John Kenneth Galbriath on Conservatism

"The modern conservative is engged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

The Abortion Myth - Book Excerpt from 'Thy Kingdom Come' by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and "secular humanists," who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court's misguided Roe decision.

It's a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn't true.

Although various Roman Catholic groups denounced the ruling, and Christianity Today complained that the Roe decision "runs counter to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people," the vast majority of evangelical leaders said virtually nothing about it; many of those who did comment actually applauded the decision. W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision." Indeed, even before the Roe decision, the messengers (delegates) to the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention gathering in St. Louis, Missouri, adopted a resolution that stated, "we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W.A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expressed his satisfaction with the Roe v. Wade ruling. "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."

The Religious Right's self-portrayal as mobilizing in response to the Roe decision was so pervasive among evangelicals that few questioned it. But my attendance at an unusual gathering in Washington, D.C., finally alerted me to the abortion myth. 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.

Bob Jones University was one target of a broader attempt by the federal government to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had sought to penalize schools for failure to abide by antisegregation provisions. A court case in 1972, Green v. Connally, produced a ruling that any institution that practiced segregation was not, by definition, a charitable institution and, therefore, no longer qualified for tax-exempt standing.

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).

Initially, I found Weyrich's admission jarring. He declared, in effect, that the origins of the Religious Right lay in Green v. Connally rather than Roe v. Wade. I quickly concluded, however, that his story made a great deal of sense. When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture, there was an unmistakably defensive cast to evangelicalism. I recall many presidents of colleges or Bible institutes coming through our churches to recruit students and to raise money. One of their recurrent themes was,We don't accept federal money, so the government can't tell us how to run our shop—whom to hire or fire or what kind of rules to live by. The IRS attempt to deny tax-exempt status to segregated private schools, then, represented an assault on the evangelical subculture, something that raised an alarm among many evangelical leaders, who mobilized against it.

For his part, Weyrich saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers. Although both the Green decision of 1972 and the IRS action against Bob Jones University in 1975 predated Jimmy Carter's presidency, Weyrich succeeded in blaming Carter for efforts to revoke the taxexempt status of segregated Christian schools. He recruited James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to the cause, the latter of whom complained, "In some states it's easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school."

Weyrich, whose conservative activism dates at least as far back as the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, had been trying for years to energize evangelical voters over school prayer, abortion, or the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. "I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed," he recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. "What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."

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 abortion myth serves as a convenient fiction because it suggests noble and altruistic motives behind the formation of the Religious Right. But it is highly disingenuous and renders absurd the argument of the leaders of Religious Right that, in defending the rights of the unborn, they are the "new abolitionists." The Religious Right arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools. Whereas evangelical abolitionists of the nineteenth century sought freedom for African Americans, the Religious Right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination. Sadly, the Religious Right has no legitimate claim to the mantle of the abolitionist crusaders of the nineteenth century. White evangelicals were conspicuous by their absence in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Where were Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington or on Sunday, March 7, 1965, when Martin Luther King Jr. and religious leaders from other traditions linked arms on the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to stare down the ugly face of racism?

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.

Excerpted from Randell Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens  America (New York: Basic Book, 2006), pp.11-17.

Christians Accept Atheist Prime Ministers

Those Christians complaining about our new Prime Minister’s atheism have forgotten their Bible and Church history.

Paul wanted the Roman Christians to submit to government authority (Romans 13). This authority was a pagan government that had persecuted both Paul and the Roman church. Yet for Paul government authority, regardless of its religious views, was a good thing.

Constantine established religious tolerance as a principle of Christian government in 313 AD. It took centuries but the lust for power created a totalitarian Christendom with its thought police. An institution duplicated by the 2oth century’s godless totalitarian governments.

Religious toleration was re-established as a principle of Christian government in 1636. That year Baptist pastor Roger Williams was excommunicated from Massachusetts, bought land from the local Indians and set up Rhode Island. There was no religious test to be part of the colony or its government. Though initially predominately Baptist, Rhode Island attracted other New England dissidents, European Jews and English Catholics wanting to flee religious persecution. For a variety of reasons, the United States and later Australia wisely adopted the same solution to religious pluralism.

If one is going to follow the Christian principle of religious toleration, one is required to welcome an atheist as Prime Minister. That person’s suitability for office should be judged by their abilities, not their religious faith. I might pray for Julia Gillard’s conversion. However, I will vote according to my assessment of the competing policies and the proponent’s capacity to implement them.

And with all my being, I will fight any attempt to establish the blasphemy of Christendom in Australia.

Sent to West Australian Letters Editor on 8 July 2010

The Alarm Clock Bed

Philip Adams has retold the story of Lewis Carroll's model for the Mad Hatter, a cabinet maker called Theophilus Carter. Among other things he invented an alarm clock bed which, at a predetermine time, dumped the sleeper into a tub of cold water. I am grateful my mum never found out about this bed. She would have bought me one hoping that “Michael’s punctuality needs improvement” would not appear on my school reports again.

Fundamentalist Perverts Education

Many have had concern about fundamentalists running secondary and primary schools. The anti-academic approach to knowledge has been borne out by the University of California not accepting students from a so called 'Christian School.' The University had ruled some courses of Calvary Chapel School of Murrieta in California, US, inadequate preparation for University admission. The courses failed to provide a broad enough grounding in the subjects of biology, history, politics and religion. In August 2005, the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the school itself and six students took the University of California to court over this ruling. The US court system found for the University. The fundamentalists exhausted all appeals on the 20 January 2010.

Success for the fundamentalist would only come if they could prove discrimination of the basis of religion. Wisely, US courts have refused to rule on academic standards. The University need to prove that its decisions were not based on a rejection of a particular political or religious viewpoint.

The Biology textbook used by Calvary Chapel College proves that the University's concerns were justified. The textbook was Biology for Christian School Second Edition (Bob Jones University Press, 1999). Its introduction states "The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second" (p. vii)." It advocates creationism and even has a rejection of the 'gap' theory. Given that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' could never be to prepare a student to study Biology at a university level.

My problem with the text is that I don't think the book is even Christian! I have two reasons for this. The first is the denial of a historical grammatical approach to scripture. It has imposed some idea of that scripture that traditional Christianity refused to recognise. From the early church to Augustine to the reformer did not see the Bible as a scientific textbook. To use the cliché, "the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!" Occasionally, the church has slipped into some insane literal interpretation. A good example is Bishop Usher's syncretism when he combined it with Christianity with Hume's empirical epistemology. As science advance, Usher age of the earth looked increasingly stupid.

The other reason is related. What is the Bible and what is science? Whatever the bible is, it has never been a science textbook. Science is about drawing knowledge on how the world works. It does this by a lengthy community process and then disseminates knowledge to the wider world. This textbook confuses the roles.

It just took the US legal system four years to dismiss another fundamentalist attempt to destroy knowledge!

Mary Daly died on January 03

Dismissing the American academic, Mary Daly (16 October 1928 – 3 January 2010) is unfortunately easy. She was both a radical feminist and a lesbian separatist. Daly was right about the patriarchal underpinning of Christianity. The number of time I have heard Christians of both sex argue that women's oppression is somehow Biblical (and hence God ordained) has surprised me but would never surprise Daly. None pick the irony that the creation myths having men giving birth to women. She will never be countered as one of the great theologians but her contribution will affect how both feminists and Christians will think about gender.

Philemon: Reflections on Christianity, Slavery and Pastoral Authority

Philemon is not one of the popular books of modern Christianity. Its subject matter is would be considered unchristian by most. The slave Omesimus is being returned to his owner Philemon which appears to be Paul's endorsement of slavery. According to Wikipedia article on Philemon, both sides of the 16^th and 17^th century slavery debate used Philemon as a Biblical endorsement. With hindsight, this 21^st century sees it as an anti-slavery text.

The confusion over slavery is because Paul models good pastoral practice for maturing any Christian. "Accordingly, although in Christ I might feel free to dictate where you duty lies, yet, because of the same love, I would rather appeal to you" (Phil. 8). Paul might have been Philemon's father in the faith (Phil. 19) but Philemon now helped lead a Church (v.1f). Probably, Paul had observed what Richard Foster had, "Of all the spiritual disciplines none have been more abused that the discipline of submission" (p.139) and since the letter greets others and Philemon's church, Paul wanted to model the 'discipline of guidance' (pp.221 - 238). Or maybe Paul wanted to develop David A de Silver called Christ-mindedness within Philemon (pp. 682 – 683). It is also an example of the old rule of thumb – the ethical responses to the gospel are a matter for each individual believer.

Even if Paul had dictated Philemon's actions, there would be no less debate over the Christian view of slavery. Personally, I doubt that Paul could see the unchristian cruelty of slavery since he was too close to it. Many, including Augustine and Calvin, believed that the God's revelation can be hidden behind the culture we live in (Stark, 2004, p. 327). That equally applies to both Paul and us.

Why do I see it as an anti-slavery text? It comes from Paul's plea on behalf of Omesimus. This slave could have been running away or exercising one to the few rights in the ancient world. De Silver (2004, p.671) point out he might not have been running away but points to a tradition writing that, "Slaves experiencing difficulty in their masters' home were known to leave the master in search of one of the master's 'friends,' who would sought out as an advocate to plead the slave's case." Whatever happened, by Christ using Paul to bring Omesimus into the faith Paul became Omesimus' advocate. Paul was a poor advocate offering no defence of Omesimus. He states the Omesimus was useless to his owner (v.11) except as a servant to Paul whilst in prison. There is no plea of mercy for the absences without leave. Paul simply throws Omesimus back expecting freedom because of a change in the relationship between the master and soon to be former slave. Paul writes, "[Have Omesimus back] no longer as a slave, but as more than a slave: as a dear brother, very dear to me, and still dearer to you, both as a man and as a Christian (v.16).

The question was how would Philemon read that plea? We only know almost nothing of him except in this letter. Maybe, Philemon came to Christ as a 'god-fearer' (Lohse, p.124). These gentles were Jewish converts, observing many of the Jewish traditions, but the men could not take the final step and mutilate their penises by adult circumcision. Because of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), converts to the Christian form of Judaism were not required to be circumcised to be considered fully Christian. The early Christians believed that they where the new people of God, replacing the Jews who had rejected the Messiah. Hence, Philemon might have been familiar with the Jewish restrictions of allowing fellow believers to remain as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-42). At the time of Christ, Jews applied the prohibition by buying Jewish slaves their freedom from all over the Roman Empire. In Act 6:9, the Jewish Synagogue of Freedmen was a community of former slaves redeemed by fellow Jews. If this is so, by stating the Omesimus had gone from a slave to a brother, Paul was playing on those Jewish traditions in this plea for Philemon to free his brother in Christ.

Paul wanted Philemon to free his brother in the faith, Omesimus. Unlike Judaism, Christianity accepts all into the faith. Everyone is a potential Christian. Everyone is brother in Christ. We need to act for their freedom. Whether it is freedom from sin, freedom from oppression or freedom from being the oppressor, we Christians must act to liberate the person. That way we can make them realise how God is acting in their life now.

David A de Silva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Context, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004)

Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline (London: Hodder & Stroughton, 1989 (rev)

Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment (London: SCM, 1974, trans. 1976)

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton: Princeton University, 2004)

All Biblical Quotes are from the Revise English Bible.