Guest post by Seth Bartee.
In the 2011 Journal of American History roundtable on American conservatism, the participating
historians seemed to agree that the final word on conservatism was yet to be
written. There was the feeling that historians had indeed made great strides
towards researching a movement once considered too ridiculous to take seriously. (1) Still, Wilfred McClay’s
reaction to Kim Phillips-Fein’s lead article was more skeptical about the newfound
awareness. The former Merle Curti award winner—despite renewed attentiveness to
conservatism—remained suspicious as to when conservative intellectuals would garner
genuine respect from liberal academics instead of being treated as laboratory
rats ready to be poked and prodded. (2)
The majority of conservative intellectuals (major, minor,
and between) are yet to see daylight outside of venues dedicated to
conservative thought, as McClay suggested. (3) I would also add that the
great expanse of conservative thinkers other than the hallmark names like Russell
Kirk, William Buckley, Richard Weaver, and Leo Strauss have yet to be considered
within the larger framework of the history of conservatism. A problem is that
the historian’s scope is too limited, as the criteria for measuring the
importance of a conservative intellectual is that they participated in familiar
conservative venues such as National
Review and The Philadelphia Society.
If historians broaden their scope towards conservatism, they
may find uncharted territory and boundaries that even Kirk and Strauss rarely traversed. (4) A group of thinkers
associated with conservatism that has collected more boilerplate than symmetry
(McClay’s terminology) in relation to the wider conservative movement is
evangelical intellectuals. Here I am specifically referencing Southern Baptist
intellectuals and not television personalities like Joel Osteen. Southern
Baptists intellectuals are considered conservative
because they oppose hot-button cultural issues like same-sex marriage and
on-demand abortion just as many traditionalists do. (5) Yet, there are reasons to
consider evangelicals as strange bedfellows next to conservatives. From the
standpoint of canon, one may notice that Baptists and evangelical types were
absent from Russell Kirk’s The
Conservative Mind, and the
updated editions that followed. Theologically, Southern Baptists are not as
traditional as their Catholic and high Protestant cousins considering their
proud embrace of the legacy of the Protestant Reformation and the significant
changes it brought about in the modern world. To make matters worse, Baptists
believe in personal salvation and church autonomy in a way that often defies
community building—something that Kirk and traditionalists cannot abide by. Yet
these groups are paired together without taking the time to understand their
differences, as much as their similarities.
Since the conclusion of the second Bush presidency, there is
an ever-widening gap between evangelicals and conservatives. (6) Evangelicals, in the
opinion of traditionalists, happily supported an era of continued big
government that further led to the demise of the Republican Party because
President Bush was one of their own—a genuine Christian with a conversion story
and a changed life to match that story. Traditionalist conservatives also look suspiciously
on evangelicals for other reasons including and not limited to their sole
reliance on Biblical scripture for a political map, and equally feeble attempts
to believe that the Republican Party can amply represent theological positions
in Washington amidst a secular bureaucracy set on continually perpetuating
itself. (7) But just as there is not a
general archetype of a conservative, this is also true of Baptist evangelicals
as one could continue to break this group down into subgroups within the
denomination, one more or less conservative than the next. (8) One aspect of research of
American conservatism is absolutely certain, it will take an effort of
(Charles) Taylorian proportions to flesh out all of the complexity in American
conservatism into a readable tome—one that could fill volumes to document
American conservatism and its many tributaries. (9)
I am interested in the recent development of a younger
generation of Southern Baptist intellectuals including a marked growth in
scholarly publications (monographs and journals) and a rising presence in the
blogosphere. (10) This new fervor has taken place a part from conservatism or possibly as mild
reaction against it. There is a historical trajectory from which to trace this recent
enthusiasm, and reason to consider these intellectuals in the movement that
originally rejected their presence.
A movement known in Southern Baptist circles as the conservative
resurgence (CR) influenced this new generation of thinkers. Beginning in the 1970s,
considering which source consulted, conservative (or fundamentalist) Southern
Baptists began a campaign to take back the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)
from liberal Baptists—a goal they accomplished in 1979 with the election of Adrian
Rogers as president of the SBC. (11) The resurgent Baptists eventually
took back crucial Baptist seminaries because of correlated efforts of key individuals
and supporters alike. While I do not want to present a reductionist account of the
conservative resurgence, I will have to abbreviate most of the story of the CR for
the sake of brevity and argument.
During the previous SBC meeting, several of the key players
in the conservative resurgence spoke on a panel titled “The Conservative
Resurgence, the Great Commission Resurgence, and the Future of the SBC.” (You can watch the panel discussion here). This panel is important for historians of
conservatism, because we learn how the CR developed from an
intellectual/theological struggle within the larger conservative movement that
began more than twenty years before. In other words, Russell Kirk (and others) fought
similar and different battles simultaneously. The texts may have been different,
but both movements existed within in similar space. In place of The Conservative Mind, a book titled Baptists and the Bible is often credited
as the first volley against liberal Baptists who held positions of authority in
Baptist seminaries and the SBC. (12) From this book followed
other creeds eventually culminating The
Baptist Faith and Message 2000. For intellectual historians it is
fascinating to see how various doctrines and groups formed out of the larger
conservatism of midcentury America.
Paige Patterson—the unofficial don of the “Texas mafia” of conservative
Baptist reformers—helped turn several seminaries into conservative institutions
where the official doctrine is Biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy was the primary
force of CR from the outset. Other doctrines followed from Biblical inerrancy and
they are a realization of the importance and permanence of the Great Commission
to both the New Testament and Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the belief that
conservative Baptists carry the responsibility as standard-bearers of a faith
that must move beyond theory and into human action. (13) Patterson’s influence as
theologian, pastor, and administrator cannot be emphasized enough, although there
were many other important figures who impacted CR including Paul Pressler
(Houston-based judge), W.A. Criswell (founder of Criswell College), Thomas Nettles (Baptist
historian), Adrian Rogers (posthumous pastor of Bellevue Baptist in Memphis,
Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Charles
Stanley (pastor of First Baptist Atlanta), and Russ Bush (co-author of Baptists and the Bible and faculty
member at both Southwestern and Southeastern Seminaries). (14) Of the theological
beliefs that resounded from the conservative resurgence, one stands above the
rest as it affects the intellectual life of Southern Baptist thinkers and
separates them from the conservatism of Kirk, Weaver, Buckley, and Strauss.
The Great Commission is a specific and intentional theological
belief that the resurgents made intentional to Southern Baptist intellectual
life. The Great Commission (GC) is a series of Bible verses found at the
conclusion of the gospels of Matthew and Mark where Jesus told his eleven
disciples to spread the new message of salvation to all nations and make
disciples of those new followers of Christ. (15) GC was never a dominant
trope among most postwar conservatives who tended focus on custom and order as
opposed to converting unbelievers to Christianity. Roman Catholic
conservatives, like Kirk, often believed that the Protestant Reformation only
furthered the destruction of social order, and Eric Voegelin found Christian
eschatology as suspect as liberal utopianism. (16) This does not mean that Kirk
and others hated or disagreed with evangelicals on many key issues, but for the
most part evangelicals did not gravitate into conservatism until the mid to
late 1970s and the 1980s when conservatism was well into its second phase.
Their graduation into conservatism tended to happen politically and not because
of dialogue with those who generated that movement intellectually.
GC is such a defining characteristic in evangelical
intellectual life that one often finds a dualism among the Southern Baptist
laity. The dualism has often resulted in a laity that looks down on
intellectual life because GC so specifically put an emphasis on conversion and
heaven mindedness. (17) Despite this apparent epistemological
dualism, people like the late Francis Schaeffer and his protégés encouraged
young Christians to engage the world with hearts and minds. Schaeffer was only
loosely affiliated with the resurgents, as far as I know. Nevertheless, many
evangelicals count him as the starting point for their intellectual lives. (see
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Center for Faith and Culture for a
greater understanding of Schaeffer’s impact on evangelical intellectuals).
Southern Baptist intellectuals are still attempting to
bridge this gap between heart and mind while maintain the impact of GC. Here
are, I believe, several aspects of Southern Baptist intellectual life that define
them now and separate them from their conservative counterparts you might find
publishing at The American Conservative or
lecturing on the ISI lecture circuit. (18) 1. Spreading the gospel
message of salvation is the ultimate goal, even for scholarship. (19) 2. Most Southern Baptist
intellectuals are less concerned with preserving bourgeoisie morality and
manners than they are making disciples of all people from a variety of
lifestyles. The democratic strain is robust in evangelical intellectual life
and is suspect to conservatives who view social justice writ large as the enemy
of community, custom, and tradition. (20) 3. Conversion and
imitating Christ is more important than loyalty to community and tradition. Because
of the importance of GC many Southern Baptists leave their communities to
become missionaries either overseas or in other parts of the United States. The
evangelical Burkean is a rarity. (21)
We can trace further theological differences between conservatives
and evangelicals to questions regarding size and place of government, foreign
policy, and so on. (22) Evangelicals may
gravitate towards liberal positions because they can support a greater welfare
state and foreign aid as of their reading of GC. (23) The state (with all of
its imperfections) may indeed be a tool of God to spread the gospel message
around the globe. Evangelicals have a difficult time arguing for aristocracy,
too, because they read the GC as having an equalizing effect in society, and
so
it is easy to see why evangelicals are lambasted by those in the traditionalist
camp who believe order in the commonwealth is also a reflection of the harmony
in heaven.
Another point of contention worth mentioning again is source
material. Conservatives will mesh figures like Tocqueville and Burke heavily
into theology. (24) Resurgent Baptists are primarily Biblical theologians meaning they use the
Bible for understanding and acting on everything from politics to modern art. I
am vulgarizing a lot of complexity here, as there are obviously Baptists who
utilize Martin Luther, Augustine, John Calvin, and others in their
understanding of the world. Nevertheless, the predominant trope is still
towards a Biblical understanding of the world and culture. The Bible is the
primary text for Southern Baptists as they think about everything from theology
to marriage to financial planning.
I will attempt to highlight some of the recent goings on. A
decade ago or more Southern Baptists fretted about who would take the place of
their aging activist thinkers like D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries),
James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Jerry Falwell (founder of Liberty
University and co-founder of Moral Majority), and Adrian Rogers. The real shift
that has taken is that new faces have taken the place of the people who gave CR
a face. The new breed of evangelical thinkers have not chosen the path of
activism, and have instead taken Mark Noll’s challenge to heart, and picked up
the scholars robe, again. (25)
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, has solidified his role as the go-to Baptist public intellectual. He
is un-abrasive, bookish, and perceptive in his dealings with media and
academics. He keeps an active presence online with a blog, a twitter account,
and for a while hosted a popular radio show, where he interviewed scholars
about important theological and cultural issues. He occasionally podcasts as an
interviewer as the list of interviewees include the likes of Robert Darnton, Joel
Kotkin, and Thomas Kidd.
The most important blog in the evangelical intellectual
world is Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds. Taylor’s blog is located at The Gospel Coalition portal. Since he began blogging, Between Two Worlds is the equivalent to evangelical intellectualism
as is the significance of the US
Intellectual History blog to intellectual historians. Taylor is also an
editor at Crossway Books and supposedly preparing for doctoral work soon.
The
Gospel Coalition (TGC) is also a meeting place for a variety of
evangelicals. There are other influential bloggers here including theologian Don
Carson, Reformed Lansing, MI pastor and author Kevin DeYoung, and author and
Lifeway editor Trevin Wax. TGC also houses the revamped evangelical academic journal
Themelios. TGC, of course, is
centered on the concept of generating “a unified effort among all peoples—an
effort that is zealous to honor Christ and multiply his disciples, joining in a
true coalition for Jesus.” In other words, the Great Commission is preeminent in
the intellectual life of these thinkers.
Besides the presidents, there are a host of younger thinkers
such as Taylor, which are taking the reins once occupied by likes of Dobson,
Kennedy, and Falwell. At SEBTS Nathan Finn, Bruce Ashford, Andreas
Kostenberger, and Keith Harper are names worth looking for—Kostenberger and
Harper have a more extensive bibliography given that they are a generation or
two ahead of Finn and Ashford. Kostenberger is one of the main respondents to anti-apologist
Bart Ehrman. Many of these scholars have blogs, twitter feeds, and will
published regularly at the official SEBTS blog Between the Times. Another little known fact is that unlike the non-religious
world of graduate schools where most students leave their home programs for
jobs elsewhere, seminaries will often hire their own. Therefore, it is not
unusual to see seminary faculty rosters filled with faculty who are also alum. Because
GC is the focus of this article, it is worth noting that SEBTS houses The
Center for Great Commission Studies.
David Dockery has emerged as a top-notch thinker who
presides over Union in western Tennessee. Union houses bright evangelical thinkers
like Hunter Baker, Gene Fant, and Bradley Green. Union has emerged as a school
dedicated to the Christian intellectual tradition—a mixture of classical and
Christian education. They also publish a new much talked about academic journal
titled Renewing Minds. Baker is
editor and founder of a popular Christian academic journal titled The City. In 2009, his book The End of Secularism garnered a lot of
press for its provocative thesis that religion and science are not natural
enemies. Dockery also edits a Crossway series titled Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition (five volumes were
published in 2012 with at least one more volume planned for 2013) and various
other works including a book on Christianity and the liberal arts.
Southern Seminary boasts many of the who’s who in Baptist
circles including Mohler, Russell Moore, Gregory Wills, Michael Haykin, and
Bruce Ware. Many of Southern’s scholars have an online presence (blogs and
social media) as well. Southern also hosts the Great Commission lecture series.
This list is not comprehensive but merely meant to serve as
place to begin to understand the trajectory of current Southern Baptist
thinking. Again, Patheos (evangelical
channel) and Taylor’s blog is an excellent way to keep up with what is
happening in the evangelical intellectual world. I have not even touched up the
evangelical scholars at other institutions like Baylor and Wheaton (Illinois).
There is also a host of new books considering the place of
Baptist history as we can watch Baptist intellectuals sorting out a more
conceptualized ecclesiology. In fact, one of the most important things to come
out of this renewed thinking is that Baptists are creating a new scholarly
identity while working out a firmer ecclesiology. (26) Many of the newer
evangelicals have chosen a different path to addressing what they consider social
ills, which may be why the names of most of these scholars evade us
intellectual historians, as we tend to gravitate towards the popular and
outlandish renderings of evangelical religious life. Regarding evangelicals and
relationship with conservatives, these two groups will most likely grow further
apart; however, it is unclear what new alliances may form as President Obama
begins his second term (Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus formed a
standing alliance during the culture wars of the 1990s). I believe it is
interesting to compare the presence of GC among Baptists while considering how
the Burkean tradition may downplay this aspect of faith in favor of having an
immediate impact or a longer lasting earthly impact, as evangelicals might say.
Another way of stating this is that tradition and conversion—conversion more so
than faith—are antagonists between these two schools, although one does not
have to be a person of faith to be a conservative. It is also worth considering
the variances in canon and how we might speak of the trajectory of
conservatisms (or not) that follow from both conservatives and evangelical
Southern Baptists.
--------
(1) See, Kim Phillips-Fein, “Conservatism: A State of the Field,” Journal of American History, 725-26.
(2) See, “Now What? Reflections On Historicizing American "Conservatism"”
U.S. Intellectual History, January 5,
2012 for summaries of each article included in the roundtable on conservatism.
(3) I should add that historians such as Jennifer Burns, Paul Murphy, Kim
Phillips-Fein, David Hoeveler, Leo Ribuffo, Michael Kimmage, and others have
contributed greatly to shifting the previous trajectory from the pathologizing
of conservatives to serious consideration of conservative ideas.
(4) In a previous post concerning the conservative organization Intercollegiate
Studies Institute, I used the example of a metropolis to describe American
conservatism. “Intercollegiate Studies Institute,” October 9, 2012.
(5) Throughout this post, I use the terminology of conservative and traditionalist
interchangeably, although there are crucial differences in both terms. I also
use the terms Southern Baptist, evangelical, and Baptist interchangeably.
Again, I am smoothing over complexities here for the sake of brevity.
(6) By conservative, I mean someone who believes in the ability of Western culture
and Christian humanism to render order in society. By this definition both
Russell Kirk and Christopher Dawson qualify as exemplary conservative thinkers.
You can also find variants of conservatism (secular humanists, etc.) that are
implicitly and explicitly secular, too.
(7) For critiques of evangelicals as conservatives, see D.G. Hart’s From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin:
Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism (2011), Daniel
McCarthy, “How Protestantism Lost Its Mind,” The American Conservative, September 1, 2012, and Jon Utley, “Evangelicals,
Ron Paul and War,” The American
Conservative, January 20, 2012.
(8) See, Andrew Naselli and Collin Hansen ed., Four
Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (2012).
(9) See, George Nash, The Conservative
Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 and Gregory Schneider, The Conservative Century: From Reaction to
Revolution (2009) for readable introductions into the conservative
movement.
(10) Two portals—The Gospel Coalition and Patheos (evangelical channel) have
helped evangelicals get their work to a larger audience. Several Baptist
seminaries serve as portals for both individual and group blogs as well.
(11) Southeastern Seminary dedicated its fall 2012 magazine, Outlook, specifically to
looking back on the conservative resurgence. See, Keith Harper “The Road Not
Taken,” for a brief overview of the conservative resurgence.
(12) See, Russ Bush, “Baptist Identity: The Role of Scripture in Baptist Life,”
Baptist Identity Conference, 2004, at Union University.
(13) See, “An Exposition from the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”
(14) Rodgers, Criswell, and Bush are now deceased.
(15) See, Mt. 28:16-20 and Mk. 16:14-20.
(16) See, Michael Federici, Eric Voegelin: The
Restoration of Order.
(17) See, Mt. 16:23.
(18) Hunter Baker, who is well known in Baptist circles and a professor at Union University,
is listed as a lecturer on the ISI circuit as is Protestant public intellectual
Peter Leithart. Therefore, these boundaries are sometimes fluid.
(19) See new Crossway series Reclaiming the
Christian Intellectual Tradition edited by David Dockery.
(20) A major update to the Baptist Faith and
Message 2000 was an opposition to racism. The implication is not that
conservatives are racist, but that conservatives are unwilling to mandate such
beliefs beyond a community setting. Baptists recognize racism as something to
be universally rejected, even if that means creating federal mandates. Better
said, most Baptists are comfortable
with these mandates. Traditionalists associate Baptists and evangelicals with neo-conservative
big-government policies.
(21) See Louis Markos, Literature: A Student’s
Guide (2012). Markos’ approach to literature is classical and somewhat
Burkean. Crossway published Literature.
(22) From a conservative standpoint, many of these issues were debated in Peter
Berkowitz’s edited volume Varieties of
Conservatism in America.
(23) Evangelicals, mostly, supported the presidency of George W. Bush with few
reservations because of his evangelical Christianity. President Bush did not
dismantle the welfare state or shrink foreign policy, something that dismayed traditionalists
with Bush and his evangelical supporters. Also see, George W. Bush, Decision Points for an explanation of
how his faith played a seminal role in his decision making.
(24) Retired Georgetown professor James Schall and postmodern conservative political
philosopher Peter Lawler are most successful in bringing secular
(extra-canonical) source material together with theology. Both find the
interplay of philosophy and theology of worth consideration for matters of
better understanding education and culture.
(25) For a recent take on Noll and the evangelical mind see, Owen Strachan, “Is MarkNoll Right? Is There No Evangelical Mind?”
(26) See The Baptist Identity Conference at Union University in 2004. The panel
featured Mohler, Akin Gregory Wills, Richard Land, and David Dockery among
others.
Thanks for the interesting post. I wonder if you could elaborate on the concept of "order" in your definition of conservative.
ReplyDelete"By conservative, I mean someone who believes in the ability of Western culture and Christian humanism to render order in society."
Russell Kirk's definition of order is defined well by Kirkean scholar Wesley McDonald. He writes, "The underlying customs, mores, habits, and traditions that constitute the moral ethos of a community establish its order." (Russell Kirk and the Age of Ideology, 117--paperback edition). This is a concise definition of order from a conservative/traditionalist perspective.
ReplyDeleteThanks for these reflections, Seth, pointing us to newer tensions in modern conservativism beyond Nash's traditionalist-libertarian-anticommunist framework.
ReplyDeleteWhere does populism enter in? It seems the fallout between a Kirk and a Billy Graham go beyond differing ideas. At least, I've found Kirk, Weaver, and forgotten traditionalists like Robert Nisbet, Peter Viereck, Clinton Rossiter to have more in common with Reinhold Niebuhr and the old Protestant left ("mass society" critics all!) than with 1950s fundamentalism or new evangelicalism.
On traditionalists remembered and forgotten, check out Peter Kolozi's recent dissertation, "Conservatives against Capitalism," written under Corey Robin.
Mark, you are correct that more than ideas separate these groups. History and theology played great roles, too. From the trajectory I am working with here, the “populism” would have entered in as early as the late sixties with the revival of Biblical inerrancy against more modernist claims (Then, it was still too early to talk specifically about a “postmodern” strain in theology, I believe). The “Texas mafia” spearheaded by Paige Patterson carried with them a populism because they saw themselves as standing against elite academic liberalism. Academic liberalism, they believe(d), destroyed the major biblical doctrine of inerrancy. As you may notice, there was both an intellectual and instrumental element to the conservative resurgence. From the instrumental side this meant convincing many Baptist lay that reclaiming seminaries and the Southern Baptist Convention was a worthy endeavor. They probably had to present a semi-popular case to sell their objectives to large church audiences (and pastors too), many without a formal education. Many of the baby-boomer generation remember coming into contact with people such as Patterson, Criswell, Rodgers, and others because of the efforts of CR. So yes, a populism entered in inadvertently through the efforts to re-route the tide of liberalism.
ReplyDeleteOutsiders may mistake, as I try to point out, populism for the prevalence of the Great Commission in evangelical intellectual life. GC calls for Christians to humble themselves for the sake of gaining followers to Christ. It just does not fit with how we think of intellectual life, which is usually the opposite of humility. In other words, GC was not written primarily for the learned—think about the highways and the hedges example found in Luke 14:23. Many of the younger generation of evangelicals want to bring together GC with intellectual without falling back solely on populism or some variant.
I also think that using populism to explain evangelical and Southern Baptist intellectuals can be misguiding (I know you’re not doing that, either). Baptist seminaries, from my understanding, are rigorous institutions. They house serious scholars who are deep into academic language on campus. The average evangelical would probably feel unwelcome in such an academic atmosphere. Many of the theological studies that transpire from seminaries are massive explorations of miniscule topics. Most seminaries, like colleges and universities, have a public persona, but largely they are places of scholarship.
I’m not sure we can look to a specific point of impact or fallout between Kirk, for example, and evangelicals as I offhandedly try to demonstrate. Many of the Baptist seminaries were doctrinally “liberal” during the time that The Conservative Mind was written and published (1953). Kirk probably ignored evangelicals altogether. Because the evangelicals gravitated into the movement during its second phase (the beginning of the neo-conservative period), they would have been considered an enemy to Kirk and the traditionalists by association alone with the neo-cons. Paul Murphy has a great explanation about some of this history in his book The Rebuke of History. There was fallout over the NEH chair between Mel Bradford (traditionalist) and William Bennett (neo-con). Evangelicals have tended to support the neo-cons because they (neo-cons) fought so hard against relativism during the culture wars. I believe this is at least one place where the divide shapes up.
Part 2 of the reply.
ReplyDeleteKirkeans talk about community and some paleos (like Paul Gottfried) write about historicism. The mention of historicism makes both evangelicals and traditionalists uneasy because of the radical tendency towards non-universal beliefs. Truth, according to historicism, is set forth in history and tradition. Even though Kirk disliked the neo-cons, he was no historicist, although that would have probably benefitted him if he had chosen that route. If you are a Bible-believing evangelical, it’s hard to support a historicist account of Scripture. Therefore, this alliance between evangelicals, the Republican Party, and neo-cons come together strangely. Figures like Jerry Falwell seemed to encourage this, but I’m not sure the evangelicals and the neo-cons have the same aims, although, again, some would disagree. We might take notice that evangelicals are not supporting Chuck Hagel’s nomination and many traditionalists are supportive (See Albert Mohler’s recent briefing and Scott McConnell’s article in The American Conservative to compare and contrast).
Thanks for the suggestions, too.
Fascinating, Mr. Bartee. If a conservative tree falls and it's not covered by CNN, does it blow on a butterfly's butt in Boston?
ReplyDeleteVia talk radio, Dr. Thomas Sowell is both better known and more beloved by more millions than Drs. Chomsky and dare I say Zinn.
I'm uncertain that the thesis scores here, although I'm pleased to see a shoutout @ me old blogbrother Dr. Hunter Baker, PhD, J.D. ;-)
The "Christian Right" has been remarkably coherent since Francis Schaeffer suggested to jerry fallwell that there might be some sort of "moral majority" that crosses sectarian lines. The predicted evangelical abandonment of Mitt Romney over his "quasi-Christian" sect simply didn't occur, and indeed Al Mohler and other top neo-Falwellians have rallied behind the Roman church's resistance to the Obaman contraception edict on religious freedom grounds, not moral ones [since they don't necessarily oppose contraception].
Further, Luther's spawn [not to mention the papists!] have at last made theological peace with the idea that there will always be Jews, that is, children of Abraham who will remain unconverted until such a time when time's up for the human race. In fact, these are the greatest friends of modern Israel, more uncritical of Israel than many or most American Jews, and without whom Israel might at this moment be yet another memory plowed over like that other erstwhile American ally, South Vietnam.
The irony. The theologico-political irony. Take that, Leo Strauss.
[Strauss' letter to National Review re Israel, 1956]
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005967.html
[I don't blame Leo Strauss, who fled Hitler. The Lutheran he knew best was his brilliant contemporary Karl Barth, who was even more useless than Weimar in standing up for Germany's Jews. Two Kingdoms, God's and man's, and the latter is of far less concern. But if this is Christianity, I want my money back.]