On another of my interminable drives to a client meeting this evening, I heard Frank Schaeffer on NPR’s Fresh Air program talk about his book Crazy for God. He delves forthrightly into his past, what brought him to promoting the politicization of the evangelical movement, and why, ultimately, he denounced it.
My questions, which most assuredly will turn into a debate, are: What do you think it’d take for the rank and file of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists to ultimately see the light and denounce the destructive element that has co-opted their faith for political ends, and how long will the Republicans remain in the wilderness before they wake up out of their fugue and wrest control back from the Christian opportunists.
What foolsguinea said. Frank Schaeffer and his parents may have been present at the creation of the Religious Right, but Falwell and Robertson were going to make it happen anyway. Francis Schaeffer (Frank’s more famous dad) may have added a bit of pseudo-intellectual and spiritual cred in the early going, but BFD really.
I can’t say I ever read Schaeffer, but I knew enough people at college in the early 1970s who did, and they were filled with all sorts of bullshit about how the Enlightenment was bad, and that the late Middle Ages were just wonderful. I gathered at the time that this particular strand of bullshit originated with Francis Schaeffer, but I can’t say for sure.
From what I understand, Falwell himself said that if it weren’t for Francis Schaeffer the Religious Right wouldn’t exist, or something along those lines.
I only heard part of the interview, but the most interesting piece was him saying that while Wright got raked over the coals for what Schaeffer considered mild preaching, his father called for a revolution against abortion rights, and got invited to the Reagan White House.
Barb and I went to high school with Jon, the son of Frank’s Aunt Elsa (his mother’s sister, Francis’s sister-in-law). We came to know Elsa relatively well during our years at the same church she and her husband attended.
That said, Karen Armstrong tells in one of her books of the partnership between the Schaeffers and Falwell to move the evangelical/fundamentalist alliance towards a more politically active stance – precisely what gave rise to the Religious Right that has plagued American politics since. I have neither the book nor a good reference to it, but remember reading it with interest.
Its a bit of a stretch to call Francis Schaeffer pseudo-intellectual. He was an intellectual though you may disagree with him.
Is D.A. Carson also only a pseudo-intellectual?
The idea that the religious right has been running the Republican Party and completely excluding everyone else in recent times is simply wrong.
Let’s define the period of Republican ascendancy as 1980 to 2006, in other words Reagan’s election to the Republican loss of Congress. Now let’s ask which factions of the Republican Party achieved what they wanted during that time.
Economic conservatives achieved quite a bit: many major tax cuts across a broad range (income tax, dividends, estate tax, and so forth), major reduction of the welfare system, rollback of countless regulations, effective neutering of regulatory agencies, and substantial success against affirmative action.
Neocons also achieved quite bit, most notably massive military spending and their own private war in Iraq.
The religious right achieved nothing. The USA moved to the left on all their pet issues during that period.
The electorate moved to the left, but the party and its apparatus moved further to the right and, more or less, chucked its centrists, largely to appeal to (appease?) social conservatives and their agenda. Although you’re correct in that ultimately the RR acheived very little benefit long-term, in the short term they got seats at many tables and were able to infiltrate and work to change the dynamic/philosophy/practices of certain departments…Justice anyone?
Riiiiight. The Religious Right exists solely because Falwell and the Schaeffers opportunistically and cynically pushed Christians rightward.
I KNOW you’re smarter than that, Poly (though Karen Armstrong may not be).
In truth, the Religious Right has always existed. It just never attracted much notice, because until a few decades ago, practically EVERYBODY agreed with the basic “family values” tenets espoused by the Right.
White Southern Baptists were just as socially conservative in 1952 and 1956 as they are today, but most of them voted for the liberal, divorced, non-religious Democrat Adlai Stevenson. Why? Because, in those days, liberal Democrats were no more inclined to support gay marriage, abortion on demand, legalized pornography, or the abolition of prayer in public schools than were conservative Republicans! Hence, religious conservatives were free to ignore the social issues and vote their pocketbooks- which is why almost all of them were staunch Democrats for so long.
Until relatively recently, practically EVERYBODY agreed on the basic family values. Face it, in 1972, if Nixon had tried to suggest that George McGovern and Ted Kennedy were supporters of gay marriage, George and Ted would have LAUGHED at the idea, and suggested that Nixon was delusional.
There was no NEED for a Religious Right until the secular left began imposing its own agenda, largely via the unelected justices of the Supreme Court. JErry Falwell would probably have told you that he and his followers never desired to “plague” anyone. They just couldn’t stand by and allow their traditional values (which, again, it seemed practically EVERYBODY shared until an hour ago) to be thrown away without so much as a peep being raised in protest.
This is not what Polycarp said.
There is no claim that anyone “cynically pushed” anyone. The claim is that Falwell and the Schaeffers made a point of encouraging elements of Christian conservatives to become actively engaged in politics to promote their own goals. The “plague” comment is clearly Polycarp’s opinion of the result, but all he claimed as a factual event was the effort to “move the evangelical/fundamentalist alliance towards a more politically active stance.” If you think that Falwell had no part in moving that bloc toward a more politically active stance, then you need to go read recent American history.
Regardless how one views the Religious Right (i.e., a specific political movement in the U.S.), it did not simply come ito being through spontaneous generation–it required a lot of serious effort. Attacking Polycarp for simply noting whom might have participated in the founding of that political movement (separate from the personal beliefs of its members), is simply silly and pointless.
Not as silly and pointless as the OP’s expectation that the leftward migration of Franklin Schaeffer (whom 99% of religious conservatives have never heard of) has any implications for people who remain part of the Religious Right.
That a large number of people are unaware of one of the founders of the political movement they support may say more about that group than you want to admit.
OTOH, I would agree that hearing Mr. Schaeffer would probably have little effect on the majority of members of that group as they would more likely view him as an apostate than as a person whose eyes have been opened. (I would not particularly fault them for that. I do not know of any group who has been persuaded en masse to throw over their beliefs simply because some prominent member(s) may have had a reversal of opinion. Certainly few on the Left followed when the original neo-cons switched sides to join the Right.)
It would probably be more fruitful to inquire about the numbers of the younger generation of the Religious Right who have recently begun to break ranks with the old guard over issues such as the environment, coservation, and social justice.
Warning: grammar nitpick ahead. I’m sure it was an oversight, but it should be “who,” not “whom.”
Speaking of this, and public radio, This American Life last week featured a story originally aired three years ago, about a Pentecostal preacher named Carlton Pearson who was involved in a scandal: he stopped believing in hell. It’s an engrossing story, and illustrates your point. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1273