This Is Probably An Interesting Blog (but in the offhand chance it isn't…)

Randall Balmer, professor of American Religious History at Barnard College, Columbia University, has a book out depicting the many factors that aligned to allow the rise of the Christian Right. Balmer’s book Thy Kingdom Come chronicles many of these events, demonstrating to the reader why — or what — exactly got these folks so riled up, that they needed more of a voice in the electorate. I know what you’re thinking, but it wasn’t abortion. Balmer explains his experience at a conference discussing this very subject:

In November 1990, for reasons that I still don’t entirely understand, I was invited to attend a conference in Washington sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Religious Right organization (though I didn’t realize it at the time). I soon found myself in a conference room with a couple of dozen people, including Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition; Carl F. H. Henry, an evangelical theologian; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Edward G. Dobson, pastor of an evangelical church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and formerly one of Jerry Falwell’s acolytes at Moral Majority. Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, head of what is now called the Free Congress Foundation, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, was also there.

In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let’s remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Barner continues:

The IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school’s regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll. The university filed suit to retain its tax-exempt status, although that suit would not reach the Supreme Court until 1983 (at which time, the Reagan administration argued in favor of Bob Jones University).

…During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. “I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post Roe v. Wade,” he said, “and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.”

“What caused the movement to surface,” Weyrich reiterated,” was the federal government’s moves against Christian schools.” The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, “enraged the Christian community.” That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. “It was not the other things,” he said.

Ed Dobson, Falwell’s erstwhile associate, corroborated Weyrich’s account during the ensuing discussion. “The Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion,” Dobson said. “I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something.”

During the following break in the conference proceedings, I cornered Weyrich to make sure I had heard him correctly. He was adamant that, yes, the 1975 action by the IRS against Bob Jones University was responsible for the genesis of the Religious Right in the late 1970s. What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, “How about abortion?” And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right.

The makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, “How about abortion?” And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right.

Falwell and others who eventually became leaders of the Religious Right, in fact, explicitly condemned the civil rights movement. “Believing the Bible as I do,” Falwell proclaimed in 1965, “I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel of Jesus Christ, and begin doing anything else—including fighting Communism, or participating in civil-rights reforms.” This makes all the more outrageous the occasional attempts by leaders of the Religious Right to portray themselves as the “new abolitionists” in an effort to link their campaign against abortion to the nineteenth century crusade against slavery.

I can’t say I’m particularly surprised. Falwell used to be a segregationist and most other evangelical leaders have usually adopted one or the other hot-button issues for the sake of political expediency in election cycles. Ed Dobson has since recanted much of his contributions to the Christian Right, which is why it isn’t surprising for me to read he would be so candid with Balmer. 

In a somewhat related note, this whole excerpt makes me wonder just how much influence money has had in many of the decisions these organizations make — i.e. which causes they will champion and which will fall by the wayside. I imagine an organization like Focus on the Family could not raise funds the way they might like when it comes to their original missional issues like adoption, divorce, or family counseling; thus adopting a gritty, political edge had to be the most profitable avenue of fundraising (and I’m pretty sure this continues to be the case). The same goes for Falwell and Ralph Reed. These individuals were involved in huge organizations and projects — building universities and so on — which would have required millions of dollars in donations and fundraising. So the question becomes how do you fundraise effectively with the highest yields?

I always liked Watterson’s take on the subject:

So I have to wonder, just how much did money play into these decisions? If a Dobson or Falwell or Reed can convince their millions of devotees that their freedoms, liberties, families and futures are at stake, how much more money do you think they could raise? This is, of course, marketing 101. 

Perhaps it’s cynical, but I wouldn’t put it past them.