(00:00:00) Good evening. I'm Kathy worser in the Twin Cities coming up next on ksjn. Am it's the rebroadcast of today's midday program. Today's. Midday is a recording made August 4th at Concordia College in Moorhead at the 10th annual summer conference on Theology and the church this year theologians and lay people from around the u.s. Gather to study and talk about the fundamentalist religious, right its Origins development and future. One of the highlights was a debate about fundamentalism featuring two experts on the subject first, we'll hear from dr. Ehrlich jorstad add a professor of history and American studies at st. Olaf College in Northfield who has studied and written extensively about fundamentalism Earl endorsed Ted and his views of fundamentalists. (00:00:41) What I would like with a theological question first of all, and I'll look into this rather than you know back here on this is sort of thing right is make sort of a personal statement myself and in response to some of the things that were said this morning and then raises in the form of a sort of a general question. Maybe you'd you know debatable kind of a question. On this is it myself personally. I have no particular problems with what you might call the intellectual assent to to the to the faith to the doctrines. The teachings this to me is no particular problem. A lot of people do have all kinds of questions and doubts and everything else, but for intellectually I find the very sort of warmth response to the basic teachings. If you want to call them out of the of the church over the over, you know, the Orthodox positions of the church who are my problem is is with the emotional a lot of people feel that the other way around they like sort of the the warmth and the friendliness and the fellowship and all these things with the church and that therefore they aren't quite sure they aren't quite really that much interested in the more intellectual side, but mine is different with this because I'm kind of often times turned off. So to speak by the emotional where they see the inward if you want to call it that side and what I find that I need more information on and what I'd like to discuss Dr. Dobson is is the question of if I personally could give formal Ascent to the to the propositions. I could sit down and say Yes or Like a Man Charlie Amen to all of the propositions of the church, but does that make me a Christian? Does that imply therefore then sort of included in the you know in the group from that point on rather isn't Faith having what I would call a life-transforming experience by the you know, the inward workings of the power of the Holy Spirit yesterday. For instance. We saying he lives he lives within my heart. How do I know he lives Because He Lives within my heart. He doesn't live on the basis of the efficacy of the rational, you know, unfolding of five propositions. He lives within my heart from my personal experience. I know what's happened to me and I fully Grant since I've done a lot with a charismatic SLI the danger of experience it goes overboard. No question about this. I remember once I was at a Lutheran conference the big Lutheran conference in an August, you know at the Minneapolis and I saw a friend from Northfield and we were talking a little while and she said I'm just cruising around here waiting for the Holy Spirit to tell me what to do next. Okay, you know, that's that's that's fine. I hope I hope she found out but all right. Anyway, seriously, my problem is the not the intellectual assent but I don't feel that I'm necessarily caught a Christian or a person of Faith because I've given intellectual assent to these particular doctrines right give you one specific example of this. I would like to hear in this goes sort of in a sort of point to here since I was doing points and list this morning. I would like to hear a fundamentalist sermon using for the text the Beatitudes the meek the poor the peacemakers. To me the Beatitudes some up a frame whatever you want to call it a worldview a framework a way of looking at religious truth and experience and knowledge which I you know, don't find in some circles including the fundamentalists that I'm that I'm familiar with the meek the poor, you know, the oppressed all these so they the outcasts do this this emphasis. I think this is one reason. I like talking to these groups. I don't have to elaborate on it. I've had group of 18 year olds out there. I'd have to elaborate it great length. Okay, that would be the point. Alright, then like the answer to that will would be well, let's go back to the Bible fine. Let's go back to the Bible. But what happens then and with a strong emphasis that fundamentalists and evangelicals have on inerrancy and as we call it the full authority of the scriptures. They can't Ark they can't agree themselves. I mean all the different arguing the count the council's Geisler and the council for an errand see all the different conventions and all the rest and see Obe and all these are signals to me that the Bible Doesn't you know self-explanatory and that therefore we have to choose, you know, who's explanation or going to take and then we get it isn't you know, self-explanatory. I remember hearing Sydney Austin talk on that quite eloquently sometimes when that so that's one idea. I'd like to throw out on it's okay so much for if you want to call them the theological questions that I would like to have discussed and I hope they're clear to you as to what I'm asking here. All right and moving, you know, a no particular order of priority here over to another area where I would have some questions especially with their what that's the question. I'm most concerned with of course in my research is the impact of of you know, the fundamentalist and evangelicals in the political realm. So I was talking about yesterday. I would like to sort of make two statements or Draw to conclusions and and see what happens with these is that in politics is all trying to say yesterday. The the final test the pragmatic test is, you know, does it work and I don't see the new question right as One more, you know organized or reasonably organized group of Voters having that much appeal or making that much progress or that much difference on the national level the six senators or incumbents or office Seekers who were up or were endorsed in 1986 all lost and nobody from the new Christian right that I know of is taking credit for you know their losses and therefore I am beginning to wonder whether or not it might be that the excitement and the enthusiasm that people had and the fear that some people had four new Christian right entry into Politics on the you know, the national level that is for you know, US senators hasn't pretty well faded out hasn't pretty well peaked and that this is no longer, you know viable issue for well as a you know, as a person who is his popularity is always rated by Gallup and Roper and the others hasn't picked up in popularity. This was before the PTL thing and I'm beginning to wonder if this And pretty well locked into place in this country. And in the same line just two more points in the same line. I'm beginning to wonder if further evidence of this is the fact that Pat Robertson isn't going to get us three million, you know in dorsey's 4444 the presidency last September we were told that you know, three million would do it. And now in the last issue of wasn't it Christianity Today there is an explanation of how the anybody who answers the phone when he calls up is going to be considered with a signature then they send in rather than the money is going to be considered one of the three million I was called up and I was asked to send in it's a clever idea. I was asked to send in $19.98 as I said, you know one contribution and they said monthly so that that lost me, you know right there. But if I had sent in the money then I would have been considered to be an endorsee or even if I hadn't sent in the money, but if I had signed up, you know signed a statement then that would have been considered one of the three million which is Not what the original endorsement, you know idea was back in September. I don't want to get lost in the detail. And I don't know I'm trying to say is I don't think Robertson's Canada's he has taken off and made much progress simply because there isn't that much interest as I was trying to say yesterday some of the the case that the new Christian right makes on for instance secular humanism and all the rest really hasn't caught on that much and I personally don't see much evidence that it's going to catch on unless there's something else, you know that comes up that we can't foresee now. Okay, that would be from a theological and on a platter of political question and a third one that I'd like to discuss since we were ranging over a very wide range of issues and I heard it because I bring it up because over coffee I heard some of the people are talking about some School Board issues that they have to face back home and I'm sure many of you do have to face School Board issues and I think the thing that raises the questions for me about what's taking place in the cases in both, Tennessee and in Alabama is you know, who do we want? To have who do we want to have the power who's you know to be able to decide what books you know, our children should read in the school's who should have that particular power if you allow each School District to allow the parents to choose what books are going to be read in that District you might as well dismantle. I think the public school system and the whole system of accreditation. Why send why send people to college and give them training in whatever it might be what field it might be if their particular specialization doesn't count for that much on the other hand. I fully agree with those critics of some of the textbooks who think that there's just an enormous amount of Claptrap and twaddle and all the other nasty things you could say in a lot of the textbooks that are being taught and I'm pleased to say that such secular humanist groups, as you know people for the American way want more religion put back in the textbooks, but and in another group, I'm affiliated with Americans United for separation of church and state are working very hard. Hard for inclusion back and forth back of religion and religious history back into in our textbooks. So I'm wondering if the position that the new Christian right is taken through groups like concerned women for America which you know was paying the legal bills. He is the one which is going in the direction that you know, we wanted to grow to go so I would leave it with all three statements and we'll see what happens (00:10:23) presenting a second view is the Reverend Edward Dobson a member of the board of directors for the Moral Majority and until recently vice president for student affairs at Liberty Baptist University at Lynchburg, Virginia. Dobson is editor-in-chief of the fundamentalist journal and his co-author of a book with the Reverend Jerry Falwell here, then is Edward Dobson. Let me Address, first of all, your theological concerns the issues you have raised in regard to propositional Theology and how that relates to emotionalism and is salvation intellectual assent to the propositions that we've outlined. So I'm assuming you're asking what do you really mean by salvation, which I will try to answer and how does blessed are the poor in spirit and the meek relate to that saving conversion experience as I kind of That's a good way good place to start. I would say that we perceive at that. I want to make two statements one in regard to our Theology of Salvation and number two in regard to our Theology of sanctification. And I think I have to deal with both to answer the comprehensive nature of your question. I believe that salvation is both an intellectual emotional and volitional experience and I would in good Evangelical and fundamentalist style appealed scripture as my authority on that and I know that you'll get right up after an appeal the scripture for your Authority as well. I'm fully aware of what I'm doing by that that on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the response of the crowd is when they heard the message they were convicted in their heart and they said men and Brethren what shall we do? And that seems to me to outline that that conversion experience the preaching of the Gospel brings about A conversion that involves intellectual assent to certain propositions which I would suggest would be that we are all sinners that Jesus Christ died on the cross and that salvation is by faith and through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ Ephesians 2:8 and 9. So the must be an intellectual understanding of certain theological propositions, then in the second place the Holy Spirit based on the preaching of the Gospel brings about a convicting part influence in the heart of a person that I must not only here and give intellectual assent but I must be convicted by the spirit in my heart of my need of that kind of inexperience and then it must involve what I would call a volitional step of Faith the what shall we do. It's not a leap. Off the cliff hoping that will make it but it is exercising my faith in the propositions of the Gospel. So I would suggest that conversion involves both mind emotions and will and not just an intellectual adherence to certain propositions. Now, how does that then relate to the Beatitudes order the fruit of the spirit or do the things that you mentioned in your sermon this morning? I would argue that salvation is by grace that it is a one-time experience whether you want to call it a born-again experience or a conversion. But that sanctification is a lifelong struggle. The living out of that faith in our daily lives is a pilgrimage until ultimately we are glorified that the one who began the good work in us that is salvation will continue to perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. So the the spirit of the Beatitudes I would argue as would I assume most fundamentalist and evangelicals is really the outworking of the spirit life. It is the outworking of our sanctification. It is allowing God to transform Our Lives day by day Glory by Glory as we are transformed into the image of Christ. So salvation, is that experience involving my mind my heart and my emotions That one time experience and then the Christian life than is the constant struggle of sanctification of becoming more like Christ. I would prefer not if this is all right with you to debate inerrancy because I do not keep up in great detail with the international Council and and Geisler in this definition and that definition and I would be very much a fish out of water debating on that particular issue in the political Realm. I think Professor you have raised a question that that fundamentalist political involvement is just now facing and that is have we made any difference and that's a very fundamental important question. When we moved into the political Arena. We were as shocked as the people who responded to us that we did not anticipate that we had touched a nerve in in society that we were as surprised at our influences others, and and we were quite taken back by the notoriety by the exposure by the interviews by all the transpired after the founding of the Moral Majority. And we assumed I think at that point that because we were registering voters because we had defeated or appear to have defeated debatable as to whether or not we did at least it appeared that way that we had some success that we rested on The Laurels of that success and now seven or eight years later. We really are asking the question have we made a difference on the national level and I would say we have and we have not that's a good Evangelical answer we have and we have not we have in the sense that we have at least forced the issue of religion and politics to the center of public discuss discussion and discourse in that sense. We have done the whole system of favor that that as people are running for office the moral issues and the whole role of religion in the Democratic process is at least part of the discussion. And in that sense we have made an impact now on the other hand. How do you explain the six we supported who lost? And I would suggest that we are better at being against somebody than being for somebody that our greatest and if you think about it is true. We are better at defeating a lousy liberal then we are supporting Oh, yes. Against him so why couldn't you keep them? You don't do and expect me to comment on Alabama politics. Do you? And and I would say that our future involvement in the 88 election will be very much predicated upon who is running. Now technically we are neither Democrats nor Republicans, and we're sure not Democrats. So (00:17:50) if (00:17:52) My Theses would be if the Democrats were to run a Chuck Robb. A moderate semi-conservative young pretty charismatic governor and the governor of Virginia and was a very good governor in Virginia and a very well-liked Governor if they ran a candidate like that. My opinion would be that probably the religious right would not have any significant impact on the election. If however a Ted Kennedy and and I'm just speculating I know that's not going to happen. But if one of his ilk were nominated, I think that would bring us out in force. So so my opinion would be that in our future political involvement. I think will always be involved but we will be involved as one of many lobbying and political interest groups to have a major impact on a national like an election would necessitate someone of a very liberal persuasion being thrown into the Forefront as a possible potential candidate. The whole issue that you've raised of Pat Robertson. At this point in my opinion. It's very difficult to predict. What's going to happen there? I see several possible scenarios. I see scenario a that he has been irreparably damaged by the scandal of PTL. That is a possible scenario that while he claims to be an entrepreneur not a television preacher. He's the only person in America that thinks he's an entrepreneur and on a television Minister. He is in the minds of the public a television Minister period his close Nexus with the rest of media broadcasting. I think the Fallout the nuclear fallout of PTL May seriously damage his ability to establish credibility that is necessary in the political process. It may not but I think my feeling gut-level feeling is that he's been damaged number two. I have concerns that Pat Robertson and fundamentalism in general in its political Endeavors lacks a coherent political philosophy and and that is evidenced by the pragmatic nature that the politics and fundamentalism have a lot in common. They're very pragmatic oriented a goal-oriented getting something done oriented for that reason. One of my criticisms of the religious right is a lack of a coherent political philosophy that will guide us in the complexities of political life in America. I don't think Pat Robertson has that at this point. I'm not sure he understands who he is. He has convinced Jimmy Swaggart that he's not a preacher. So Jimmy Swaggart can support him but he really is a preacher because Jimmy Swaggart has a problem with preachers running for public office. So if he continues in the process, he will do one of two things. He will either help the dialogue of religion and politics and how a deeply religious person can enter into the public Arena or he may arep rebleed damage our opportunity and I would suggest I've been wanting to write an editorial on this that Pat Robertson has a lot to learn from C Everett. Koop that here is a man who is he's an Evangelical deeply religious man argues that the answer to the AIDS problem ultimately is the practice of biblical morality as he defines it abstinence and monogamous relationships. That is his theology. But he's also a public official so he puts on his public hat and says now this is my personal conviction, but as the chief Public Health officer of the United States, I know that many people are not going to adhere to my particular individual Philosophy or whatever you want to call it. Therefore. He is advocating the use of condoms sex education. He is advocating a lot of things that you would not expect a person like him to advocate. So I would suggest that if Pat Robertson is serious about his political Endeavors. He's going to have to work that through in his mind where his personal convictions are personal convictions and how then he should relate those to the public life of America as a representative of all the people religious and non-religious. So I think that's a question that's up in the air. I think there's some very unfortunate things about the American political system. And that is that the Reverend Jackson and to disagree with him is almost to imply that you're a racist and that Reverend Jackson can call Jews Jaime's and get by with it. But if Pat Robertson did that the outcry would never be outlived. So I think there are some very unfair things about the American political system that allow certain candidates to say certain things and others not to say certain things and I would I would argue that fundamentalists have a greater pressure on them to prove their tolerance then two other individual groups. now religion in the public school and School Board issues who has the power to determine which books And I mean this this will be the can of worms that we will throw around because even within fundamentalism there's a great diversity of opinion as to whether the parents and Tennessee were right or wrong and a lot of fundamentalist think they were wrong in their approach and they were skewed in their understanding of humanism. While others were defending them the Paradox of it all at least a Tennessee case is that I was chairman of the board of our Christian Academy about 600 students in Lynchburg, and we discovered that the textbooks that were being utilized in the public schools of Tennessee and where the focal point of the controversy where the same textbook that we use in our Christian day school. And so that was by the way entered into the record in the trial that how could these people be upset when Jerry Falwell used these textbooks in our school system in which we did and then we took a lot of flak and I met with a lot of parents. And it was a rather interesting year in regard to the whole textbook issue. I am concerned that as we portray American history that we adequately and objectively interject the role of religion in American society that religion cannot must not be ignored as an important part of the cultural makeup of our society. I am concerned that parents ought to have some involvement and input into what happens in the public schools. We may want to debate that fundamentalist historically have had a general distrust of the academic system and and and frankly, I feel that in general in the educational system. There's the idea that Educators know better than anybody else and and I would be willing to try to debate that proposition. They certainly have expertise in Education and Training and background, but I'm not sure that that makes them better judges of Public School curriculum than parents so I would like to see Parental involvement an objective representation of religion and public schools. I do not want. However to force religion in the public school system and have mandated prayers. I would be in favor of a moment of silence to honor the fact that religion is deeply embedded in the fabric of American life, but not to the point of imposing one's religious viewpoint on others and I do understand the concerns of the Jewish community and other minority communities in that particular issue. I don't know of answered all of your questions. I've at least try to respond to them Edward Dobson editor of the fundamentalist journal and board member of the Moral Majority next. You'll hear erling jorstad making a short rebuttal statement then both men take questions from members of The Audience (00:26:18) by way of response on the sanctification question. Maybe I've just been you know, looking at the wrong people and reading the wrong things, but I just don't see you know, the the sanctification question as a how do I say it and I just don't see a whole lot of improvement over what we Lutheran's like to think about is Lead rounding the old Adam as is a basic necessity in life. And sometimes I'm really quite upset when I feel that there is a very sort of a judgmental attitude being, you know, expressed towards those who haven't sort of been able to go all the way so to speak with some of those who are sort of found a faith. That's what I mean by a life of modesty and humility and openness really to you know to what is Yet to Come As Old As some of the issues really have been settled and I think that goes back to the question of inerrancy and I appreciate what you're saying about the inerrancy thing my problem with an errand see is that for some people they have no questions with it and they've simply closed off their minds because they say it's an errant and we don't know exactly how it's inerrant, but we know what is and so therefore when questions come up we don't have to worry about them because well, that's the whole question of the autograph of the original texts. I mean, you know this you go round and round all the autograph about the idea that the Regional first editions of the scriptures were without error and we go round and round on this and of course Carl Henry says, well nobody's seen, you know fallible first editions. So how do you know that the first you know, how do you know that there were any in you know back and forth on that? So my question with inerrancy is is simply that it's it hasn't been proven and then when I come up with some legitimate kinds of questions that I think I have other people have they say, well we aren't quite sure how to answer you but we know there's an answer that proves that you're wrong. And and and why I go into that is because the the best Scholars and Evangelical and fundamentalist Traditions are debating this and that every so often Christianity Today comes out with the statement that inerrancy. He doesn't solve all the issues just because you have an inerrant scripture doesn't mean they're for that you've taken care of all these sort of things and I would just like, you know to come back with the idea that there is still some room for openness. I'm not a process Theologian in a sense that you know, all the answers are still unfolding at all. That's what I meant at the beginning because I think they're they certainly aren't unfolding and I would like to take that up sometime when we relationship to Liberation theology since that came up, but the inerrancy thing I think is still open and always will be open because it simply hasn't been proven that we can now say that you know, all the issues are closed even though we don't have some because since all of us are human we all have some, you know kinds of limitations on their on the pad. Robertson issue and the others with the people involved in politics. Maybe I'll start over again with that one. I take the fundraising letters and maybe that's the wrong place, you know to look for getting an insight as to what's going on because it comes on like a crusade it comes on. Like we've got the answers that comes on like, you know, we are the the Forefront of a mighty tied here and that it's it's either or I mean there's you know, when I say yesterday to you lump in a w in the Communist party and you know all the others in one big group and if I've got one Robert Grant letter from Christian voice that says if we don't win it's going to be a nuclear Holocaust and it's this kind of frightening rhetoric that that's scares me and that's why I said what I did yesterday about Civility and about, you know, the language kind of issue and I don't find when I get fundraising letters the kinds of different scenarios that you're proposing. I find that it has to be Sway and if it isn't that way folks wrap it up get ready get your dried food for seven years because that's what it's probably going to take. So anyway, the inerrancy commonly the Robertson saying isn't the way it proposed to the American public isn't you know, a matter of growing a revolving. It's simply a matter of here is a truth Robertson call himself a man of God a prophet of God. I think it's a term that he used and simply comes on this, you know, this this way and I don't find any room for negotiation or moderation on that. (00:30:44) Yeah. I might want to add Professor that one of the interesting dimensions and you having studied the charismatics as well that if Pat Robertson does indeed run that does not guarantee his support by the religious right and by the fundamentalist community. In fact, I would suggest that Fundamentalist would feel more comfortable with an American Pagan who had conservative values as opposed to a charismatic that that scenario May. Well be played out that fundamentals are very uncomfortable with what the media calls the wacko Factor the driving away of the well, (00:31:25) not only that some very strong conservatives say that two of the editor of National Review calls Robertson a member of the you know, the wacko Factor. (00:31:31) So yes, yeah and so Robertson while he may engender a Grassroots support among charismatic Christians certainly does not have that base of support and fundamentalist, but on charismatic, but they have to go (00:31:43) somewhere. I mean the charismatic the fundamentalist have to go (00:31:45) somewhere. Well, I would suspect if he were to get the nomination which is highly unlikely and if he indeed runs That we fundamentalists may vote for him and we may not and I think when you get down to the bottom line would be the lesser of two evils, (00:32:03) but between okay that raises another question then is up to what extent should a person's you know, personal theological convictions and Orion 244 qualification for you know, 444 (00:32:16) office seeking. Well Pat Robertson, I think would imply that that's important. Yeah. I think Jerry Falwell is come to the position that that is unimportant as long as the moral issues and social issues of which he has concern are represented. I (00:32:29) personally don't care unless it would be dangerous for instance about the question about the you know, the the Rapture and all the rest of these things if Russia move down, you know from from the north should we therefore mobilize, you know, when send the fleet out because that sounds bad, you know, if you're you know from that particular area, you know millenarian position. So I'm I would say only in that sense, but I'm worried that that a lot of people Taking this religion politics saying to mean that we should give extended exposure to you know, the sort of the theological accuracy or the theological Precision or articulate mess of some of the candidates and it's very I say that because it's very easy to win over some people as an office Seeker to your position because you know what, you know, what buttons to push and what bells to Ring to win them over and I give you as an example of how easily do people can be no less leader than Billy Graham was duped by, you know, Richard Nixon for all Lo those many years until Watergate came and you haven't seen Billy Graham back in the white house since and what was amazing to me about Graham on that one was that first Graham was the most outraged not over the deceit but over the profanity that he found on the tapes which would indicate that he had some distance to go and his understanding of how politics Works in America. So my point really is is that Talking about religion and politics and remember the debate between Mondale and and in Reagan in 1984 that in that sort of thing. Some people will be willing to vote for somebody who may be theologically Orthodox more so than they would be for somebody who might be able to do a better job for the Third District in Iowa or or what their scent, you know to Washington to do. That's yeah, that's what I would say. I've got more but I'd be happy to Sure, here we go. (00:34:29) You mentioned in the new Christian right success in the 1980 and eighty four elections and then you mentioned lack of success in 82 and 86. The question I have is what is the correlation between the success of the new Christian, right and Reagan's personal popularity and the second part might speculate. How about with Summer Reagan's a lack of or decline of political muscle and also the post-reagan are sure no question about that that (00:34:57) Reagan was instrumental in with the you know, with the tidal wave. It wasn't just a landslide. It was a tidal wave in both 80 and 84 (00:35:05) and (00:35:08) and then in 8600 the Curious Thing is he went around the country and we were in Washington state at that time and he came in and endorse the Republican. He said a vote for the Republican candidate is a vote for me and you know, they lost and everywhere around Reagan said, you know straight out. I am the issue. This is an 86 he said I am the issue going to know just about all these cases he lost so why is it that in 1884 he had to peel but in 86 he didn't I don't know. I'm sure there's some two or three doctoral candidates busily at work out that one with her computers and and things like this. I (00:35:43) do think that's an interesting scenario you race with the declining at least the appearing. It depends what happens with the Iran-Contra Affair how much popularity he will have when his term ends and how that level of popularity will relate to the involvement of the religious, right? You know the real I don't think the religious rights real enthused about George Bush trilateral (00:36:07) commission. I mean, you know what we're seeing. Can you say about somebody the other than he (00:36:10) went to jail because he also admitted not long ago that he thought he had a born-again experience. Yeah. Yeah, so (00:36:19) and and you know, how many episcopalians have born-again experiences if any of you ever see an altar call in an Episcopalian Parish? Call me collect, you know right away. I spent second semester and Episcopalian Seminary at see DSP some of you know, and Berkeley not a hotbed for you know altar calls a great series a great place. We we really appreciated they're fine people but no altar calls, okay. (00:36:49) Well, I too was recently called by an individual who asked me to be one of the petitioners for Pat Robertson's campaign (00:36:58) what this woman said (00:36:59) was the fact we need a Godly Man in The White House don't you think and my response would be immediately does that mean that so and so and so and so and so are not godly man, you know, I guess I have my doubts about Ronald Reagan. But anyway, The question that arises is that has been (00:37:22) some of the rhetoric that I have heard from the Moral Majority and other fundamentalist (00:37:26) groups in the past six seven years is the fact that this is a godly man. This is not and if it isn't been said so (00:37:36) overtly it at least has been (00:37:37) intimated. And is this some of this rhetoric being toned down as the (00:37:43) Moral Majority and matured enough to get away from some of this nonsense? (00:37:48) I don't have to yeah. I said a moment ago or a while ago that I thought Pat Robertson lacked a coherent political philosophy and I think what you have raised about a Godly candidate as an evidence that he has not thought through the meaning of statements like that and back in 79 and 80 when Jerry Falwell first got involved in the political system. He made similar statements. We want a Christian Nation. Well that offended the whole Jewish Community because they implied by that a nation where we're going to take over and impose Christianity on the nation Falwell did not mean it in that context. He meant he wanted a nation that emphasizes judeo Christian values. There's a big difference between judeo-christian values and a Christian quote-unquote Nation. What when you jump into the process, I think I suggest that this the this morning you are tempered somewhat by that political process and I would say that with Jerry Falwell there has been a great tempering and a better understanding and a more careful guarded way of expressing what we really mean and and you may want to come in and this I think that has grown and matured and I think if you've watched Jerry Falwell in the PTL Scandal secular people have a greater respect for him now than they ever had they perceive him as a little bit more moderate with a lot more Integrity a little bit more tolerant and so forth. That was a growing process with Pat Robertson. He is just now getting into the political process you have to remember in 1980 Pat Robertson was uninvolved did not get involved now. He is jumping in as a candidate and my opinion he has a lot to learn and and the system will teach him that very quickly and I think when he gets into the public forum of debate Is where that will really come to the Forefront very quickly. So I think yes that does need to be tempered. Jerry Falwell does not believe we ought to all like Godly Christian born again people to political office. He believes we ought to elect people who have the capabilities the expertise the background and who represent his particular moral and social concerns, whether they're Christian non-Christian Jew or Gentile (00:39:56) then you get Tim lahaye and you know American Coalition for Traditional Values who said we got in as I said 25% Born Again people, so we should have 25% you know public officials. Who are they with this and I've got that on record. He debated that with representative shorter, you know at the on the Donahue show and so people aren't a lot of people aren't all that sophisticated about if is it foul as a baker. Is it swaggered? You know who's talking? It's just like a lot of honest Evangelical people are being penalized for you know, the PTL indiscretions and it's too bad because I just see TV preachers and they lump them all together and there are many, you know, very sound people so I'm a little confused too when I hear, you know, Things because the different qualifications that are made because I think Tim lahaye really would like 25% and I heard Robert Grant to president of a Christian voice. I think he'd like about a hundred percent with us (00:40:46) Rick. My question is you password option. You said slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I think accurately that the fundamentalist religious right is better at getting people out of office than into office. And then you alluded to the your perception that the religious right needs to prove tolerance more than others and usually that's dependent on pain at least a broad perception of some grain of Truth someplace. My question is is it possible that the fundamentalist Evangelical movement is better at defining enemies or taking a stance against rather than for I don't mean you shoot at everybody in all of his left is is us but that is basically defines more and what we're not and what we're against and defensive adversarial stance then in what we are seeking if that's not true. Could you explain why not if it is true does it trouble you at all? Yes, I think it is true in general while that may have been tongue-in-cheek. I think I was pretty serious in in making that statement as a thesis that we are much better at being against somebody then we are at being for somebody now. Once you enter in to the political system, for example, Pat Robertson, then you have to begin forming coalition's beyond your narrow particular interest and I think that will be a tremendous challenge for Pat Robertson and for all of the religious right as they seek to coexist in the spirit of Civility and tolerance within the Democratic process. Really want the question as not so much the political Arena now but in fundamentalism evangelicalism as you understand it in terms of theological and general stance. Yeah, there is and always will be the tension between private religion and public morality between our commitment to Absolute propositions theologically and then our expression of Morality In the Public Square. I don't see I see it as a tolerance on methodological levels. But not on message levels, for example, we may be willing to discuss methods of evangelism. But I don't think we're willing to discuss and be open toward changes in the message of evangelism one illustration would be should we target Jewish groups? Well, we may be willing to discuss our methods and approaching various people and express a greater level of sensitivity there but not change the message. I don't see a level of Tolerance in our private religion that those absolutes that we hold dear. That's kind of what you were asking. A good answer but no it wasn't what troubles me a little about what I understand. You don't understand fundamentalist evangelicalism is that it seems more defined by what we're against and what we've for that it's easier and maybe it's true of all of us, but it seems more true that it's there's more energy in defending against something bad than in high. I think. That it is certainly an accurate perception, but in our minds may not be a total reality. Yeah, we are have been represented. Now for many years through the media most people understand fundamentalists through the lens of a camera or with the ink on a printed page. Now you only make news on the real controversial issues illustration and Lynchburg. We have a family care center where we minister to 800 poor families providing Dental Care Medical Care food clothing legal advice are professional people tie their time and service the community. You never hear about that in the public news, but that's part of what we're doing. What you do here is when we run into some confrontation over a social or political issue. So I think we have been doing other positive things, but they have not been highlighted there for people's perception is only in what we're against and I think we have to work harder at making people aware that there are many positive things in which we were involved as well. You wanted to address that to you took it in a different (00:45:22) direction. I think I'll leave it there. Right? We've got this hello still wants to come back. (00:45:27) I think you've kind of moved in the direction. I've been or towards the you know, the question I'm about to ask but when you answered my previous question you talked about the fact that Jerry Falwell was not necessarily supporting candidates so much as or not supporting. (00:45:45) Okay something to the fact that he was supporting candidates for the judeo Christian (00:45:48) values that they represent and what I'm hearing from you saying is that among the fundamentalist there are many positive developments that you've talked about. However, the public perception is still important and the public perception has been that the judeo Christian values that Jerry Falwell another fundamentalist have talked about have been very narrowly defined. And is that going to change I guess would be the other question I have so that indeed issues of justice for all people Justice for oppressed people in South Africa a real debate on the Injustice issues in Central America can be part of that process as (00:46:37) well without assuming that indeed these issues are simply (00:46:43) cast in a good versus evil struggle between the u.s. And the USSR. I think that's a point well taken and I know I have at least raise some of those issues in my writings the need for an understanding of what Justice Means and I are obligations in particular to third world countries and what Justice Means in those countries apart from geopolitical concerns. I think this is where the conservative political movement and the conservative religious movement ought to be there ought to be a disparity the conservative political movement will argue South Africa and Central America on Purely geopolitical terms with very little interest or concern for the moral issues that seem to me to be the fundamental root problems in those countries. I think this is where the conservative religious community can begin raising the moral issues. And and yes, I do see us addressing those now, we may come to different conclusions as to how to resolve them. But I think we have to do a better job convincing people that we're really interested in making difference for justice and in behalf of the poor first over here it was he first. (00:47:55) Okay. (00:47:56) I'd like to talk about the issues of social justice and some of the things that you said this morning Pastor Dobson about the fact that in the fundamentalist tradition, it's always been kind of situation where it was more important to save somebody sold because Jesus was coming back again soon and that we really weren't going to have to deal with some of these problems and yet and from me and I talked to you earlier and you know that I came from about four or five years. I took a soldier and into fundamentalism and came away with some of those same feelings and yet now I'm a pastor in Tradition where social justice issues are really something that are written about and debated and sometimes I get the feeling in our tradition that we don't have enough concern about individual salvation. And somehow we need to find a balance between the two of those things. Where as the fundamentalists are agreeing. We need to start looking more at the issues of social justice. I think we could come from a tradition that tends to be more on the liberal side of things need to look at the possibilities of addressing individual salvation. Maybe the two of you could talk about balancing that and finding the tension between the two where we should be out doing these things. But sometimes it's like we don't want to talk at all about people knowing Jesus as Savior because that would be an infringement upon their personal or national rights to believe. However, they choose to believe Well, I think it would be somewhat inappropriate for me to speak to another tradition in that first of all, I don't fully understand that tradition and just as I would not want people from that tradition to try to dictate to me what I ought to do if we are committed to the Evangel the gospel and if we really believe that Jesus is the answer then I think at some point we have to sort through what that means for our church and for our individual lives that let me just you know, fundamentals are not afraid to give their opinion. So let me go ahead and do that many of you have heard from a Lutheran tradition. It seems to me and this is my perception that's filtered through my thinking that there is a powerful emphasis in Lutheran tradition on the church. And and the idea seems to be that the church is there in this Parish in this community? And if you need us, that's why we're there whereas in fundamentalist if I could use the word tradition. The parish is the world. We don't see ourselves. What we do is is located in a community. But our Parish seems to be to reach the whole world and that while the churches there the church is simply there for the training of saints who can go out actively seven days a week and infiltrate the community for Christ. It seems to be a reverse of Direction maybe in Lutheran tradition. You come to the church, whereas in our tradition the churches there to get you out of the church and to and quote win people to Christ. Now that may be a totally skewed perception, but that's the way of the fundamentalist thinks of himself and his relationship to the church that the church is a vehicle that is training discipling and and using me. So that the real work of the church is not done within its walls the real Church exists as I live and serve and work in related my community. You may want to correct my theology at this point you commented just briefly about the Tennessee textbook case. Would you offer some observations and comments on the Alabama case perhaps contrasting those two in terms of the significance within the fundamentalist and other communities. I'm verging on Dangerous Ground at this point. It seems to me if I understand it correctly the Alabama case sought to establish secular humanism as a religion based on certain criteria that are characteristics of all religions. And that's a much more intellectual philosophical issue than the issue in Tennessee, which simply was they didn't like certain stories in the text books and I read the stories with which they found offense and I personally didn't find offense by them. I did not think the case in Tennessee was worth fighting over and I have angered people in the religious right by making those kinds of statements. I do think that there is a philosophical and intellectual issue that is worth struggling with in the case in Alabama. I think that's right to (00:52:48) in the in the middle here. We'll get as many different people and it's (00:52:50) possible. I think in the Lutheran Church to follow up on your comment there that we do emphasize people going out but perhaps not just to for conversion purposes, but to live the life and especially in terms of social justice and caring about people but to go back a little bit to the some political thoughts and you were saying that Pat Robertson needs to moderate his views in terms of his own personal convictions as over against the realities of American Life. Do you think Jimmy Carter would have a chance of more support from the fundamentalist today? If that maturity maturity has actually taken place. You think Jimmy Carter would have a more support from the fundamentalist today if he were running today instead of 1980. I personally don't think so because the issue with Jimmy Carter the Paradox of 1980 was the Jimmy Carter in many respects was and is an Evangelical he clearly gave his statement of being born again. Unlike Reagan. He attended church every week. He taught a Sunday school class. He he tried very hard to express his faith in the public Arena but his political agenda was not conservative enough. Therefore fundamentalist bought into Reagan who A was divorced be was a movie actor see doesn't go to church because it creates great security problems. I mean, it's a it's a real good reason not to go to church when President Carter went to church Faithfully every Sunday apparently didn't have those problems, but they bought into Reagan because of his political agenda and the platform of the Republican party as opposed to the platform of the Democratic Party. Which in our perception was very liberal? Given the fact that Jimmy Carter was the born-again Christian running on the ticket, I think and I debated President Carter about a year ago and he still is pretty angry at the religious right still does not understand why Born Again Christians didn't support him because he's a born-again Christian and and still perceives the Moral Majority as a religious organization not a political interest group. So I don't think mr. Carter would get any of our support if he would run today and in general, I don't think it would get the support of the American public. It seems to be as perception after four years as he wasn't all that great a president as far as being able to get (00:55:31) stuff done. Except he brought the hostages back safely and legally all of them came back 62 of them and there are that has yet to be proved somewhere else, right? That's true. But I think you're right on the other on the other issue Carter was voted out in 1980. I think people voted more against Carter than they did for Reagan because Reagan was an unknown quantity and they had four years of Carter simply because he was perceived of as week and remember his famous statement about America and I wiii, you know, I want to talk about this a little bit next time to that America should reassess its goals and its values and he was no tub some prefer America and remember he had his Camp David experience and came back and people Americans didn't want to hear that about themselves and he brought in various people including you know, Bishop price went to Camp David among others to to talk with with him. And I think the record will show that the current interpretation of Jimmy Carter will be revised. (00:56:32) He's a very nice man and a very dedicated Christian. Yes. I appreciated the answer that he gave to my question. But what I was looking for was kind of a discussion between the two of you of the tension of the under the two different understandings of mission or a kind of a World Council of churches understanding of missions being going out and liberating the world and we talk you talk a little bit about Liberation theology. But addressing those social needs without evangelism as being a priority over against the Evangelical goal of going out with evangelism as the priority and the given and that the meeting of human needs is the means by which we show people the love of Christ in order that we might gain an opportunity to share him with them and lead them to Salvation And there's that kind of attention that I experienced in my own life and in my own pastorate of trying to address those issues of being concerned for social justice, but at the same time feeling that the most important thing is that people know Jesus and there seems to be in a B2B attention in the Church right now whether you want to call it left and right. Where some people don't feel that talking about personal salvation is important maybe the two of you could talk about that. I (00:57:51) recognize this and it's an old theme that one useful way to organize the material when you're teaching American religious history is to line up that sort of thing as a dichotomy and that's true the battles back and forth and you know, the social gospel movement in the criticism that you know elicited in the rest and then coming in the 30s and now again in the 60s and it doesn't have to be the case. I mean my own personal feeling is that this just doesn't have to be the case the if you want to call it the ministry to the world should involve a wide variety of programs. So we are in a specialized world where there are wide variety of different needs that have to be met by people. I met by people for people and to say that you have to choose one or the other I think is is how should I say that's creating a sense of failure a self predict, you know, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for Destruction right away or 40 feet right away because it simply doesn't have to be the case and I get weary. Except for analytical reasons for people who say that it has to be just just one urges together. I might say by way of comment on this that I didn't know I was going to say this but I've just finished a very good book and since you brought it up, but Wade Clark roof who teaches sociology of religion at University of Massachusetts Amherst has a book entitled American Mainline denominations published by Rutgers press and it's the first sort of study of Mainline churches and you know that have been in some difficulty for for a period of time because all the attention including, you know, my own research has been on the more conservative side and he argues something that I'm going to follow up on that there is an enormous amount of Vitality in what we call a Mainline churches for a while. I got to be sort of a fad to you know to bash Main Line we had calling the old line or the side liners or or things like this and even William Hutchinson of Harvard who's so the best historian there has said the same things but roof makes a point and I want to follow true that there's an enormous amount of Vitality left in the mainline churches. Just only it doesn't attract the media. I mean things Sanctuary movement would be one for instance. My son is involved in that very much the peace movement the ecology movement some of these movements that were sort of over, you know overplayed to be sure by the media and there's an enormous amount of strength left there that simply isn't attracting the you (01:00:09) know, the (01:00:10) attracted the attention of a lot of people so I would say that they're the pendulum may be swinging in the other direction because a lot of these people who are in these other kinds of movement the women's movement for instance is another one we found that in the Episcopal Church is still very much alive and thriving on this (01:00:27) erlendur stead and Edward Dobson debating the new Christian right and politics as part of the 10th annual summer conference on Theology and the church held two weeks ago Concordia College in Moorhead early endorsed at is a professor of history and American studies at st. Olaf College in Northfield Edward Dobson is a board member of the Moral Majority and edits a journal for fundamentalists. You've been listening to a rebroadcast of today. (01:00:49) Midday program a (01:00:51) reminder that midday can be heard each weekday beginning at 11:30 right here on ksjn am coming up on tomorrow's midday program William Beecher Washington bureau chief for the Minneapolis Star Tribune answers listener questions about developments in the Middle East including the iran-iraq war and the u.s. Escort of Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf that's coming up tomorrow on the midday program.