pel.” Gary Tut tle, a Fuller Theo log i cal Semi nary stu dent, told his fel low stu dents in a speech that every thing is not rot ten in Amer ica. . . . For ex am ple, it is a strength of our dem o cratic system that pub lic dis sent is a pos sibil ity.” He con tin ued, “We must keep in our con scious ness those things in Amer ica which guar an tee and fa cil i tate rais ing a dis sent ing voice. If we do, then our dis sent will be healthy, con struc tive, and geared to ward life and build ing up, rather than merely tear ing down and de stroy ing.” The for mer Mark Hat field aide and Post-American ed i tor Ron Mi chael son ad vised ev an gel i cal vot ers to be satis fied with lessthan perfect can di dates. An other sim i larly urged at ten tive ness to “po lit i cal vi abil ity” when se lect ing can di dates. Rely ing solely on church aid to tackle pov erty, these re form ist young ev an gel i cals ad vised, might be ideal, but re li gious or gan iza tions lacked ex per tise and a cen tral or gan iza tion to ad dress struc tu ral in jus tices. In a na tion of rugged in di vid u al ism and a harsh cap i tal ism, argued James E. John son, the fed eral govern ment “can and should be used to meet the eco nomic needs of peo ple today.” What ev an gel i cal con ser va tives “have failed to see,” wrote Paul Henry, “is that the gos pel it self is, among other things, a gos pel of po lit i cal re demp tion.” Nu mer ous ev an gel i cals, echo ing Henry’s con clu sion, chas tised Har old Hughes for drop ping out of the Sen ate to work for a re li gious foun da tion. “Why can’t he fully com mit him self to God in pol i tics?” asked the Re formed Journal’s George DeV ries.23

Doz ens of books—in 1972 alone, ev an gel i cal pub lish ers re leased Ev an gel i calism and So cial Re spon sibil ity, The Great Re ver sal, The Cross and the Flag, A Chris tian Po lit i cal Op tion, and Pol i tics: A Case for Po lit i cal Ac tion— fleshed out this new sociopolitical vi sion. A set of pe ri od i cals— Post-American (55,000 at its high est cir cu la tion), Other Side (13,000), Eter nity (46,000), Van guard (2,000), Right On (65,000), HIS (90,000), Wit ten burg Door, In side, and oth ers—kept up a run ning com men tary on cur rent po lit i cal de vel op ments from a pro gres sive per spec tive. These pub li ca tions echoed Henry’s point that the gos pel could bring about po lit i cal re demp tion.



This po lit i cal im pulse took electo ral shape in Ev an gel i cals for McGov ern (EfM), the first ex pli citly ev an gel i cal or gan iza tion in post war American pol i tics formed to sup port a pres i den tial can di date. Pro gres sive ev an gel i cals found McGovern’s po lit i cal ideol ogy con gen ial to their own re form ist in stincts. “We like the way McGov ern is get ting his feet dirty. He’s con cerned about hun ger, war, pov erty and ecol ogy,” ex plained Whea ton pro fes sor Rob ert Web ber to a News week re porter. Of fi cial EfM doc u ments praised McGovern’s ev an gel i cal back ground, his re li gious rhet o ric, and his stances on school bus ing, pov erty, and the war. “A ris ing tide of younger ev an gel i cals,” as serted an early news re lease, “feels that the time has come to dis pel the old stereo type that ev an gel i cal theol ogy en tails un con cern to ward the poor, blacks and other mi nor ities, and the needs of the Third World.”24

As the pres i den tial con test en tered its final months, EfM seemed to gather mo men tum. Strong sup port came from ev an gel i cals as so ciated with Other Side, Post American, Fuller Semi nary, and GordonConwell Semi nary. In an at tempt to win the ev an gel i cal mid dle, EfM en gi neered a McGov ern ap pearance at Whea ton on Oc to ber 11, 1972. After being intro duced by Tom Skin ner, McGov ern spoke flu ently in ev an gel i cal idiom in front of an over flow crowd of more than two thou sand dur ing the Tues day chapel ad dress. He sprin kled his Whea ton ad dress with bib li cal pas sages and al lu sions. He ex pressed res o nance with the ris ing ev an gel i cal im pulse to stress moral and spir i tual lead er ship in the pub lic square. Af firm ing John Winthrop’s dec lar a tion on the Ar bella in 1630 of Amer ica as a “city on a hill,” McGov ern con cluded his speech with a state ment that could have come from a ris ing re li gious Right: “The wish of our fore bears,” he con cluded, “was to see the way of God pre vail. We have strayed from their pil grim age, like lost sheep. But I be lieve we can begin this an cient jour ney anew.” Cit ing ev an gel i cal fig ures such as Jon a than Ed wards, John Wes ley, and William Wil ber force, McGov ern con tended that his pres i dency would nur ture con di tions in which spir i tual, moral, and so cial re vi val could occur. Faith, he de clared in contra dis tinc tion to Pres i dent John F. Kennedy’s care ful de lin ea tion be fore a gath er ing of Prot es tant clergy in Dal las just ten years ear lier, would very much shape his pres i dency.25

The re sults of the cam paign, how ever, dis ap pointed McGovern’s ev an gel i cal sup port ers. The can di date suf fered a re sound ing loss on No vem ber 7, 1972—a 520–17 mi nor ity in the Electo ral Col lege and a 23 per cent mar gin in the pop u lar vote, the sec ond larg est mar gin in American his tory. For its part, EfM contrib uted only neg li gible amounts—$5,762 from only 358 peo ple—to the cof fers of a pres i den tial cam paign in des per ate need of more money and votes. De spite the dis heart en ing de feat, many in the ev an gel i cal Left re mained up beat. They



had ex pe ri enced the ex hil ar a tion of find ing likeminded ev an gel i cal pro gressives. Col lec tively they had chal lenged the ev an gel i cal es tab lish ment and earned wide cover age of their po lit i cal ac ti vism in the na tional press. Their mo bil iza tion ef fort was, in some re spects, re spect able given its late start ing date just two months be fore the elec tion and its birth within a po lit i cally pas sive tra di tion. EfM had suc ceeded in its hope “that ev an gel i cals as a group can be heard.”26

EfM—and a lineup of pro gres sive pol i ti cians—ac cel er ated a new era in which pol i tics was a more ac cepted op tion for mod er ate ev an gel i cals. That ros ter was sur pris ingly large. Mi chael Haynes, a black ev an gel i cal whose lit tle pa tience with “white broth ers who pay no at ten tion to so cial jus tice,” served as a threetime Dem o cratic state leg is la tor in Mas sa chu setts, mem ber of the state pa role board, and founder of the Ev an gel i cal Com mit tee for Urban Min is tries in Bos ton. Iowa’s Dem o cratic sen a tor Har old Hughes, Hatfield’s clos est con fidant in the Sen ate and an out spoken ev an gel i cal Meth o dist, helped ex pose the un au thor ized bomb ing of North Viet nam and the se cret bomb ing of Cam bo dia, au thored the Hughes–Ryan Amend ment for bid ding covert op er a tions by the CIA, and re duced mil i tary aid going to South Viet nam. He cosponsored the McGovern–Hatfield Amend ment and shared Hatfield’s prolife po si tion on abor tion and other mat ters like cap i tal pun ish ment and pov erty. Paul Henry worked on en vi ron men tal con cerns in the 1970s as staff di rec tor for the House Re pub li can Con fer ence, chair of the Kent County (MI) Re pub li can Party in 1974, and mem ber of the Mich i gan State Board of Ed u ca tion, the Mich i gan State House of Rep re sen ta tives, the Mich i gan State Sen ate, and the U.S. House of Rep re sen ta tives. Don Bonker, an out spoken ev an gel i cal from the state of Wash ing ton in the U.S. House of Rep re sen ta tives, worked on eq ui ta ble foreign trade, en vi ron men tal is sues, and human rights. Ste phen Mon sma, a po lit i cal sci en tist at Cal vin Col lege and a Dem o cratic mem ber of the Mich i gan Sen ate and House of Rep re sen ta tives, chaired a nat u ral re sources sub com mit tee and led pas sage of the “bot tle bill.” And the Ev an gel i cal Free Church–af fil i ated John B. An der son, who as an in de pen dent went on to chal lenge Ro nald Rea gan and Jimmy Carter for the pres i dency in 1980, had ear lier voted for the Open Hous ing Act, pushed for the War on Pov erty, and op posed the Viet nam War, call ing it “a ghastly error.” All these pol i ti cians—in ad di tion to Mark Hat field—saw their work on mil i tary, pov erty, and en vi ron men tal mat ters in the 1960s and 1970s as an out growth of Chris tian vo ca tion. Ev an gel i cals on the left thus added to the grow ing num bers of ev an gel i cals on the right who clearly, in sis tently, and pow er fully ar tic u lated that ev an gel i cal faith re quired so cial and po lit i cal ac tion.27



E

To be sure, the ev an gel i cal Left it self en joyed rel a tively lit tle suc cess in pol i tics strictly de fined. It none the less has sig nifi cantly shaped the cul ture of many ev an gel i cals, many of whom now work hard on is sues of pov erty, women’s rights, and in eq ui ties in the glo bal econ omy. This grow ing so cial con scious ness char ac terizes the work of meg a church pas tors Rick War ren and Bill Hy bels, ed i tors at Chris ti an ity Today, and many other ev an gel i cals, the ma jor ity of whom have never closely iden tified with the po lit i cally con ser va tive tele van gel ists Jerry Fal well and Pat Rob ert son. After at tend ing the 1989 mis sion ary con ven tion Lau sanne II in Ma nila, Phi lip pines, Ron Sider, or ga nizer of EfM, could in good faith, de spite the ev an gel i cal Left’s utter fail ure in electo ral pol i tics, de clare, “What es pe cially im pressed—and de lighted—me was the ex tent to which . . . ho lis tic con cern for both evan gel ism and so cial ac tion has now be come the pre vail ing per spec tive of main stream ev an gel i cal ism world wide. That was not the case . . . in 1973!” Today’s mod er ate ev an gel i cals, in creas ingly com fort able with the lan guage of so cial jus tice, have roots in yesterday’s ev angel i cal Left.28

This new sense of cor po rate ob li ga tion ex tended to nearly all sec tors of ev an gel i cal ism. Ev an gel i cals on the left and right now agree—in far greater pro por tion than in the 1950s—that the Gos pel calls for ho lis tic, not just per sonal, trans for ma tion. Sev eral threads run through evangelicalism’s po lit i ci za tion in the late twen ti eth cen tury. First, nearly all of the driv ers of the move to ward cor po rate re spon sibil ity emerged from the ed u ca tional sec tor. John Al ex an der, per haps the most dy namic white ev an gel i cal pro moter of civil rights, taught at Whea ton Col lege and wrote for InterVarsity’s mag a zine, whose read ers were pri mar ily ev an gel i cal stu dents at pub lic uni ver sities. Many of the PostAmericans were ac tive in SDS chap ters at uni ver sities. Like most young Americans in the post war pe riod, ev an gel i cals flooded the nation’s uni ver sities. The pro por tion of ev an gel i cals who had been to col lege trip led between 1960 and 1972. While the level was still below the na tional av er age, it was an im pres sive leap and an in di ca tor of evangelicalism’s ris ing so cial status. Sec ond, ev an gel i cals grew more at ten tive to so cial struc tures. The ev an gel i cal Left, by en gag ing is sues of in sti tu tional ra cism, pov erty, and war, sought to ameli o rate the va gar ies of the in dus trial rev o lu tion. In its own way, the re li gious Right sought to ad dress some of the same dis lo ca tions through civic par tic i pa tion. Fol low ers of Jesus, ev an gel icals now say al most in uni son, must ad dress so cial ills.29

These two driv ers of cor po rate re spon sibil ity sug gest new av e nues of inter pre ta tion. The plunge of broader ev an gel i cal ism into so cial and po lit i cal



en gage ment can be seen as a re sult of a steady in te gra tion into American cul ture as much as a re ac tion against it. De creas ingly iso lated from cul tural norms, ev an gel i cals had less in cen tive to be pro phetic. In creas ingly in vested in civic or gan iza tions, they rec og nized the ef fi cacy of grad u al ism within struc tures. Back lash to the 1960s did not solely—or even pri mar ily—pro voke the emer gence of a pub lic ev an gel i cal ism.

notes

1. Carl F. H. Henry, The Un easy Con science of Mod ern Fun da men tal ism (Grand Rap ids, MI: Eerd mans Pub lish ing Com pany, 1947), 4.

2. John G. Turner, Bill Bright and Cam pus Cru sade for Christ: The Re newal of Ev an gel i cal ism in Post war Amer ica (Chapel Hill: Uni ver sity of North Car o lina Press, 2008), 168.

3. Jim Wal lis, Re vive Us Again: A Sojourner’s Story (Nash ville: Abing don Press, 1983), 24; Wal lis inter view with Terri Gross on Fresh Air, Na tional Pub lic Radio, Jan u ary 20, 2005.

4. On Free dom Now’s in itial sus pi cion of civ il rights ac ti vism, see “Books in Re view,” Free dom Now, SeptemberOctober 1967, 19; William Pan nell, “Me mo rial to Mar tin Lu ther King, Jr.” Free dom Now, MayJune 1968, 4–5; “The So cial Gos pel and the Black Preacher,” Other Side, MarchApril 1972, 41.

5. On prog ress in in te gra tion, see Jim Wal lis, “Amer ica’s Orig i nal Sin: The Leg acy of White Ra cism,” So journ ers, No vem ber 1987, 14–17. On the in te gra tion of Wheaton’s bar ber shops, see “S.C. Civil Rights Com mit tee Views Local Dis crim i na tion,” Whea ton Record, No vem ber 1, 1962, 1.

6. On King’s as sas si na tion, see Al ex an der, “Com mu ni ca tions Con fer ence,” 12; Al ex an der, “Tak ing Jesus Se ri ously,” 10–15; Al ex an der, “A Time to Act,” 3, all in Free dom Now, MayJune 1968. On the Poor People’s Cam paign, see Don ald Oden, “On the Bus Back to Akron,” Other Side, NovemberDecember 1968, 21–22. On bus ing, see Loy, “Bus ing: The Real Issue,” Other Side, JulyAugust 1972, 14; Steve Mott, “Bus ing and Ra cism in Bos ton,” Right On, SeptemberOctober 1976, 13. On Al ex an der at Whea ton, see “Al ex an der Edits Civil Rights Mag a zine, ‘Free dom Now!’” Whea ton Record, No vem ber 22, 1968, 4.

7. On Pot ter, see Charles Trout man to John Al ex an der, May 4, 1965, Box 41, Folder 13 “As so ci a tion for the Co or di na tion of Uni ver sity Re li gious Af fairs, 1965–1975,” Inter Var sity Col lec tion, Billy Gra ham Cen ter Archives, Whea ton Col lege, Whea ton, Il li nois (here after cited as IVC). On Aber na thy, see “Aber na thy Urges Broth er hood; Gra ham Crit i cized,” Jet, Oc to ber 2, 1969, 50.

8. William Bent ley, “The Other Amer ica,” Other Side, JanuaryFebruary 1970, 30–33. For “white Christ,” see Tom Skin ner, How Black Is the Gos pel? (Phil a del phia: Lip pin cott, 1970), 13, 69, 108–109, 120; Tom Skin ner, un ti tled ar ti cle, Other Side, July August 1970, 34; Tom Skin ner, “Jesus or Ba rab bas?” Right On, Feb ru ary 3, 1971, 1–2. For



Perkins’s “De mands,” see Charles Marsh, The Be loved Com mu nity: How Faith Shapes So cial Jus tice from the Civil Rights Move ment to Today (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 153–154.

9. For a sam ple of the vo ca tions of Free dom Now con trib u tors, see “The Writ ers,” Other Side, MayJune 1969, 30. On the grow ing im por tance of the so cial sci ences within ev an gel i cal ism, see “So ci ol ogy Forum Ques tions Church Role, Pas to rate as High est Chris tian Vo ca tion,” Whea ton Record, Feb ru ary 10, 1966, 5; Mark Olson, “Rad i cal So cial Ac ti vists Blame Chi cago Ma chine,” Whea ton Record, De cem ber 8, 1967, 5; Alan KeithLucas, In te grat ing Faith and Prac tice: A His tory of the North American As so ci a tion of Chris tians in So cial Work (St. Da vids, PA: North American As so ci a tion of Chris tians in So cial Work, 1994); David Mo berg, In as much: Chris tian So cial Re spon sibil ity in the Twen ti eth Cen tury (Grand Rap ids, MI: Eerd mans, 1965), 154–157; Rich ard Car trell, “So ci ol ogy Forum Ques tions Church Role, Pas to rate as High est Chris tian Vo ca tion,” Whea ton Record, Feb ru ary 10, 1966, 5. NACSW grew from 132 mem bers in 1963 to 1,368 in 1979.

10. On the Kerner Re port and other ex am ples of so cial sci en tific lit er a ture, see Wal lis, Re vive Us Again, 49; PostAmerican bib liog ra phy in Box VII7, Folder “People’s Chris tian Co ali tion, Trin ity,” So journ ers Col lec tion, Whea ton Col lege Archives & Spe cial Col lec tions, Whea ton, Il li nois (here after cited as SC); Don and Made lyn Pow ell, “We Stayed in the Inner City,” HIS, No vem ber 1969, 18–19; William Bent ley, “The Other Amer ica,” Other Side, JanuaryFebruary 1970, 30–33.

11. James O. Bus well III, “Sambo and Jim Crow,” Other Side, JanuaryFebruary 1972, 36–42; Charles Fur ness, The Chris tian and So cial Ac tion (Old Tap pan, NJ: Flem ing H. Rev ell Com pany, 1972), 35–44; David Gill, “More on School Bus ing,” Right On, JanuaryFebruary 1977, 16; Ron Mitch ell, “Chris ti an ity and American Ra cism,” Right On, March 1974, 9–10; “Notes from the Cat a comb,” Right On, SeptemberOctober 1976, 2; “The Church and Eco nom ics,” Right On, SeptemberOctober 1976, 6–7; David O. Mo berg, The Great Re ver sal: Evan gel ism ver sus So cial Con cern (Phil a del phia: Lip pin cott, 1972), 120–149; Ron Sider, “Mis chief by Stat ute: How We Op press the Poor,” Chris ti an ity Today, July 16, 1976, 14.

12. “Pro grammed for Mur der,” Manna, Oc to ber 5, 1970, copy in Box 344, Folder 4, IVC; Wal lis, Re vive Us Again, 62.

13. On de cep tion by govern ment lead ers, see Nich o las Wol ter storff, “ITT: Wick ed ness in High Places,” Re formed Jour nal, MayJune 1972, 4; Carl T. McIn tire, “The American Army on Trial,” Van guard, MayJune 1971, 4. On “nig gers” and “na palm,” see Jim Wal lis, “The Move men tal Church,” Post-American, Win ter 1972, 2–3. For “red, white, and blue,” see Rob ert Lehn hart, “Ur bana 70: We Can’t Af ford to Ig nore It,” 4, in Folder “Tom Skin ner,” Archer We ni ger Col lec tion, Bob Jones Uni ver sity, Green ville, South Carolina; Jill Shook, “Viet nam Today,” Right On, JulyAugust 1974, 7.

14. On Wal lis at Mich i gan State Uni ver sity, see Carol Lang ston, “Cam pus Rebel Finds New ‘Re volt,’ ” Tulsa Trib une, March 26, 1971, 5B; “Cru cible of Com mu nity,” So journ ers, Jan u ary 1977, 14; Stu dent govern ment can di date plat form of Jim Wal lis, Jim Moore, Bob Sa bath, and Tom Mor ris in Box VII8, Folder 6 “Jim Wal lis at Trin ity,” SC; Wal lis, Call to Con ver sion, xv.



one line short

15. On the growth of the Post-American, see “Cru cible of Com mu nity,” 16; Wal lis, Re vive Us Again, 87–89; “News let ter No. 4,” May 1972, Min utes of the Peo ples Chris tian Co ali tion, Sep tem ber 26, 1971, and “News let ter No. 3,” in Box VII7, Folder 6 “Peo ples Chris tian Co ali tion Trin ity,” SC; John Stott, “Im pres sions of American Chris ti an ity,” copy in Box VII8, Folder 6 “Jim Wal lis at Trin ity,” SC; Ed Spi vey Jr., inter view, June 22, 2005.

16. Mark O. Hat field, “Civil Re li gion,” Ev an gel i cal Vis i tor, Au gust 10, 1973, 4–5, 104; Bill Lane, “Les sons from Viet nam,” Post-American, MarchApril 1973, 8–9; “Seeds,” So journ ers, Oc to ber 1976, 26; Mark O. Hat field, Between a Rock and a Hard Place (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1976), 75–109; Mark O. Hat field et al., Am nesty? The Un set tled Ques tion of Viet nam: Now! (Law rence, MA: Sun River Press, 1973), 114, 123; Mark O. Hat field, “Judg ment and Re pen tance,” Van guard, Oc to ber 1973, 9–11; “Piety and Pa tri ot ism,” Post-American, MayJune 1973, 1–2; “Law, Order, and Jus tice: An Inter view with Sen a tor Hat field,” Free dom Now, NovemberDecember 1968, 23–29.

17. Ken neth Wood ward, “The New Ev an gel i cals,” News week, May 6, 1974, 86; James C. He fley and Ed ward E. Plow man, Wash ing ton: Chris tians in the Cor ri dors of Power (Carol Stream, IL: Tyne dale House Pub lish ers, 1975), 114.

18. For “real is sues,” see Jack Rog ers, “Con fes sions of a PostConservative Ev angel i cal,” Re formed Jour nal, Feb ru ary 1971, 11. For “the per ni cious na ture of this civil re li gion,” see Rich ard Pie rard, “The Golden Image of Neb u chad nez zar,” Post-American, JanuaryFebruary 1973, 10–11. For crit i cisms of Gra ham and Nixon, see Hat field, Between a Rock, 100–102; David Ku char sky, “Billy Gra ham and ‘Civil Re li gion,’ ” Chris ti an ity Today, No vem ber 6, 1970, 56–58; “News on Wa ter gate,” Chris ti an ity Today, May 25, 1973, 46; Mark O. Hat field, Con flict and Con science (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971), 110, 112, 120. For “hon or ing Amer ica and God,” see Rob ert D. Linder and Rich ard V. Pie rard, Twi light of the Saints: Bib li cal Chris ti an ity and Civil Re li gion in Amer ica (Down ers Grove, IL: Inter Var sity Press, 1978), 170–171. For a small sam ple of the large ev an gel i cal Left oeuvre on civil re li gion, see Rob ert G. Clouse, Rob ert D. Linder, and Rich ard V. Pie rard, Protest and Pol i tics: Chris ti an ity and Con tem po rary Af fairs (Green wood, SC: Attic Press, 1968); Rich ard V. Pie rard, Un equal Yoke: Ev an gel i cal Chris ti an ity and Po lit i cal Con ser va-tism (Phil a del phia: Lip pin cott Co., 1970); Rob ert G. Clouse, Rob ert D. Linder, and Rich ard V. Pie rard, eds., The Cross & the Flag (Carol Stream, IL: Crea tion House, 1972); Rob ert Je wett, The Cap tain Amer ica Com plex: The Di lemma of Zeal ous Na tion al ism (Phil a del phia: West min ster Press, 1973); Craig Watts, “Iden tity and Idol a try?” Other Side, July 1984, 10; Perry Co tham, Re view of Pol i tics, American ism, and Chris ti an ity, Eter nity, Sep tem ber 1976, 48; John F. Al ex an der, “Land of the Free?” Other Side, Au gust 1978, 12–16; Linder and Pie rard, Twi light of the Saints, 21; Joe Roos, “American Civil Re li gion,” Post-American, Spring 1972, 8–10.

19. On pol i tics as a Chris tian vo ca tion, see Lon Fen dall, Stand Alone Or Come Home: Mark Hat field as an Ev an gel i cal and a Pro gres sive (New berg, OR: Bar clay Press, 2008), 44; Hat field, “Can a Chris tian be a Pol i ti cian?” HIS, Oc to ber 1967, 1–5.



one line short

20. On the im por tance of spe cial iza tion in solv ing so cial prob lems, in reach ing tar get au di ences, and ad dress ing theo ret i cal con cerns, see Roger L. Dewey, “Ed i to rial,” In side, No vem ber 1973. For “hardheaded anal y sis,” see John Al ex an der, “A Pol i tics of Love,” Other Side, JulyAugust 1972, 3. On elim i nat ing pov erty, see James Daane, “The War on Pov erty Can be Won,” Re formed Jour nal, April 1964, 3. For the hymn, see the wor ship pro gram ti tled “A Cel e bra tion of Hope,” in Folder “1974 Thanks giv ing Workshop,” Ev an gel i cals for So cial Ac tion Col lec tion, Billy Gra ham Cen ter Archives, Whea ton Col lege, Whea ton, Il li nois (here after cited as ESAC).

21. Ste phen Mon sma, The Un rav el ing of Amer ica (Down ers Grove, IL: Inter Var sity Press, 1974); John An der son, Vi sion and Betrayal in Amer ica (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1975), 121; Ed ward A. Loucks, “De cid ing How to Vote,” Other Side, SeptemberOctober 1972, 25; “Back to That Old Time Re li gion: Gaudy and Vital U.S. Ev an gel i cal ism Is Boom ing,” Time, De cem ber 26, 1977, 52; Rich ard Mouw, Po lit i cal Evan gel ism (Grand Rap ids, MI: Eerd mans, 1973); James M. Dunn, “Lob by ing Isn’t a Dirty Word,” Eter nity, July 1975, 12–14, 29–30; Wes Mi chael son, “Pol i tics and Spir i tu al ity,” Post-American, April 1974.

22. Jim Wal lis, “The Issue of 1972,” Post-American, Fall 1972, 2–3; Tay lor, “Man ual for Non vi o lent Di rect Ac tion,” 25.

23. Paul Henry, Pol i tics for Ev an gel i cals (Val ley Forge, PA: Jud son Press, 1974), 22; Gary Tut tle, “On Dis sent,” Opin ion, May 26, 1970, 4; Ro nald Mi chael son, “Pos i tive Pol i tics,” HIS, May 1972, 13; Em i lio Cas tro, “Strat e gies for Con front ing Un just So cial Struc tures,” 1, speech de livered at the 1974 Thanks giv ing Work shop, Chi cago, Ilinois, copy in Folder “1974 Thanks giv ing Work shop,” ESAC; John son, “The Chris tian and the Emer gence of the Wel fare State,” in Protest and Pol i tics, ed. Clouse et al., 95, 116; George DeV ries, “Mr. Hughes Leaves Wash ing ton,” Re formed Jour nal, No vem ber 1973, 6–7. Hughes re counted dis cus sions with Billy Gra ham as well as ev an gel i cal Wash ington in sid ers Mark Hat field, Doug Coe, Gra ham Pur cell, and Al Quie on whether to leave the Sen ate and pol i tics alto gether. “To a man they felt that I should stay in the Sen ate,” wrote Hughes. See Har old Hughes, The Man from Ida Grove: A Senator’s Story (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1979), 317–319.

24. For Webber’s quote, see “The Ev an gel i cal Vote,” News week, Oc to ber 30, 1972, 93. For “a ris ing tide,” see Ron Sider, news re lease from Ev an gel i cals for McGov ern, Oc to ber 6, 1972, ESAC.

25. Jeri Drum to Wal den Ho ward, Oc to ber 22, 1972, ESAC; “Re li gion in Tran sit,” Chris ti an ity Today, No vem ber 24, 1972, 48. Text of McGov ern speech at Whea ton, Oc to ber 11, 1972, copy in Folder “Ev an gel i cals for McGov ern,” ESAC; Mi chael McIn tyre, “Re lig ion ists on the Cam paign Trail,” Chris tian Cen tury, De cem ber 27, 1972, 1319–1322.

26. Wal den Ho ward let ter, ca. Oc to ber 1972, ESAC.27. On Haynes, see “Back to That Old Time Re li gion: Gaudy and Vital U.S.

Ev an gel i cal ism Is Boom ing,” Time, De cem ber 26, 1977, 52. On Hughes, see Hughes, Man from Ida Grove, 214, 234, 256–257, 307; Fen dall, Stand Alone, 18; Wes Pip pert, “Christ



and Cri sis in Wash ing ton,” HIS, April 1974, 1–4. On Paul Henry, see Doug Koop man, ed., Serv ing the Claims of Jus tice: The Thoughts of Paul B. Henry (Grand Rap ids, MI: Cal vin Col lege, 2001). On Mon sma, see “Pro file/Sen a tors,” Grand Rap ids Ac cent, January February 1980, 38, copy in Box 1, Folder 1, “Bib lio graphic Data, 1976–1980,” Paul Henry Col lec tion, Cal vin Col lege Archives, Grand Rap ids, MI; Mon sma, Un rav el ing of Amer ica. On An der son, see John B. An der son, Between Two Worlds: A Congressman’s Choice (Grand Rap ids, MI: Zon der van, 1970); John B. An der son, Vi sion and Betrayal in Amer ica (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1975), 90, 121. For more vig nettes of ev an gel i cal pol i ti cians, see “God on Cap i tol Hill,” Chris ti an ity Today, Oc to ber 10, 1969, 48–50.

28. On Lau sanne II, see Ron Sider fund rais ing let ter, De cem ber 5, 1989, in Folder “1989,” ESAC.

29. On ev an gel i cal rates of col lege at ten dance, see John Ste phen Hen dricks, “Re li gious and Po lit i cal Fun da men tal ism: The Links between Al ien a tion and Ideol ogy” (PhD diss., Uni ver sity of Mich i gan, 1977).

The Evangelical Left and the Move from Personal to Corporate Responsibility

Documents

Transcript of The Evangelical Left and the Move from Personal to Corporate Responsibility