Upon examination of American political discourse, it is apparent that religion plays a vital role in this sector of our society, particularly in South Carolina. What is the place of religion, and more specifically, Christianity, in southern politics? In South Carolina state politics? On a quest to answer these questions, I interviewed volunteers at both the Democratic and the Republican Headquarters of Spartanburg County. What I found were deep-rooted beliefs, opinions, and defenses of the role of Christianity in both the Democratic and the Republican landscapes of South Carolina.
Liz Patterson has been a volunteer at the Democratic Party Headquarters of Spartanburg County for many years. She answered my questions thoughtfully; making sure that she was fairly representing both her own views and those proponed by her party. The most poignant statement she made regarding Christianity and the Democratic Party pointed to the social stigma of a Democrat as being anti-Christian. “I regret that it has become that if you’re a Democrat you can’t be a Christian,” she said. Liz has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “I am a Christian and a Democrat.” She feels the need to assert the confluence of her political views and her faith because many in her community seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive and that one can only be one or the other. Glenn Smith points out the Democratic Party’s recent efforts to repudiate this view that Democrats are without religious or moral views in his October 14, 2008 article entitled “How the Values Voter Myth Strengthened the Democrats.” In this article, Smith addresses the cultural assumption prevalent in 2004 that “red states have values, blue states don’t.” He observes that the Democratic Party “played into this label (of being amoral) by steering clear of talk about the values that underlie their policy proposals” in the past, but that recently the party has “reawakened progressive consciousness to the importance of wearing its moral worldview on its public sleeve.” Liz Patterson’s assertion of her Christian faith strengthening her Democratic political views is evidence of Smith’s argument playing out in Spartanburg: She is wearing her moral worldview on her public sleeve, or rather, the bumper of her car.
Mrs. Patterson also feels that “Religion has become too involved in the political process… People question whether or not you are born again” with the assumption that your answer significantly affects your political views. She seems frustrated that a religious label, such as that of a Born-Again Christian, has immediate political contexts for many in her community. However, she also feels that her experience growing up in the Christian church has significantly impacted her political views. “So much of what I learned in the church leads me in my political thoughts,” she states. She is eager to define the ways that her own Christian experience have shaped her political life, but quite hesitant to associate herself with Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian groups. I assume this is largely due to the political views often associated with these groups. Liz Patterson’s position is not uncommon in South Carolina. It seems that there are many people who actively engage in a Christian faith, and feel that their faith is questioned because they do not hold conservative political views. I was quite eager to hear what my Republican interviewee might have to say about these topics.
To put it gently, my interview with Alice Armantrout was an enlightening experience. To foreword this analysis with a disclaimer, I do not feel that many of Mrs. Armantrout’s views reflect those of the Republican Party of South Carolina nor the National GOP. Nevertheless, her positions are valid and of consequence because she holds them firmly, and there are many others who share them. Alice agrees with Kansas Southern Baptist Pastor Terry Fox’s binding of Christianity and politics together. He states “One, we are religious. Two, we are right.” The conservative Christian Political movement is very much based on the idea that Evangelical Christian views are synonymous with conservative republican political views. Throughout the course of my interview, Mrs. Armantrout made statements reflecting this tight association of her Christian views with her conservative political views. She even went so far as to say that liberals are not Christians, validating Liz Patterson’s assertion that there are those who see the party split as a religious split as well. She asserted (incorrectly) that Barack Obama was inaugurated into congress with his hand on the Qur’an and implied that if he were Muslim, this would make him an incapable and untrustworthy senator. She further claimed that the moral convictions of Muslims “are based on killing and beheading anyone who is an infidel,” insinuated that Muslims lack a belief in a higher power, and that “Barack Obama is definitely a Muslim.” (He has repeatedly made public statements about his Christian faith.) Mrs. Armantrout’s primary reason for believing that Obama is not a Christian is his view on abortion. For her, his view on this one issue was important enough to define his entire religious identity. Let me say that I do not intend to imply that those who believe that the issue of abortion is of vital importance are also misinformed about the religious identity of Obama and the reality of what Islam and the Qur’an are about; I do however think it relevant that Mrs. Armantrout is so misinformed and does hold so firmly to her views. When I asked Mrs. Armantrout to articulate how her religious views informed the opinions she had just shared with me, she expressed a hesitancy to associate herself with the people who are traditionally pinned with the kind of misguided ideas about Islam and Democratic Politicians that she exemplified, those people being Evangelical Christians. She said, “I don’t consider myself Evangelical. I am not Born-Again.” She felt that the label ‘Evangelical’ implied someone whose views lay further to the right than hers, and though frankly I find it hard to imagine political ground further to the right than hers, her view of what it means politically to be Evangelical is certainly note-worthy. For Mrs. Armantrout, to be a Born-Again Evangelical Christian necessitates ultra-conservative political views.
What’s important here is that first, Mrs. Armantrout firmly believes that public policy and religion are synonymous entities and that Christian ideals should govern American public life; second, she embraces the platform of social morality that the Republican Party has so successfully used in South Carolina, and third, she associates Evangelicals with radically conservative political views. Her misinformation regarding Obama and Islam, while shocking and certainly cause for pause, are not the most relevant things she had to say. Far more relevant to my study are the aforementioned views that inextricably link Evangelical Christian ideals and the governing of American public life based on a social morality platform. Though it was very difficult for me to force myself to have perspective on Mrs. Armantrout’s views, once I did so I became enthralled by figuring out what led her to believe the things she believes, and why she holds to them so vehemently.
My interview with Mrs. Armantrout so engrossed me in the social and political roots and ramifications of her views that I sought a second interview with someone familiar with the Republican Party of South Carolina. I did not need to look far. A close friend of mine, Paige Hallen is a senior at Wofford College. Paige is a government major who will graduate with every concentration the Wofford government department offers. She has interned in Washington with the Family Research Council, interned in Columbia and Washington with Joe Wilson, Republican South Carolina congressman, and in 2008 Paige served as the second-youngest delegate at the South Carolina state Republican Convention. The role of the GOP in South Carolina is her life’s passion, and her views starkly contrast those of Mrs. Armantrout.
Paige explained South Carolina politics in political, rather than religious, terms. She explained the history of political conservatism in the South and helped me to understand why it is that the Republican Party is associated with Christianity in the south. It all began, she said, when the mid twentieth century saw the Civil Rights Bill of 1957 and Strom Thurmond’s political conversion in 1964. Previous to the 1950’s, the American South had been ‘solid blue.’ Southerners had held to the Democratic Party vehemently for as long as they could remember. The Civil Rights Bill threatened what many saw as ‘the southern way of life.’ Suddenly, there was a status quo to protect. Southerners sought to do this by converting to ‘Dixiecrats’ or ‘Southern Democrats.’ Strom Thurmond, South Carolina’s senator, spoke against the Civil Rights Bill for more than twenty-four hours on the Senate floor. Largely due to issues surrounding the Civil Rights Bill, Thurmond switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican party in 1964, and was instrumental in Richard Nixon’s White House victory of 1968. With Nixon as an ally, Thurmond passed much legislation that was very beneficial to the state of SC during Nixon’s presidency. This made South Carolinians far more amiable to the Republican Party. Thus we have the conversion of South Carolina from blue to red in the 1960’s. Now to account for the association of the GOP in SC with Christianity…
What Paige helped me to see here is that politics are political. This may sound like a given, but it is easy to see religion in politics, and as a result, it is easy to assume that politics can be religious. This is not the case, she said, for elected officials. Their agenda is for the most part political rather than religious. Thus the marketed and widely accepted association of the Republican Party with particular social justice issues that are involved in the Christian faith, i.e. abortion and gay marriage, is also political rather than religious. These issues brought voters to the polls on a larger scale than did issues of fiscal conservatism or small business. Once the GOP of SC recognized that these ‘buzz word’ issues caused Evangelical Christian voters to flock to the polls and support the GOP while believing, extremely in some cases, that they were the ‘party of God,’ the political landscape in SC changed dramatically. Those who held conservative Christian views were expected by society to vote Republican because the Republican Party spread propaganda along the lines of “a vote for a Democrat is a vote against God.” It is true that not all Republicans feel this way, especially outside of South Carolina, but the fact remains that the propaganda was issued and absorbed by most of the rural public of the state. However, many policy makers do not stand by these “buzz word” issues as vehemently as their voting public. This begs the question, are the Alice Armantrouts of the state of South Carolina having their votes bought by their religious convictions while the officials they elect see them as the means to an end?
It will certainly be interesting to watch the South Carolina results come in on November 7.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Bob Jones University: Southern Fundamentalism at its Finest
Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina is an anomaly of today’s culture. It is more of a self-sustaining evangelical community than it is a university. In order to illustrate this, allow me to share with you a few excerpts from the university website. These statements may be found at www.bju.edu/about/mission.html as of today, October 2, 2008.
“Bob Jones University exists as a training center for Christians from around the world. The goal of the administration, faculty, and staff is to equip its students for a lifetime of service to Christ… The founder’s philosophy that BJU is not here just to teach men and women how to make a living, but more importantly, how to live, remains our focus.”
The University Creed, which is recited by every student and staff member every day in Chapel:
“I believe in the inspiration of the Bible; the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of makind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.”
The Core Values as identified by the University are “Love for and faithfulness to God and His Word; Unashamed testimony for Jesus Christ, the only Savior; and Edifying love for God’s people.”
Of the nine institutional goals listed on the BJU website, two are related to academic education. All others are explicitly related to sharing the Gospel of Christ.
-
Knowing all of this before I visited campus, I must admit I was a little bit nervous. Though I myself am a Christian and have worked in conservative Christian environments before, I wasn’t really sure what the people at Bob Jones would be like. Would they be normal? Would they stare at me?
My fears dissipated almost as soon as my visit to BJU campus began because my tour guide was so friendly. Jeff, a junior from New Hampshire, showed me around the campus with familiarity and fondness. He answered my many questions with a curiosity as to why a senior at Wofford College would be studying Bob Jones. (I later discovered how impressive it was that Jeff had heard of Wofford at all!) After my tour, I viewed the multi-image presentation that Bob Jones presents to prospective students when they visit the campus, which concisely and precisely illustrates Bob Jones University as an institution. I was able to speak with another student during and after this presentation, a senior named Martha from Greenville. I learned much more about Bob Jones from talking with these students than I ever could have from the outside looking in.
When I asked Jeff how he would define the mission of BJU, he told me about Bob Jones Senior. Bob Jones, who was not an educator, realized that young Christians were being presented with a slanted, liberal, secularist world-view when they went to college. He wanted for young Christians to be able to get an education in a biblical environment, and thus BJU was born. Jeff felt that the local community was receptive to BJU’s mission and supportive of its efforts. Though the college was founded in Tennessee and moved to Florida before finally settling in South Carolina, Martha felt that the location of BJU “probably helps with people being receptive to our mission because we’re in the Bible Belt.” Martha also pointed out that many BJU students settle locally after graduation, thus reinforcing the Bob Jones world-view in the community culture.
Neither Jeff nor Martha feel that Bob Jones attempts to explicitly create a parallel culture for students, but they both feel passionately that the biblical environment created within the Bob Jones community is beneficial to them. Some parameters that help to create this biblically-based environment include mandatory daily chapel attendance, strictly separate male and female dorms, strict conservative dress codes, restrictions pertaining to what music students listen to, strict prohibition of alcohol, exclusively intramural athletics, chaperoned group dates for male and female students who wish to leave campus together, single-sex social societies, and a demerit system based on compliance with all of these. Martha said that “it’s easy to forget what it’s like outside. When I go home, I’m always shocked to see girls wearing sleeveless shirts.” Jeff said that he hardly ever leaves campus, because he feels no need to leave the community. In many senses, being a student at Bob Jones removes a young person from the surrounding world and creates an explicitly Christian environment for them in which to live and learn. Both Jeff and Martha felt that being expected to live by a biblical standard has created a safe and nurturing environment for them, which they cherish.
Perhaps the most interesting thing that I found talking to Jeff was the attitude with which he approaches his religion classes. Every student at Bob Jones takes a Bible course each semester, and I asked Jeff if they studied the text from a purely theological point of view or if they also studied it from an academic, critical perspective. He avidly told me that they study history along with the bible and that they observe how the Bible lines up correctly with history in every instance. I then asked him if they studied the Bible in a historical context for the purpose of validating the text instead of critically engaging the text, and he stumbled over his response. He seemed uncomfortable with the fact that I wanted to know if they studied the Bible for any reason other than gleaning truth from it. He told me about an apologetics class he took in which they read the text critically and assured me that the professor always presents the information and then encourages the students to make up their own minds. It seems to me, however, that at a school where every professor refers to the Bible as a source of truth on a daily basis during class, a student might not feel inclined to think of the Bible as anything other than absolute truth. Marsden points out that “although fundamentalist preaching sometimes stresses making up one’s own mind, in fact the movement displays some remarkable uniformities in details of doctrine and practice that suggest anything but real individualism in thought (115).” It seems to me that this is exactly what happens with BJU students. They are verbally encouraged to make up their own minds about the authority of the Bible, but they are encouraged in every other fashion to accept it as absolute truth.
Bob Jones University is a fundamentalist Christian community that has taken every measure possible to create a parallel culture; an alternate environment in which young men and women can live life as they believe it should be lived. They are more than happy to invite visitors into their community, with the intention that the visitor should hear the gospel and be saved. They also actively send members of their community out into the world around them to spread the gospel they believe. Bob Jones University is not just a college where the school newspaper features articles on prayer and professors consult the Bible in the classroom; it is an institution with an explicit mission to cultivate young men and women with a Christian education who will go out into the world and live Christian lives, teaching others to do so along the way.
“Bob Jones University exists as a training center for Christians from around the world. The goal of the administration, faculty, and staff is to equip its students for a lifetime of service to Christ… The founder’s philosophy that BJU is not here just to teach men and women how to make a living, but more importantly, how to live, remains our focus.”
The University Creed, which is recited by every student and staff member every day in Chapel:
“I believe in the inspiration of the Bible; the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of makind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.”
The Core Values as identified by the University are “Love for and faithfulness to God and His Word; Unashamed testimony for Jesus Christ, the only Savior; and Edifying love for God’s people.”
Of the nine institutional goals listed on the BJU website, two are related to academic education. All others are explicitly related to sharing the Gospel of Christ.
-
Knowing all of this before I visited campus, I must admit I was a little bit nervous. Though I myself am a Christian and have worked in conservative Christian environments before, I wasn’t really sure what the people at Bob Jones would be like. Would they be normal? Would they stare at me?
My fears dissipated almost as soon as my visit to BJU campus began because my tour guide was so friendly. Jeff, a junior from New Hampshire, showed me around the campus with familiarity and fondness. He answered my many questions with a curiosity as to why a senior at Wofford College would be studying Bob Jones. (I later discovered how impressive it was that Jeff had heard of Wofford at all!) After my tour, I viewed the multi-image presentation that Bob Jones presents to prospective students when they visit the campus, which concisely and precisely illustrates Bob Jones University as an institution. I was able to speak with another student during and after this presentation, a senior named Martha from Greenville. I learned much more about Bob Jones from talking with these students than I ever could have from the outside looking in.
When I asked Jeff how he would define the mission of BJU, he told me about Bob Jones Senior. Bob Jones, who was not an educator, realized that young Christians were being presented with a slanted, liberal, secularist world-view when they went to college. He wanted for young Christians to be able to get an education in a biblical environment, and thus BJU was born. Jeff felt that the local community was receptive to BJU’s mission and supportive of its efforts. Though the college was founded in Tennessee and moved to Florida before finally settling in South Carolina, Martha felt that the location of BJU “probably helps with people being receptive to our mission because we’re in the Bible Belt.” Martha also pointed out that many BJU students settle locally after graduation, thus reinforcing the Bob Jones world-view in the community culture.
Neither Jeff nor Martha feel that Bob Jones attempts to explicitly create a parallel culture for students, but they both feel passionately that the biblical environment created within the Bob Jones community is beneficial to them. Some parameters that help to create this biblically-based environment include mandatory daily chapel attendance, strictly separate male and female dorms, strict conservative dress codes, restrictions pertaining to what music students listen to, strict prohibition of alcohol, exclusively intramural athletics, chaperoned group dates for male and female students who wish to leave campus together, single-sex social societies, and a demerit system based on compliance with all of these. Martha said that “it’s easy to forget what it’s like outside. When I go home, I’m always shocked to see girls wearing sleeveless shirts.” Jeff said that he hardly ever leaves campus, because he feels no need to leave the community. In many senses, being a student at Bob Jones removes a young person from the surrounding world and creates an explicitly Christian environment for them in which to live and learn. Both Jeff and Martha felt that being expected to live by a biblical standard has created a safe and nurturing environment for them, which they cherish.
Perhaps the most interesting thing that I found talking to Jeff was the attitude with which he approaches his religion classes. Every student at Bob Jones takes a Bible course each semester, and I asked Jeff if they studied the text from a purely theological point of view or if they also studied it from an academic, critical perspective. He avidly told me that they study history along with the bible and that they observe how the Bible lines up correctly with history in every instance. I then asked him if they studied the Bible in a historical context for the purpose of validating the text instead of critically engaging the text, and he stumbled over his response. He seemed uncomfortable with the fact that I wanted to know if they studied the Bible for any reason other than gleaning truth from it. He told me about an apologetics class he took in which they read the text critically and assured me that the professor always presents the information and then encourages the students to make up their own minds. It seems to me, however, that at a school where every professor refers to the Bible as a source of truth on a daily basis during class, a student might not feel inclined to think of the Bible as anything other than absolute truth. Marsden points out that “although fundamentalist preaching sometimes stresses making up one’s own mind, in fact the movement displays some remarkable uniformities in details of doctrine and practice that suggest anything but real individualism in thought (115).” It seems to me that this is exactly what happens with BJU students. They are verbally encouraged to make up their own minds about the authority of the Bible, but they are encouraged in every other fashion to accept it as absolute truth.
Bob Jones University is a fundamentalist Christian community that has taken every measure possible to create a parallel culture; an alternate environment in which young men and women can live life as they believe it should be lived. They are more than happy to invite visitors into their community, with the intention that the visitor should hear the gospel and be saved. They also actively send members of their community out into the world around them to spread the gospel they believe. Bob Jones University is not just a college where the school newspaper features articles on prayer and professors consult the Bible in the classroom; it is an institution with an explicit mission to cultivate young men and women with a Christian education who will go out into the world and live Christian lives, teaching others to do so along the way.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Birth of American Fundamentalism: A Good Place to Start
Today, the word ‘fundamentalism’ evokes a particular fear for most Americans, the fear of radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. For most of our nation’s history, however, fundamentalism has almost exclusively been understood in a Christian sense. Christian fundamentalism has, historically, played a very large role in our country. George Marsden examines fundamentalism and evangelicalism in the United States in his 1991 volume, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. It is poignant to note that Marsden was writing from a pre-9/11 perspective, and thus does not provide for an audience as affected by the term as the general American public is today.
Marsden discusses the beginnings of Christian fundamentalism in America with the onset of World War I. During the war, Protestants began to associate patriotism with Christian ideals. Billy Sunday even said, “Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms (51).” After the war, the church was initially more united than ever, gaining victories such as the passing of Prohibition (53). However, along with the Red Scare, social unrest, and secularization of American culture that came in the 1920s came divisions in the American Protestant church. The church split into two main branches, one expressing social liberalism and wanting to remain a part of the larger American culture, and a more conservative one that resisted the chaos and confusion that came with the changing of the times. The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 became a symbolic battle between these two schools of thought.
John Scopes was a public high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, who agreed to be arrested and prosecuted for breaking Tennessee’s anti-evolution law, which prohibited the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, in order that he might challenge the constitutionality of the law. The trial was immediately thrust into the national spotlight, a first for the American legal system at that time. John Scopes was no more than a pawn in a trial that turned into a battle between two quintessential American public figures, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Bryan, whom at this point in his career had run for President (and lost) three times, was a champion of the Democratic Party of the day and a staunch Prohibitionist and socially conservative Presbyterian. Of the Scopes trial, Bryan said that he was “trying to save the Christian Church from those who are trying to destroy our faith.” Darrow, on the other hand, was a leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and was widely respected throughout America as an unbeatable lawyer with very liberal views. Darrow called the south “an intellectual desert.” Throughout the trial, Darrow attempted to illustrate that the anti-evolution law was unconstitutional, stating that if that kind of law were upheld then eventually the country would turn into a battle of “man against man… creed against creed… until we are back to the times when bigots burned the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.” Bryan opposed, declaring that evolution was synonymous with atheism. The trial was really won when Darrow called Bryan himself to the stand and gleaned from him that he believed the book of Genesis was subject to interpretation, saying that “the creation could have gone on for millions of years.” The legal outcome of the trial was that the Tennessee Supreme Court eventually upheld the anti-evolution law and determined Scopes guilty of violating it. However, it was also stated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee that no prosecutor could again bring an indictment against a teacher for violating the law. The social outcome of the trial, though, was that the country ridiculed the Southern Christians fighting behind Bryan, and they lost the cultural battle of Bible versus Darwin. In Marsden’s words, the Scopes Monkey Trial “thrust fundamentalism into worldwide attention and brought about its decline as an effective national force (60).”
*Information about Scopes Monkey Trial from PBS Documentary.
The Scopes Monkey Trial was the catalyst that separated Christian fundamentalists from the American Evangelical Protestants. Marsden states, “What chiefly distinguished fundamentalism from earlier evangelicalism was its militancy toward modernist theology and cultural change (66).” The Scopes Monkey Trial made it very clear that American culture was changing and embracing modernist theories of science and religion. Fundamentalists built walls for themselves, both literally and figuratively, so that they could separate themselves from the rest of American culture. Jerry Falwell, a famous American Evangelical Christian Pastor, has defined fundamentalism in a catchy way: “A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something (Marsden 1991).” The early twentieth century certainly made a large number of Evangelical Protestants angry, and they reacted by becoming fundamentalists, separate from the rest of the church and the rest of the nation.
Marsden discusses the beginnings of Christian fundamentalism in America with the onset of World War I. During the war, Protestants began to associate patriotism with Christian ideals. Billy Sunday even said, “Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms (51).” After the war, the church was initially more united than ever, gaining victories such as the passing of Prohibition (53). However, along with the Red Scare, social unrest, and secularization of American culture that came in the 1920s came divisions in the American Protestant church. The church split into two main branches, one expressing social liberalism and wanting to remain a part of the larger American culture, and a more conservative one that resisted the chaos and confusion that came with the changing of the times. The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 became a symbolic battle between these two schools of thought.
John Scopes was a public high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, who agreed to be arrested and prosecuted for breaking Tennessee’s anti-evolution law, which prohibited the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, in order that he might challenge the constitutionality of the law. The trial was immediately thrust into the national spotlight, a first for the American legal system at that time. John Scopes was no more than a pawn in a trial that turned into a battle between two quintessential American public figures, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Bryan, whom at this point in his career had run for President (and lost) three times, was a champion of the Democratic Party of the day and a staunch Prohibitionist and socially conservative Presbyterian. Of the Scopes trial, Bryan said that he was “trying to save the Christian Church from those who are trying to destroy our faith.” Darrow, on the other hand, was a leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and was widely respected throughout America as an unbeatable lawyer with very liberal views. Darrow called the south “an intellectual desert.” Throughout the trial, Darrow attempted to illustrate that the anti-evolution law was unconstitutional, stating that if that kind of law were upheld then eventually the country would turn into a battle of “man against man… creed against creed… until we are back to the times when bigots burned the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.” Bryan opposed, declaring that evolution was synonymous with atheism. The trial was really won when Darrow called Bryan himself to the stand and gleaned from him that he believed the book of Genesis was subject to interpretation, saying that “the creation could have gone on for millions of years.” The legal outcome of the trial was that the Tennessee Supreme Court eventually upheld the anti-evolution law and determined Scopes guilty of violating it. However, it was also stated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee that no prosecutor could again bring an indictment against a teacher for violating the law. The social outcome of the trial, though, was that the country ridiculed the Southern Christians fighting behind Bryan, and they lost the cultural battle of Bible versus Darwin. In Marsden’s words, the Scopes Monkey Trial “thrust fundamentalism into worldwide attention and brought about its decline as an effective national force (60).”
*Information about Scopes Monkey Trial from PBS Documentary.
The Scopes Monkey Trial was the catalyst that separated Christian fundamentalists from the American Evangelical Protestants. Marsden states, “What chiefly distinguished fundamentalism from earlier evangelicalism was its militancy toward modernist theology and cultural change (66).” The Scopes Monkey Trial made it very clear that American culture was changing and embracing modernist theories of science and religion. Fundamentalists built walls for themselves, both literally and figuratively, so that they could separate themselves from the rest of American culture. Jerry Falwell, a famous American Evangelical Christian Pastor, has defined fundamentalism in a catchy way: “A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something (Marsden 1991).” The early twentieth century certainly made a large number of Evangelical Protestants angry, and they reacted by becoming fundamentalists, separate from the rest of the church and the rest of the nation.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
What Does it Mean to be Southern?
As Peter Applebome begins his book entitled Dixie Rising: How the South is Shaping American Values, Politics, and Culture, he describes a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, calling this organization the “most southern of institutions.” Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are clearly a big deal in this part of America. Applebome states that “the confederation of Southern Baptists always summed up the feverish religiosity, righteous probity, and confining insularity of the South (5, 1996).” It is not so much the Southern Baptists themselves that interest me so much here, but rather the way that their religion seems to define their way of life as well as the way of life of the people who live around or near them. To be southern, it seems, is to be Christian, and furthermore to be Protestant Christian. The probity and insularity of which Applebome speak are surely effects of the inundation of the south with Protestant Christianity. I do not wish to limit any valid definition of southern culture as a whole to an analysis of its religious atmosphere alone, but I believe it to be true that the religious atmosphere in the south has always been a part of what defines the south as different from the rest of the nation. Applebome goes on to illustrate various ways that one might define what it means to be southern, but there is a context of Protestant Christianity in which all of the social and political definitions of ‘southern-ness’ Applebome provides must be viewed. In the first chapter alone, he discusses the political ramifications of the growing religious right, the juxtaposition of past alongside present that is so common in the south, the racial history of the south and its impact on society, and various other truths about why the south is southern. However, in order to understand these truths, the people behind them, and the culture they come from, one must understand the Christian lens through which most southerners view the world.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Why Study Southern Christianity?
Nelson Mandela, a hero of cross-cultural understanding, once said, “There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered.” I cannot be certain what these words meant to Mandela, but they hold truth for me. From February through June 2008, I lived and studied in Melbourne, Victoria, in the beautiful country of Australia. This weekend I will have been back in the United States for three months, and back at Wofford in South Carolina for one month. The reverse culture shock that I experienced upon returning home was in many ways more difficult to deal with and understand than the culture shock I experienced during my life on foreign soil. You can imagine my surprise and disbelief when this reverse culture shock was actually magnified by coming back to school. Students at Wofford and people in South Carolina in general were saying and doing things that baffled me, but why? I have spent three years at Wofford, and truthfully it has felt like just as much of a “home” as my hometown of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. There was something about the people here, the culture here, that was drastically different from what I experienced in Melbourne and even what I readjusted to at home during the summer. I feel that being from the American South has shaped much of my study abroad experience, and framed my cultural perceptions. I think that Southern culture, especially in South Carolina, is drastically different from other cultures that I have experienced. The things people believe, what guides their actions, and why they live the way they live in South Carolina are based in entirely different conceptions of the world and one’s role in it than those characteristics of other peoples. I hope to illustrate how Christianity in the South is a large part of what makes southern culture different, what makes southern people and southern life different from the rest of the world.
“So, is everyone in Southern America a Christian?” Giselle, my Australian roommate, asked when I had tried to explain why being “southern” was different than just being “American.” I had told her that southerners were typically more socially and politically conservative than most Americans, that southern people in general hold a special sense of place and value being ‘southern’ as a part of their identity, and that within the United States being ‘southern’ connoted a differentiation from the larger American society. She was curious, I believe, because Australia is a very secular country. It intrigued her that for me, part of being from the south was being Christian. I stumbled over my words in an effort to present to her the truth as it was without being biased or giving her any negative impressions. Her question, however, was a valid one. Most earnest attempts to define what it means to be southern include some exploration of the ways in which Christianity has defined southern life over the years. This conversation with Giselle, as well as many others I had with Australians as well as Americans from other regions have led me to seek a definition of what it means to be southern, what it means to be Christian in the south, and whether or not any line can be drawn between the two.
Over the course of the semester, I will be exploring what it means to be southern and how Christianity has shaped South Carolina's culture and people, especially in the Spartanburg area. I will attempt to discover how Christianity in the south is changing by observing where it has been and currently is, as well as where it is headed. I will be looking for Christianity in southern culture; in politics, education, social life and public morality. I feel that these things are pertinent to the lives of not only those who live in the south, not only Christians, but all Americans and even all people.
“So, is everyone in Southern America a Christian?” Giselle, my Australian roommate, asked when I had tried to explain why being “southern” was different than just being “American.” I had told her that southerners were typically more socially and politically conservative than most Americans, that southern people in general hold a special sense of place and value being ‘southern’ as a part of their identity, and that within the United States being ‘southern’ connoted a differentiation from the larger American society. She was curious, I believe, because Australia is a very secular country. It intrigued her that for me, part of being from the south was being Christian. I stumbled over my words in an effort to present to her the truth as it was without being biased or giving her any negative impressions. Her question, however, was a valid one. Most earnest attempts to define what it means to be southern include some exploration of the ways in which Christianity has defined southern life over the years. This conversation with Giselle, as well as many others I had with Australians as well as Americans from other regions have led me to seek a definition of what it means to be southern, what it means to be Christian in the south, and whether or not any line can be drawn between the two.
Over the course of the semester, I will be exploring what it means to be southern and how Christianity has shaped South Carolina's culture and people, especially in the Spartanburg area. I will attempt to discover how Christianity in the south is changing by observing where it has been and currently is, as well as where it is headed. I will be looking for Christianity in southern culture; in politics, education, social life and public morality. I feel that these things are pertinent to the lives of not only those who live in the south, not only Christians, but all Americans and even all people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)