According to a recent article on the Christianity Today Web site, leaders of the Religious Right are taking exception to the nomenclature that others use to describe them. “There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate,” Gary Bauer, a leader of the Religious Right, told Sarah Pulliam, author of the article. “It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the ‘American Taliban,’ ‘fundamentalists,’ ‘Christian fascists,’ and ‘extreme Religious Right.’”
Okay, I understand the objections to “American Taliban” and “Christian Fascists.” And the modifier “extreme” may also be incendiary—though hardly, in my view, inappropriate. As a general rule of thumb, I believe that individuals and (to a lesser degree) organizations should have the prerogative to determine how they are addressed, or at least to have significant input into the determination of that nomenclature.
The movement of politically-conservative evangelicals that coalesced late in the 1970s has had several monikers: Moral Majority (the particular name of Jerry Falwell’s political organization), the Religious Right, the Christian Right, and (oddly) the New Christian Right.
The last term, “New Christian Right,” is the one that I’ve always found the most puzzling. The modifier “new” suggests that there was something, sometime in the past, that might be described as the Old Christian Right—whether or not that phrase was used. As a historian, however, I’d be hard-pressed to identify anything that fit that description. Evangelical social and political activism in the nineteenth century could never be described as listing toward the right. On the contrary, evangelical activists invariably took the part of those who were disadvantaged—women, minorities, prisoners, the poor—a predilection utterly missing from the religious right in the decades surrounding the turn of the twenty-first century.
I suppose you could apply the term “Old Christian Right” to the crusty anticommunists like Billy James Hargis or Carl McIntire, who flourished in the middle decades of the twentieth century. But they were marginal figures, even among evangelicals, and they hardly constituted a movement.
I have a personal objection to the term “Christian Right.” As a person of faith I, frankly, don’t find much that I would identify as “Christian” in the actions and agenda of the religious right: support for an unjust war, tax cuts for the affluent, and capital punishment, coupled with a refusal to denounce torture or act to retard global warming. How does this agenda square with the teachings of the One who invited his followers to love their enemies, to be peacemakers, to care for “the least of these,” and who expressed concern for the tiniest sparrow?
When I was growing up as an evangelical in the 1950s and 1960s, my mother repeatedly counseled me that when anyone asked my religion, I was to reply that I had no religion; I was a Christian. For my mother, as well as for at least a generation of evangelicals, “Christian” was a label of honor and distinction. It marked us off as followers of Jesus. Identifying oneself as a “Christian” was infinitely preferable to being merely “religious.”
Given the policies and the tactics associated with this movement of politically conservative evangelicals over the course it its thirty-year history, 1978 to 2008, the term “Religious Right” is perfectly appropriate.
Tags: christian right, christianity today, evangelicalism, gary bauer, identity, jerry falwell, leadership struggles, randall balmer, rhetoric, stereotypes
Randall Balmer: On the contrary, evangelical activists invariably took the part of those who were disadvantaged—women, minorities, prisoners, the poor—a predilection utterly missing from the religious right in the decades surrounding the turn of the twenty-first century.
My problem with the religious right derives not from their pejorative attitude. Statistics show conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. My issue concerns their true Christianity.
Randall Balmer: As a person of faith I, frankly, don’t find much that I would identify as “Christian” in the actions and agenda of the religious right:support for an unjust war, tax cuts for the affluent, and capital punishment, coupled with a refusal to denounce torture or act to retard global warming.
There is an alternative viewpoint as well, which may or may not have evidence on their side. Iraq was in materal breach of UNSC Resolution 1441, the Security Council afterwards in breach of its own resolution not allowing the United States to implement Res 1441.
The affluent already pay 80% of the all taxes.
Capital punishment is granted by Jesus Christ in Mark 12, the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:4, and by the V Amendment to the Constitution:
Mark 12
1And he began to speak unto them by parables...8And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
"For he [government] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." [bold face mine]
Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [bold face mine]
I agree with you on torture. I believe the Founding Fathers prohibited torture as well.
Global Warming has many holes in it. Proponents of global warming cried global cooling in 1970. Global Warming is most likely caused by changes with the sun, amid the universe, exhibiting God's sovereignty.
OFT writes, "On the contrary, evangelical activists invariably took the part of those who were disadvantaged—women, minorities, prisoners, the poor."
OFT seems to have been out of the country throughout much of the twentieth century.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, strongly supported the segregationists against those working for civil rights for blacks. They even built private whites-only schools for their pure white flocks.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have been strongly in opposition to equal rights for women and opposed to women ministers/pastors in the church.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have supported unjust wars in Vietnam, and in Iraq.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have lead the charge in abusing, oppressing, and harassing immigrants, included those who are undocumented.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have advocated locking up larger and larger percentages of our population in prisons, and executing larger numbers of prisoners.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have opposed the structural changes needed in society to effectively end the problem of poverty, insisting instead on shuffling the problem off as one of personal charity.
With champions like these who needs enemies?
But, on the other side, those evangelicals do use their charitable contributions to put up lots of fancy churches and mansions for their pastors, pay some fabulous salaries to their pastors, the pastor's relatives, and to the pilots of those churches' private jets. I guess it is understandable that they run out of funds before the get around to "the least of these."
OFT writes, "On the contrary, evangelical activists invariably took the part of those who were disadvantaged—women, minorities, prisoners, the poor."
You have the wrong source on your quotes, as well as you haven't refuted any of my points, but made new ones that aren't apart of the issue.
Asinus Gravis: Many evangelicals, and their leaders, strongly supported the segregationists against those working for civil rights for blacks. They even built private whites-only schools for their pure white flocks.
Rather the southern liberals (democrats) who controlled the southern states were the racists, the dem party only changing its platform in the 1970's. The Republican Party has always been the party of freedom to minorities. The Christians were fighting the democrats, they were called "abolitionists"
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have been strongly in opposition to equal rights for women>
Like who?
and opposed to women ministers/pastors in the church.>
Because the Bible forbids that.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have supported unjust wars in Vietnam, and in Iraq.>
It's your opinion they are unjust.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have lead the charge in abusing, oppressing, and harassing immigrants, included those who are undocumented.>
Rather evangelicals uphold the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Liberals try to destroy it by subverting our sovereignty.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have advocated locking up larger and larger percentages of our population in prisons, and executing larger numbers of prisoners.>
The Bible and Constitution mandate capital punishment, i.e. see initial post.
Many evangelicals, and their leaders, have opposed the structural changes needed in society to effectively end the problem of poverty, insisting instead on shuffling the problem off as one of personal charity.>
The Bible supports these issues, which you seem to prohibit.
But, on the other side, those evangelicals do use their charitable contributions>
Evangelicals give more money to charity than liberals. I suggest you attack them.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.