sign in sign up
<<
Home , Christadelphians, Christian Voice (UK), Church of Euthanasia, IFCA International, Pat Robertson, Ruth Carter Stapleton

MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

of

Jared A. Farley

Candidate for the Degree:

Doctor of Philosophy

Ryan J. Barilleaux

Director

John P. Forren

Reader

Augustus J. Jones

Reader

Mary Kupiec Cayton

Graduate School Representative

ABSTRACT

THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN EVANGELICAL PRESS, 1960— 1981: A TEST OF THE IDEOLOGICAL THEORY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZATION

by Jared A. Farley

In the last decade, scholars have increasingly begun to study the role of issue entrepreneurs and subculture elites in utilizing ideologies, frames and cultural symbolism in the mobilization of social and political movements. Despite this, one of the most important social/political movements of the last century, the rise of the Evangelical Right, has largely escaped examination through these lenses. A limited number have focused their attention upon the more prominent evangelical leaders, like Rev. Jerry Falwell, but this work examines the evangelical subculture from a broader perspective. A similar criticism is that the scholarship in this field often oversimplifies this political reawakening. Researchers often suggest that the 1976 presidential campaign of fellow evangelical was the central mobilizing force which propelled white evangelicals into the electoral arena, causing secular conservative political operatives to realize the dormant electoral potential of this community. This study shows that operatives and elites within the evangelical subculture were moving to politicalize the subculture long before the 1980 election, the establishment of Jerry Falwell’s or even the 1976 election. Finally, this study provides an analysis of the ideology evangelicals were mobilized under during the 1960s and 1970s. Social movement scholars have recently begun talking about the functions movement ideologies must serve for a mobilization to be successful. This study tests these hypotheses with a systematic, empirical, primary source analysis, rather than the nonsystematic, hearsay or anecdotal evidence that exemplifies most of the social movements’ literature. The final chapter provides an overview of the political ideology and

issue framing which emerge from the pages of the major evangelical periodicals of this time period. This politicalization of the evangelical subculture is an important topic for analysis not only because of what it can tell us about the top-down mobilization of social/political movements, but also because of the insights it lends to the formation of one of the most significant and powerful political movements in recent history.

THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN EVANGELICAL PRESS, 1960- 1981: A TEST OF THE IDEOLOGICAL THEORY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZATION

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Political Science

by

Jared A. Farley

Miami University

Oxford,

2006

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Ryan J. Barilleaux

©

Jared A. Farley

2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………... v

LIST OF GRAPHS………………………………………………………………. vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. xii

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………… 1

CHAPTER 1- THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF

AMERICAN EVANGELICALS…………………………………………………. 4

• Defining

• Sub-Types of Evangelicalism

• Concepts of Evangelicalism

• Typical Evangelical Communions

• A Short History of Evangelicalism in the

CHAPTER 2- A BRIEF HISTORY OF AMERICAN EVANGELICAL POLITICAL

INVOLVEMENT……………………………………………………………….. 27

CHAPTER 3- LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………… 46

• Applications of Social Movement Mobilization Theory to the American

Evangelical Political Mobilization of the 1970s

• Research Design

CHAPTER 4- POLITICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS FINDINGS…………… 79

• General Findings

• Participation Findings

• Partisan Bias Findings

• Politician Findings

iii • Evangelical Political Leader Findings

• Political Organization Findings

• General Public Policy Findings

• Moral Public Policy Findings

• Non-Moral Public Policy Findings

• Conclusion

CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSION………………………………………………….. 127

• Review

• Interpretation

• Significance

• Future Research

Selected Bibliography…………………………………………………………. 141

Appendix A …………………………………………………………………….. 162

Appendix B …………………………………………………………………….. 227

Appendix C ………………………………………………………………….…. 232

Appendix D …………………………………………………………………….. 235

Appendix E …………………………………………………………………….. 260

Appendix F …………………………………………………………………….. 261

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES PAGE

Table 1- The Evolution of the in the United States ………. 63

Table 2- Today Circulation Figures …………………………….… 73

Table 3- Christian Life Circulation Figures ……………………………………. 74

Table 4- Charisma Circulation Figures ………………………………………... 74

Table 5- Decision Circulation Figures …………………………………………. 75

Table 6- Moody Monthly Circulation Figures …………………………………. 76

Table A1- Content Judged to Contain a Reference to an Individual Politician

Classified by Tone and Partisanship for All Four Magazines ………. 227

Table B1- Individual Instances of Content Containing References to Individual

Politicians ………………………………………………………………… 228

Table C1- Individual Instances of Political Content Containing References to

Individual Evangelical Political Leader for All Four Magazines ……. 229

Table D1- Individual Instances of Political Content Containing References to a

Political Interest Group for All Four Magazines ……………………... 230

Table E1- Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of a

Moral Issue for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………….. 231

v

LIST OF GRAPHS

GRAPH PAGE

A Political Content for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………… 162

B Political Content for Each Year in Christianity Today ………………….. 163

C Political Content for Each Year in Moody Monthly ……………………... 164

D Political Content for Each Year in Christian Life ………………………... 165

E Political Content for Each Year in Decision ……………………………... 166

F Political Cover Stories for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………….. 167

G Non-Cover Political Feature Stories for Each Year in All Four

Magazines…………………………………………………………………... 168

H Political Editorials for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………..169

I Political Non-Feature Stories for Each Year in All Four Magazines…... 170

J Political Advertisements for Each Year in All Four Magazines ……….. 171

K Political Photographs or Cartoons for Each Year in All Four

Magazines……………………………………………………………………172

L Brief Political Stories for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………… 173

M Political Stories of 1/12th to 1/4th of a Page for Each Year in All Four

Magazines…………………………………………………………………… 174

N Political Stories of 1/4th to ½ of a Page for Each Year in All Four

Magazines ……………………………………………………………………175

vi O Political Stories of ½ to 1 Full Page for Each Year in All Four

Magazines…………………………………………………………………… 176

P Political Stories of 1 Full Page to 3 Pages for Each Year in All Four

Magazines ………………………………………………………………..… 177

Q Political Stories of Greater than 3 Pages to 5 Pages for Each Year in All

Four Magazines ………………………………………………………….... 178

R Political Stories of Greater than 5 Pages for Each Year in All Four

Magazines ……………………………………………………………….… 179

S Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate ………… 180

T Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in Christianity

Today Only ………………………………………………………………... 181

U Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in Christian

Life Only…………………………………………………………………… 182

V Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in Moody

Monthly Only ……………………………………………………………... 183

W Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in Decision

Only ………………………………………………………………….……. 184

X Content Containing Examples of Participation for Each Year in All Four

Magazines ……………………………………………………………..…. 185

Y Content Containing Suggestions that the Should Stay Out of

Politics for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………………….…… 186

Z Content Judged to Contain a Partisan Bias for Each Year in All Four

Magazines ………………………………………………………………... 187

vii A1 Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Christianity

Today Only ……………………………………………………………….. 188

B1 Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Christian Life

Only …………………………………………………………………..…… 189

C1 Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Moody Monthly

Only ……………………………………………………………………….. 190

D1 Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Decision

Only……………………………………………………………………...… 191

E1 Content Judged to Contain a Clear and Explicit Partisan Bias for Each

Year in All Four Magazines ……………………………………..……… 192

F1 Content Judged to Contain an Attempt at Partisan Neutrality for Each Year

in All Four Magazines …………………………………………………… 193

G1 Content Judged to Suggest that Liberal Protestants were Incorrect

Politically as well as Theologically for Each Year in All Four

Magazines……………………………………………………………..….. 194

H1 Content Judged to Contain a Reference to a Specific Politician for Each

Year in All Four Magazines …………………………………….…….… 195

I1 Content Judged to be Favorable Toward Individual Republican Politicians

for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………………………….……. 196

J1 Content Judged to Contain Negative References to Individual Republican

Politicians for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………..……. 197

K1 Content Judged to Contain Neutral References to Republican Politicians

for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………………………….……. 198

viii L1 Content Judged to Contain a Positive Reference to an Individual

Democratic Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines …….. 199

M1 Content Judged to Contain a Negative Reference to an Individual

Democratic Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines ……... 200

N1 Content Judged to Contain a Neutral Reference to an Individual

Democratic Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines …….. 201

P1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Public Policy Issues for Each

Year in All Four Magazines …………………………………………. 202

Q1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Moral Issues for Each Year in

All Four Magazines ………………………………………………..…. 203

R1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of for Each Year in All

Four Magazines ……………………………………………………… 204

S1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of for Each Year in

All Four Magazines ……………………………………….…………. 205

T1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of and Reading in

Public Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………….…. 206

U1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Illegal Drug and Alcohol Abuse

for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………………………. 207

V1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of the Teaching of Evolution in

Public Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………….. 208

W1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Women’s Liberation or the

ERA for Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………………… 209

ix X1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Homosexual Rights for Each

Year in All Four Magazines ……………………………………….…. 210

Y1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Sexual Education in Public

Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines …………………..... 211

Z1 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Gambling for Each Year in All

Four Magazines ……………………………………………….….….. 212

A2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of the Death Penalty for Each

Year in All Four Magazines ……………………………………..….. 213

B2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Non-Moral Issues for Each

Year in All Four Magazines …………………………………………. 214

C2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Poverty for Each Year in All

Four Magazines ………………………………………………………. 215

D2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of the Environment for Each Year

in All Four Magazines …………………………………………….….. 216

E2 Content Judged to Contain a Favorable Discussion of the Environment for

Each Year in All Four Magazines ……………………………..……. 217

F2 Content Judged to Contain a Negative Discussion of the Environment for

Each Year in All Four Magazines ……………………………..….… 218

G2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Civil Rights for African

Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines ……………….… 219

H2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion Supporting Civil Rights for

African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines ……….. 220

x I2 Content Judged to Contain an Indeterminate Discussion of Civil Rights for

African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines ……….. 221

J2 Content Judged to Contain a Negative Discussion of Civil Rights for

African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines …..…… 222

K2 Content Judged to Contain a Negative Discussion of Social Welfare

Programs for Each Year In All Four Magazines …………….…… 223

L2 Content Judged to Contain a Reference to the Watergate Scandal for

Each Year in All Four Magazines ………………………….……….224

M2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Vietnam for Each Year in All

Four Magazines …………………………………………………….. 225

N2 Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Anti-Communism for Each

Year in All Four Magazines………………………………………… 226

xi

Dedicated to my parents-

My father from whom I inherited my curiosity concerning history, politics, and ; and my mother, who worked many hours to pay for my sister and I to

attend college.

STOPPING BY WOODS ON A SNOWY EVENING

Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village, though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with .

My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound’s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.

-Robert Frost, The New Republic (March 7, 1923)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many individuals who contributed directly or indirectly to my completion of this dissertation. First, I wish to thank the staff of the Everett L. Cattell Library (Malone College- North Canton, OH), Centennial Library (Cedarville University- Cedarville, OH) and King Library (Miami University- Oxford, OH) without whose archives this project could not have been possible. Specifically, I need to thank Tonya Fawcett and Luann Nicholas of Cedarville University for being willing to bend their institution’s interlibrary loan rules so I could have access to their achieves without having to travel to Cedarville. I also wish to thank the Crowell Learning Resource Center at Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) for sending me some very hard to find early issues of Charisma magazine via interlibrary loan. Secondly, I wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee- Drs. Ryan Barilleaux, John Forren, Augustus Jones and Mary Cayton. I would especially like to thank, Dr. Barilleaux for allowing me the latitude to pursue a topic in which I was truly interested, despite his or my original expertise concerning the matter. Next, I would like to express my thanks to several scholars across the country who took the time to assist me in learning about evangelicalism or the interaction between evangelicalism and politics. Drs. Corwin Smidt (Calvin College), Jim Guth (Furman University) and Bud Kellstedt (Wheaton College) provided me with one of the most intellectually stimulating weeks of my graduate school career in July 2005 at the “Pollsters and Parishioners - Workshop on Survey Research and American Religion” at the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics (Calvin College). I would also like to thank the members of the Panel on Religion and American Mass Politics at the Third Biennial Symposium on Religion and Politics at Calvin College in April of 2006 for their comments and suggestions concerning this project. Dr. Laura R. Olson, the chair of the panel, deserves special thanks for her insightful suggestions, which

xii

greatly improved this project. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Mark Noll (Wheaton College), Dr. Ronald Sider (Eastern University) and Dr. Richard Pierard (Professor of History Emeritus at Indiana State University) for multiple telephone and/or email exchanges whenever I needed clarification. More generally, I wish to thank all of my professors over the last decade at both Miami University and Muskingum College, who taught me, challenged me, encouraged me and inspired me- especially Drs. Stacia Straley, Ransom Clark, Robert Burk, Taylor Stults, Lorle Porter, Susan Kay, Clyde Brown, Bob Gump and all of the members of my dissertation committee I have already mentioned above. Finally, I wish to express sincere thanks to my wife, Debra, for her constant support and encouragement throughout the last six years of graduate school. She also proofread every draft of each chapter of this dissertation multiple times over the last two years and helped me work through writer’s block on several occasions. Thanks for taking that leap of six years ago.

xiii

Introduction White evangelicals have become a large, mobilized, cohesive and important group within American politics since the 1970s. Because of this, scholars have paid considerable attention to their political reawakening. One area of contention, however, has been the origins of this renewed engagement. Was this a bottom-up or top-down process? Did the movement’s leaders emerge to fill a management vacuum created by the increased political activities of evangelicals? Or were the activities of elites responsible for the initial mobilization and direction of the movement? Proponents of the top-down argument, which will be the focus of this study, believe the leadership of a movement is a critical component in mobilization for two reasons. First, elites establish organizations and networks that provide stability and order to the movement. Second, elites recruit, and engage potential followers by sending signals or cues. The top-down model holds, that this “consciousness-raising” must consist of three elements: People have to be persuaded that (a) they share common concerns, (b) there is a known and identifiable cause for what concerns them, and (c) collective action of a particular kind will remedy the situation.1 Steven Bruce (1988) and J. Christopher Soper (1994) both argue for similar versions of the top-down model, which will be referred in this work as the ideological theory of social movement mobilization. According to these scholars, the politicialization of American evangelicals during the 1970s, and during earlier periods of political activity, resulted from evangelical elites formulating and communicating a group philosophy concerning political matters. The mobilization of American evangelicals into the American political system would not have occurred, nor would it have arisen in as cohesive of a fashion as it did, without this “consciousness-raising.” Annals of evangelical periodicals provide an often ignored, but rich source of data to help illuminate the top-down, bottom-up controversy. These religious

1 This list is adopted from Steve Bruce, The Rise and Fall of the New : Conservative Protestant Politics in America 1978—1988 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 34.

1

journals consist of the only full record of top-down communication for which we have a systematic achieve. Evidence within their pages can be utilized to test several research questions resulting from the top-down/ideological theory. Was there an increase within the pages of the magazines of political cues calling on evangelicals to participate in the political system prior to the evangelical mobilization? Was there an increase within the pages of the magazines of political cues “informing” evangelicals on how to properly think about politics (partisanship, individual candidates, issues) prior to the evangelical mobilization? In this dissertation, I propose to answer these questions by conducting a political content analysis of Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly, and Decision magazines for the years 1960-1981. If the top-down/ideological model is accurate, then these periodicals should contain evidence that: (a) cues for heightened political participation increased over time, (b) these political cues were published prior to the wide scale political mobilization of evangelicals, and if Bruce and Soper’s ideological theory is accurate then, (c) these cues should point towards a specific and identifiable political worldview. The rest of this dissertation will further develop the ideas presented above. The first chapter will help introduce the topic to the reader by (a) exploring the current political significance of American evangelicalism, (b) defining exactly what the author means by the term evangelicalism and identifying types and elements of evangelicalism, and (c) providing a brief history of American evangelicalism. A second chapter describes the historic relationship between evangelicalism and American politics. The third chapter consists of a short literature review of previous scholarship from the social movements literature of sociology and the interest groups literature of political science regarding the bottom-up, top-down controversy. This research provides the foundation from which the present research agenda builds. The third chapter also introduces the research design, including the hypotheses, the research technique and a further explanation of my research agenda. The fourth chapter presents my research findings. A final chapter summarizes my findings and considers their

2

implications. Attached to the end of this dissertation is a selected bibliography and appendixes.

3

CHAPTER 1

THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AMERICAN EVANGELICALS

White evangelicals are an important force in American politics.1 They are a large, mobilized, cohesive and organized group. The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals (ISAE) estimates that there are 70 million white evangelicals in the United States, approximately 24 percent of the entire U.S. .2 Recent surveys also show that white evangelicals are slightly more likely to be registered to vote than Americans in general (82 percent versus 77 percent) and slightly more likely than Americans in general to report they voted in both 2000 and 2002 (65 percent versus 61 percent).3 Thus, white evangelicals make up about 25 percent of the American electorate.4

1 This dissertation deals only with white evangelicals in the United States. Although 30 million African American evangelicals are also politically important, they approach politics primarily as a racial group whereas white evangelicals approach politics largely as a religious group. “The fact that in the twentieth century white evangelicals have mostly supported the social and political status quo that marginalized African Americans means that ties between black Protestants and white evangelicals are not as close as their shared religious beliefs might lead one to expect” Mark Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 14. See also Darryl G. Hart, That Old-Time Religion in Modern America: Evangelical in the Twentieth Century (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publishers, 2002), 9. From this point forward, it should be assumed that I am referring to white evangelicals when I employ the term “evangelical,” unless otherwise noted. 2 Determining exactly how many evangelicals there are is a difficult question. According to the Princeton Religious Research Center, between 33 and 47 percent of Americans have described themselves as evangelicals in national Gallup polls since 1976. But as the ISAE’s website points out, individuals sometimes accept the label without understanding what the term means or they are not serious about their religion. Therefore, while about 40% of the American population considers itself evangelical, ISAE argues that a figure of 24% is more accurate (www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html). Of course these numbers do not include black evangelicals, which include 30 million Americans and between 9-10% of the population. 3 Anna Greenberg and Jennifer Berktold, Evangelicals in America Survey Report (: Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, 2004), 14. This report is available on-line at (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week733/release.html). Self-reported estimates of voter registration and voter participation may be somewhat inflated due to effects of social desirability. Corwin Smidt (Corwin Smidt, “Evangelicals and American Politics: 1976—1988,” in No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics, ed. Michael Cromartie, 94-94

4

Not only are evangelicals politically active, but they also tend to lend their support to Republican candidates. About 70 percent of white evangelicals are Republican or lean Republican.5 Not surprisingly, this level of identification translates to strong support for Republican candidates. In the 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, white evangelical support for the Republican nominee was 80, 80, 61, 61, 84 and 78 percent, respectively.6 These numbers are striking, considering Ross Perot’s candidacy in 1992 and 1996 is widely believed to have siphoned off considerable evangelical support for the Republican candidate. Prior to the last presidential election, Morey Safer, of the news television program Sixty Minutes, reported that 40 percent of the votes cast for George W. Bush during the 2000 election came from evangelical Christians.7 Indeed, many political pundits concluded after the 2004 presidential election that a significant increase in white evangelical turnout was crucial to President Bush’s reelection.8

(Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993) analyzed National Election Study survey data from 1976-1988 and found that white evangelicals had higher average turnout rates than white voters generally and slightly higher than non-evangelical white Protestants. 4 Robert B. Fowler, Alen D. Hertzhe, and Laura R. Olson, Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 92. 5 Ibid, 102; and Greenberg and Berktold, Evangelicals in America, 13. The 1996 survey in Fowler et. Al. found that 66 percent of white evangelical Protestants considered themselves Republican, when forced to choose between the two major parties. The 2004 Greenberg survey finds that 70 percent of white evangelicals are supporters of the GOP, when forced to choose between the two major party labels. According to the Greenberg survey, 36% of white evangelicals are strong Republicans, 20% are weak Republican and 14% are Republican leaning Independents. Research indicates, however, that many individuals who consider themselves weak partisans or Independents are indistinguishable in many respects from strong partisans. See also, Bruce E. Keith, B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, and Elizabeth Orr, The Myth of Voter (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1992). 6 The 1984 election statistic comes from Benjamin Ginsberg, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir, We The People: An Introduction to American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), 300. The 1988, 1992 and 1996 statistics come from Fowler et al. (1999, 101). The 2000 election statistic comes from John F. Bibby, Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2003), 334. The 2004 election statistic comes from the results of an exit poll reported by CNN at (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html. 7 Sixty Minutes, “Faith, Hope and Politics: Rise of the Righteous Army,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/05/60minutes/main598218.shtml, February 8, 2004. 8 See Alan Cooperman, and Thomas B. Edsall, “Evangelicals Say They Led Charge for the GOP,” Washington Post, 8 November 2004, A01 and The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “Bush’s Gains Broad-Based: Religion and the Presidential Vote” 6 December 2004. Both articles are probably correct that as a percentage of the electorate that white evangelicals remained constant. But that entirely misses the point. If the numerical turnout numbers of white

5

These patterns of activity and partisanship are also evident in races below the presidential level. Many commentators suggest the increasing strength of evangelicals was an important factor in the historic Republican takeover of the U.S. Congress during the 1994 congressional mid-term elections.9 Kellstedt et al.’s (1996) analysis indicates that fully 75 percent of votes cast by evangelicals during the 1994 mid-term elections went to Republican U.S. House and Senate candidates.10 Clearly, white evangelicals are a force in the voting booth, but their political presence extends beyond elections. Groups like the American Family Association (600,000 members), Concerned Women for America (600,000 members) and the (250,000 members) actively work to oppose policies that they consider in opposition to traditional values.11 The largest organization representing evangelicals is the Christian Coalition, with 1.6 million members, 50 state affiliates, nearly 900 local chapters and an annual budget of over $20 million.12 The influence of white evangelical voters has not diminished. 2008 presidential hopeful, Senator John McCain (R- AZ), recently deemed it necessary to speak at the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in an effort to mend a rift between him and many evangelicals when he challenged George W. Bush for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2000. Strategically, McCain must feel it is necessary to garner the support of Falwell and his supporters to hope to

evangelicals did not increase as they did during the 2004 election, President Bush would have been buried by the numerical increase in turnout by voters supporting Senator John Kerry. It would appear that President Bush’s chief political advisor, Karl Rove, was correct in thinking he needed 4 million new evangelical voters to turn out for President Bush to remain in the Oval Office. 9 For example, see John C. Green, James L. Guth, and Corwin E. Smidt, “Evangelical Realignment: The Political Power of the Christian Right,” Christian Century 112 (July 1995): 676- 679 & Albert J. Menendez, Evangelicals at the Ballot Box (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1996), chapter 6. 10 See Layman A. Kellstedt, John C. Green, James L. Guth, and Corwin E. Smidt, “Has Godot Finally Arrived? Religion and Realignment,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches fro the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, chapter 15 (Landam, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996), 291-299. 11 See Table 7.1 in Kenneth D. Wald, Religion and Politics in the United States, 3rd ed. (Washington: CQ Press, 1997), 234-236. 12 Fowler, et. al., Religion and Politics, 2nd ed., 61.

6

receive the Republican nomination in 2008.13 A 1996 study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press concluded, “The conservatism of white evangelical Protestants is clearly the most powerful religious force in politics today.”14

Defining Evangelicalism

What does the term “evangelical” mean? It is an often-misused “canopy” term that covers a large number of Protestant groups in the United States and around the world. Part of the difficulty one has in defining the term results from the evolution of its meaning. According to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicalism (ISAE), the term originates from the Greek word “euangelion,’ meaning ‘the good news,’ or, more commonly, the ‘.’”15 Thus, those who preached “the good news” of became known as “evangelists,” including the Apostle John, who is known in the Catholic tradition as St. John the Evangelist.16 During the , (1483-1546) adapted the term, dubbing his breakaway movement the “evangelische kirke” (evangelical church).17 Soon Luther’s followers began to identify themselves as “evangelicals.” In fact, Wells and Woodbridge (1975, 269) note that, Lutherans have used the term longer and more frequently than any other Protestant group

13 Eric Pfeiffer, “Old Foes McCain, Falwell Commence Reconciliation,” Washington Times (14 May 2006) 14 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “The Diminishing Divide: American Churches, American Politics” (June 25, 1996). The report is available online at: http://people- press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=126 15 See the Institute’s website: http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html & Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 701, 709. The Greek word “euangelion” is used as a noun or verb on over thirty occasions throughout the New Testament, but its use is concentrated in the of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the writings of the Apostle Paul. For examples of its use, see Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 24:14; Mark 13:10, 16:15; Romans 1:1, 1:16, 2:16, 15:16; I Corinthians 9:16; 9:23; II Corinthians 4:4; I Thessalonians 2:2, 2:8-9; II Thessalonians 1:8; I Timothy 1:11; II Timothy 1:10, 2:8. All Biblical references and quotations throughout this work are based upon the standard King James Version of the Holy Bible. For more information on how the word “euangelion” is used in the Bible, see http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/gospel.htm 16 See http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj13.htm 17 See the ISAE’s website: http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html

7

and the Lutheran Church in Germany is still officially named the “evangelische kirke.” Eventually, the label “evangelical” was extended to the followers of John Calvin (1509-1564), Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and many other participants of the Reformation. Evangelicals were distinct because of their doctrinal emphasis on justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers and the authority of the Bible, concepts that generally ran afoul of proper Vatican doctrine. Thus, the term became synonymous with “Protestant” throughout much of , covering most Christians who are outside the Catholic and Unitarian traditions. This is how the term “evangelical” is still used in modern Europe.18 European settlers transferred this understanding of “evangelicalism” to the in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. It was during the First Great Awakening (1730-1750) that the American use of the term first diverged from its European counterpart. During this period, evangelists Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Gilbert Tennent (1703-1764) and George Whitefield (1715-1770), among others, traveled across the colonies delivering designed to “shake new life into churches.”19 Inspired by the conversion experiences of Whitefield, John Wesley (1703-1791) and (1707- 1788), their sermons were designed to bring a listener to a point of crisis concerning their spiritual life.20 These “revivals,” as they came to be known, drew large crowds and converted many followers.21

18 David F. Wells, and John D. Woodbridge, eds., The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing (New York: Abringdon Press, 1975), 270. 19 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 22. 20 “John Wesley claimed he could pinpoint the precise moment on May 24, 1738, when his heart was strangely warmed and he became convinced of his need for faith in order to be saved. He often retold this story on his various travels, which cemented the importance of the sudden conversion experience within and within the broader evangelical Protestant community” – from Jeffrey B. Webb, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Christianity (New York: Alpha Books, 2004), 108. 21 According to Randall Balmer and Lauren F. Winner, Protestantism in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 44, Whitefield preached to crowds of 8,000 people every day for month-long stretches. Benjamin Franklin reported that he attended one of Whitefield’s sermons and had this to say about his oratorical and persuasive powers: “I happened soon after to attend one of [Whitefield’s] Sermons, in the Course of which I perceived he intended to finish with a Collection, and I silently resolved he should get nothing from me. I had in my Pocket a Handful of Copper Money, three or four silver Dollars, and five Pistoles in Gold. As he proceeded, I began to soften, and concluded to give the Coppers. Another stroke of

8

According to Hart (2002), “the revivals of the 1730s and 1740s proved so dramatic and powerful that evangelicalism emerged as virtually a new form of Protestantism, one centered in the experience and affairs of the individual believer as opposed to the teaching and of the church.”22 This “new form of Protestantism” centered on the individual believer’s conversion experience, meaning a moment or process of transformation from which a believer’s life is dedicated, or rededicated, to the Lord. It is from this foundation that the term, evangelical, evolved in the American tradition. The multitude of branches and doctrines within the evangelical tradition has prompted contemporary scholars to search for a more precise definition that accurately identifies its distinctive features. Philip Schaff, in of (1877, 206-7), argued that evangelical Protestantism was early distinguished by three factors. The first was the authority of the Bible as opposed to that of the Church in all matters of faith and conduct. The second was through faith alone, in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of faith and good works. The third was the priesthood of all believers, as opposed to the idea that held special positions within the Church. The problem with this definition is that it seems to apply to most of today’s Protestants. Schaff’s definition seems to be time bound to the nineteenth century. Warren (1944) and Wells and Woodridge (1975) offer more modern definitions, formulated after the mainline-fundamentalist split of the early twentieth century. When asked in 1944, “What is an evangelical?” Max Warren, General Secretary of the Church Society, pointed to four necessary factors: (a) the priority of evangelicalism, (b) the need for personal conversion and holy living, (c) the priesthood of all believers, and (d) supremacy of the Scriptures.23 Wells and Woodridge, borrowing from Thomas Chalmers, argue that the essence of evangelicalism can be spelled out in the doctrinal platform of nine points: (1) the inspiration of the Bible, (2) the , (3) the depravity of man,

his Oratory made me asham’d of that, and determin’d me to give the Silver; and he finish’d so admirably, that I empty’d my Pocket wholly into the Collector’s Dish, Gold and all.” 22 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 8. 23 See Max Warren, What Is an Evangelical? An Enquiry (: SCM Press, 1944).

9

(4) the mediation of the divine Christ, (5) justification by faith, (6) conversion and sanctification by the , (7) the return of Christ and judgment, (8) the ministry of the Word, and (9) the of and the Lord’s Supper.24 In recent years one effort at defining the term has gained much prominence. The approach used by the oft-cited British historian David W. Bebbington (1989) identifies the essential theological elements of evangelical .25 Despite the considerable diversity among evangelicals, Bebbington argues there are at least four continuities or qualities that define the essence of evangelicalism. None of the four characteristics is unique to evangelicals, but the emphasis they place upon each aspect sets evangelicals apart from other Christians. Evangelicals are “conversionists,” meaning that there is an emphasis on the “new birth” as a life-changing experience when one commits their life to the message of Christ. Second, they are “crucicentrics”; that is, at the center of their theological scheme is a focus on Christ’s redeeming work on the cross, usually pictured as the only way of salvation. Third, they are “biblicists,” that is, they have a particularly high regard for the Bible, usually considering it to be inerrant and directly inspired by . Fourth, evangelicals are distinguished by “activism,” or a concern for sharing one’s faith.26 In similar fashion, Hart (2002) characterizes a modern evangelical as someone who and practices “the same religion as nineteenth-century Protestants—a high regard for the Bible and its practicality, belief in the necessity of conversion and holy living, and zeal in seeking conversion of others.”27 Taking my lead from the works of Bebbington and Hart, this project will utilize their understanding of evangelicalism:

24 See Wells & Woodbridge, Evangelicals, 25. 25 See Mark A. Noll, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1994), 8; Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 21; Samuel Reimer, Evangelicals and the Continental Divide: The Conservative Protestant Subculture in and the United States (Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), 43; and Hans J., ed., The Encyclopedia of Protestantism (New York: Routledge, 2004), 710. and the ISAE’s website (http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html) for other scholars use of Bebbington’s definition. 26 See Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 13; Hillerbrand, Protestantism, 710 and David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 2-17. 27 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 20.

10

Evangelicals are Protestant Christians who believe in- 1. The inerrancy, spiritual importance, practicality and modern relevance of the Bible (). 2. The importance of proselytizing to save other (i.e., evangelizing). 3. The necessity and significance of conversion experiences (e.g., being )28 and its transformation of the believer’s everyday life (i.e., holy living). 4. The emphasis on belief of the Christ made on the cross to atone for human sin (in Luther’s Reformation language: sola fide and sola gratia).

Sub-Types of Evangelicalism

Despite the conceptual unity offered by these four elements, there is considerable diversity among evangelicals, which results in much of the confusion concerning use of the term evangelical. Some varieties of evangelicalism place extra emphasis on one or more of the above components. For example, some are distinguished by their specific interpretation of the Scriptures. Others are discerned by their understanding of appropriate interactions with the rest of the world. Essentially, today’s evangelical movement is characterized by four different types of believers: fundamentalists, Pentecostals, charismatics and neo- evangelicals. Each of these subtypes is discussed in detail below.

28 Many evangelicals refer to their personal conversion experience via the phrase “born-again.” This phrase comes from the Book of John, Chapter 3, verses 1-7 where Christ answers the questions of Nicodemus concerning what a man must do to be saved. “(3) answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (4) Nicodemus saith unto him. How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? (5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

11

Fundamentalism Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals and the doctrine from which modern American evangelicalism emerged. Fundamentalist are named after a series of 12 books published between 1907 and 1915 called The Fundamentals: Testimony to the Truth.29 Fundamentalists emerged during the period from 1890-1925, when they felt Protestant denominations, and American society more generally, was compromising orthodox Protestantism in the face of modernism. During this time, new theories of biblical criticism were transported to the United States from Germany and cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible by questioning the authorship of several books in the Bible. A second threat resulted from the increasing amount of empirical evidence that seemingly validated Darwin’s (1859) theory of evolution. These findings called into question the creation account as described in the Book of Genesis. The modernist-fundamentalist controversy came to a head in 1925 during the Scopes “Monkey” Trial. In Dayton, Tennessee, a substitute teacher, John T. Scopes, used and taught from a evolution theory based textbook after the Tennessee legislature passed a law prohibiting the teaching in public schools “of any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.”30 A nationwide audience read newspaper accounts and listened to radio broadcasts as chief prosecutor William Jennings Bryan and defense attorney Clarence Darrow squared off. Ultimately, the jury found Scopes guilty of violating the state law. The Scopes Trial became famous, however, for how it put orthodox Protestantism on trial. Darrow succeeded in portraying fundamentalists as ignorant and backward hillbillies and the national press accepted his critique, relaying it to newspaper readers and radio listeners across the country. While churches continued to revise their to accommodate scientific discovery after the trial, fundamentalists physically and mentally separated themselves from modern society to preserve their versions of orthodox Protestantism and their subculture.

29 For the first volume see, Charles E. Jefferson, The Fundamentals: Testimony to the Truth (New York: Young Men’s Christian Association Press, 1907). 30 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 25.

12

This notion of separatism is still the essence of today. Fundamentalists differ from other evangelicals because they do not believe it is wise to engage modern society on secular terms, even for proselytizing. For example, a non-fundamentalist evangelical sees opportunity in engaging society with Christian rock music or by being a role model in the public school system, while a fundamentalist evangelical sees the danger of secularization by the strategy. By adapting to modernism, fundamentalists fear they legitimize unbiblical lifestyles and they will become susceptible to worldly influences. However, this is not to say that fundamentalists are opposed to evangelizing. They proselytize on their own terms without moderating the style or content of their message. In fact, fundamentalists are some of the most aggressive supporters of foreign . Absent their commitment to evangelizing, fundamentalists practice a policy of separatism, or isolating themselves from secular influences. Due to the nature of their faith, fundamentalists also strongly believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, a hallmark of this variety of evangelicalism. Denominations within the fundamentalist tradition include the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, the Separate in Christ, the Primitive Baptists, and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC). For much of the twentieth century, most evangelicals adopted a separation philosophy, but since the 1940s, many have reengaged society in an effort to proselytize the masses and ultimately change the society in which their children live.31 It is not uncommon today to see evangelicals interacting with society through Christian rock music, Christian books, Christian television stations and radio networks and even Christian jewelry.32 Many evangelical

31 It is often noted that one can tell the difference between fundamentalists and other evangelicals based upon their view of the Reverend Billy Graham. Fundamentalists often believe he has become too secularized through his ministry, while non-fundamentalist evangelicals see great value in his efforts. 32 Examples of popular include Amy Grant, Stacie Orrico, Cece Winans , Michael W. Smith and the group MercyMe. The 12 volumes of the Left Behind Christian book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins has reportedly sold more than 42 million copies worldwide, while the new runaway best-seller The Purpose-Driven Life by Pastor Rick Warren has sold more than 15 million copies and topped the New York Times advice best-seller list for over 12 weeks in

13

churches have instituted causal dress policies to make newcomers feel more comfortable. Many others incorporate contemporary music into worship services. Some have even gone as far as to house ATMs and food courts within their churches.33 But a small, but significant group of evangelicals rejects these attempts at accommodation and can be classified as fundamentalists.

Pentecostalism is another subset of evangelicalism. Pentecostals place extra emphasis on the personal conversion experience, usually referring to it as being born-again or baptized in the Holy Spirit. For Pentecostals, baptism in the Holy Spirit, based on the apostolic experience from the Book of Acts34, is a necessary step to achieving salvation.35 Pentecostals believe that the gifts of the

2004 (Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly 2004). Christian television stations include the Trinity Broadcasting Network, the Christian Television Network and the Christian Broadcasting Network. 33 “Willow Creek [a mega-church outside of Chicago, IL] is often looked at as the great example of cultural adaptability. In the mid-1970s when Bill Hybels began the church, he did a door-to-door market research survey to find out why suburbanites were staying away from church. And then he proceeded to design a church in order to overcome their objections. He found, for example, they didn't like religious symbols -- no crosses, no icons -- anywhere in the church. The building itself looks like a corporate office park or even a suburban shopping mall with a food court. Willow Creek is just one example of that, but evangelicals have been trying to adapt to the language and the idiom of the larger culture around them” (Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly 2004). This is from an interview of Randall Balmer, professor of American religion at Columbia University and author of several books on American evangelicalism, available at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week736/interview.html 34 See the Book of Acts, Chapter 2: “(1) And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (2) And suddenly there came a sound from as of a rushing mightly wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. (3) And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy , and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance…. (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams…. (38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” A small portion of the Pentecostal family teaches that Spirit-filled believers can handle poisonous snakes or drink arsenic without harm, following Jesus’ teaching in Mark, Chapter 16: “(15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out ; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” 35 Pentecostals, like Holiness denominations, believe that achieving salvation occurs through a three-staged process. For the Holiness tradition: (1) The Spirit provides initial sanctification, where past sins are forgiven, (2) The Spirit provides progressive sanctification, which enables the

14

Spirit, like (or in Greek: glossolalia), holy laughter, healing through anointment with oil and laying on of hands36, cannot come to those with unclean hearts, since the Holy Spirit cannot take up residence in a corrupt vessel. Pentecostal denominations include the Assemblies of God and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

Charismaticism Charismatic Christians worship in much the same fashion as Pentecostals, but charismaticism is characterized by the speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Spirit within non-Pentecostal churches. However, charismatics’ exuberant form of worship does not necessarily represent the same theological meaning as it does in the Pentecostal tradition. Rather than being a sign of complete devotion essential to salvation, charismatics view the gifts of the spirit as simply energized forms of worship. Groups of charismatics can be found in the Episcopal, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches, among others.37

Neo-evangelicalism Neo-evangelicals, or mainstream evangelicals, reject both the separatism concept of fundamentalists and the exuberant worship styles of Pentecostals and charismatics. A good example of a well known neo-evangelical is Rev. Billy Graham. Rev. Graham firmly believes in engaging modern society for the purpose of proselytizing unbelievers, thus he rejects the fundamentalist conception of separation. In addition, Rev. Graham has never publicly spoken in tongues, anointed anyone with oil, or attempted faith healings, as would most

believer to grow in obedience to the Lord, (3) The believer receives complete perfection and freedom from sin through Spirit baptism (entire sanctification). Pentecostals do not believe perfection is possible. Their stages are: (1) Conversion, or accepting Christ as one’s savior, (2) sanctification, where one’s sins are completely forgiven, and (3) baptism of the Holy Spirit. 36 See the Book of James 5: “(14) Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: (15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall rise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” 37 Webb, Idiot’s Guide to Christianity, chapters 17 & 23, pages 201-210 & 271-281.

15

Pentecostal and charismatic ministers. Neo-evangelicalism emerged when some conservative Protestants in the 1940s and 1950s flatly rejected the fundamentalists’ acceptance of separatism and adopted a less hostile posture toward the world in general and other Protestants in particular.

Concepts of Evangelicalism The evangelical movement is also largely characterized by the acceptance of certain theological concepts. While not all evangelicals agree in their interpretation of these concepts, the importance of the concepts themselves set evangelicals apart from their other Protestant brethren.

Dispensationalism Due to their emphasis on Biblical truths, a major characteristic of evangelicals is a belief in , or a system of understanding the sequence of time as described in the Scriptures. Dispensationalists believe that the course of human history can be broken up into specific eras, usually different types of covenants between God and man, ending with the tribulation, and apocalypse, although the sequence of these events is constantly in dispute. Evangelicals often attempt to discern what point in the Bible’s historic scheme mankind is currently engaged in and how close humans are to the end time.

Millennialism Dispensationalism is closely related to the various verities of . Evangelicals can be divided according to how their version of dispensationalism interprets the Book of Revelation. Millennialism is the literal belief in a coming thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. Millennialists are divided, however, as to when they believe this thousand-year reign will commence. Pre-millennialists, believe that the rapture, when the living ascend into heaven, will occur just prior to the tribulation, a period of worldly suffering for the sins of man. Post- millennialists, believe that man has to establish the thousand-year reign before Christ can return. Largely, post-millennialists believe the rapture will occur after

16

the tribulation, forcing the true Christians to suffer along with their fellow man as a final test of their devotion. There are a host of other specific forms of dispensationalism, but the main point is that although evangelicals can be considered a cohesive group in some respects, there is disagreement among them on specifics of biblical interpretation and practice. Dispensationalists are typically found in the Baptist and Pentecostal denominations.

Pietism Pietism is another term closely related to evangelicalism. This religious movement sprang from Luther’s Reformation, emphasizing a personal conversion experience, holy living and active lay participation in religious services. Some authors view the pietistic revolution as the natural subsequent behavioral step to the theological revolution of the Reformation. Remember that Luther’s Church retained much of the liturgicalism and ritualism of the . The pietistic movement went beyond doctrinal and structural alternations and stressed behavioral changes in Protestantism. The movement’s birth can be marked by the start of the Anabaptist movement, which stressed the importance of holy living, egalitarian fellowships and personal conversion. Anabaptists were soon jointed in their pietistic emphasis by the Puritans, Baptists, Methodists and Reformed traditions. Today, the difference between pietistic denominations and non-pietistic denominations closely mirrors the distinctions between mainline and evangelical communions.

Typical Evangelical Communions While there are evangelicals in almost all Protestant denominations, certain communions are more fully within the evangelical tradition. The Baptists, Holiness and Pentecostals traditions are arguably the three religious traditions that most epitomize evangelical beliefs. Some of these larger denominations (over 100,000 members) include: the Assemblies of God, the Baptist General Conference, the Church of God-, TN, Church of the , the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the International Church of the

17

Foursquare Gospel, the Southern Baptists Convention and the Wesleyan Church.38 Other large (over 100,000 members) evangelical denominations include: the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Christian Reformed Church in , the Evangelical Free Church of America, the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Salvation Army. Many of these denominations are members of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an association of evangelical denominations formed to offer an alternative ecumenical body for evangelical churches to the more liberal National Council of Churches (NCC). Several religious bodies, whose philosophies generally seem to fit within the evangelical convention, are not traditionally considered evangelical denominations because of unorthodox practices and/or beliefs. Most notably in these ranks are Mormons, because of their belief in the teaching within the , Jehovah’s Witnesses, because of their unique interpretation of the Book of Revelation and their belief in their role of establishing and forever living in an earthly paradise after the rapture, and Messianic , because of their adherence to traditional Jewish customs from the . Charismatic Catholicism holds a unique position in this debate. Scholars who study evangelicalism are split over whether to consider charismatic Catholics under the definition of evangelicals. They are surely committed to three of the four pillars of evangelicals identified above: evangelizing, conversion and holy living, and belief in the importance of the Crucifixion for salvation. Many charismatic Catholics also hold the Scriptures in high regard. However, according to Catholic doctrine, the Bible as well as traditions of the Church and Papal theological declarations are considered authoritative concerning religious matters. As a result, Catholics adherence to the concept of “biblicalism” is less

38 Prior to the 1950s, Methodists could have easily been added to this list. In fact, Methodists have traditionally been a major part of the evangelical tradition. That is, until a more theologically liberal group of Methodists took over the United Brethren Methodist Church and the Evangelical Methodist Church in the 1950s and 1960s. The culmination of this movement was the formation of the United Methodist Church occurred in 1968. However, many congregations of the old Evangelical Methodist Church are still very theologically conservative and fit within the evangelical tradition. Much of this depends on the local pastor, congregation and geographic location.

18

than complete. Therefore, charismatic Catholics will not be considered within the evangelical tradition for this project.

A Short History of Evangelicalism in the United States39

The First Great Awakening (1730-1750) Modern evangelicalism is uniquely American in its roots. In fact, D.G. Hart describes evangelicalism as “the most American version of Christianity.”40 Before the First Great Awakening (1730-1750), colonists living in the New World practiced their in much the same fashion as their fellow believers across the Atlantic Ocean. Churches in America took their lead from European Protestantism, with a learned clergy and formal . Ordained ministers were required to have formal training and their sermons were supposed to reflect that learning and their services were designed to communicate the authority of the church to the laity. The European style was objective (rather than personal) in the sense that to be a church member involved conforming to the doctrines and of the church.41 The revivals of the First Great Awakening challenged these traditional canons by teaching that the relationship between the individual believer and God was paramount. While Protestantism since the Reformation had stressed the sole authority of the Scriptures, the established European Protestant churches continued to teach that the clergy’s interpretation ultimately governed. The message of the First Great Awakening called this principle into question.42 As described above, the Awakening was a series of revival meetings held throughout the American colonies by evangelists Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent and George Whitefield, among others. Some American religious leaders had grown concerned that the colonists had drifted away from the religious conservatism and zealotry that had characterized America during the

39 This section draws heavily upon the first 30 pages of Hart, Old-Time Religion. 40 Ibid, 6. 41 Ibid, 6-7. 42 Ibid, 9.

19

seventeenth century. These leaders were also inspired by conversion experiences that had transformed a small group of Protestant elites in England. These evangelists delivered sermons designed to bring those attending the revival to a point of crisis concerning their sinful lives and what their future would look like without redemption. Thus, of foremost importance of this religious awakening was the experience of conversion and being born-again, requiring a dedication to continued holy living. Attendees repented in droves and the phenomenon spread across the . The revivals proved so powerful that American Protestantism transformed from its European counterpart.43 This change is still evident in the popularity of the Baptist and Methodist traditions in the United States and their near absence in Europe. This new form of Protestantism centered on the experiences of the individual believer, especially the conversion process and holy living, and the spiritual condition of individual souls, rather than the teaching and worship of the church.

The Second Great Awakening (1790-1840) A second and generally considered less dramatic, American spiritual reawakening occurred during the 1790s-1840s. This Second Great Awakening resulted from a backlash against a return to the formalities and liturgies of the “establishment” churches, especially Anglican and Episcopal bodies. Those who were “awakened” demanded that clergy return to Scriptures and preach about the consequences of an unholy life. Those who refused often had their commitment to Christ questioned. Since the sole purpose of a church was to save souls, those who did not make this their top priority were simply going through the motions of a Christian life. One important theological shift was evident in evangelical thought during this period. Until the early nineteenth century Calvinist doctrine usually held

43 As D. G. Hart (Hart, Old-Time Religion, 8) points out, clearly there were German and English precedents that helped bring about this new form of Protestantism, but only in North America, and some would argue Great Britain, did “true” evangelicalism emerge, at least as we recognize it in a contemporary American sense.

20

sway among American Protestants, including a belief in predestination. Predestination holds that God has already predetermined which humans will be saved and which are doomed to eternal damnation. During the Second Great Awakening, a new position, Arminianism (named for Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius) unseated Predestination within evangelical thinking. Arminius believed that an individual could choose salvation and that while God knew which of his flock would make the correct decisions in life, the decision ultimately was up to each individual human.44 One influence the Second Great Awakening had on its followers was a belief that conversion leads to righteous lives and holy societies. These reformers believed in applying the gospel to society, thus the movement was dubbed the Social Gospel. They formed associations whose mission was to transform America and eliminate every kind of evil: including , Sabbath- breaking, drinking and poverty (Hart 2002, 12). These influences continued to motivate Americans to improve society through the abolition movement in the North, participation in the Civil War, the progressive movements and the prohibition campaigns of the 1910s and 1920s.45 It is important to remember the prominence of evangelicalism in American society throughout the nineteenth century. Most Americans during this period could be classified as evangelicals. Consider the following shifts in ecclesiastical demography that took place after the founding of the country. In 1776, historian Mark Noll reports that fully 55 percent of all adherents to churches in the United States were Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, three congregations generally with a minimum of evangelical impulses.46 By 1850, these three groups made up fewer than 19 percent of all church adherents while the proportion of Methodists and Baptists, two denominations deeply within the Pietistic tradition, had risen from virtually nowhere to constitute about 55 percent

44 See Balmer & Winner, Protestantism in America, 57-59. 45 See Ibid, 57-63 for an analysis of how American evangelical doctrine transformed from a post- millennialists concern for the Social Gospel in the nineteenth century to a pre-millennialists (Arminianism) worldview in the twentieth century. 46 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 193.

21

of the churched population.47 Evangelicals were a clear majority in the United States and wielded considerable influence in society because of their position. Liberal or mainline Protestantism did not make significant inroads until later.48

Evangelical Dominance (1880-1910) Scholar D. G. Hart (2002) sees the history of evangelicalism in the twentieth century as evolving through three distinct periods. The first begins two decades before 1900 and continues until the 1910s. During this time, most Protestants practiced and held convictions that would today be categorized as synonymous with evangelicalism. “Evangelical” continued to mean all Protestant Christians, except Unitarians, as was the usage in Europe. In short, the distinction between evangelical and mainline Protestants had yet to emerge.

The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (1910-1940) “Worldly knowledge” eventually disrupted this harmony within the ranks of American Protestantism. The second period, from about 1910 until the late 1940s, is identified as the point when the fundamentalist-modernist controversy erupted, fueled by the societal changes brought about by , industrialization, and advances in science and human thought (especially studies of biblical criticism and evolution). Fundamentalists opposed efforts by liberal Christians to accommodate Christianity to modern American culture. They argued that true Christian faith required a renunciation of all forms of modernization because these transformations were challenging many articles of orthodox Protestant thought, and sometimes even directly questioning the Bible. From the fundamentalists’ perspective, liberal, or mainline as they would come to be called, efforts to reconcile with modernism was spiritually dangerous and efforts to redeem society through the Social Gospel, that is, by applying the

47 Noll gets these statistics from Roger Finke and Rodney Start (1989) “How the upstart won America, 1776-1850,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 18, 27-44. 48 See Balmer & Winner, Protestantism in America, 62-63; and Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 194.

22

ideals of Jesus to political and economic life, represented a split with the established goal of the church to reform society through individual conversion. This controversy raged until the ridicule fundamentalists had thrust upon them during and after the Scopes Trial (1925). It soon became clear that liberal factions within the Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran and northern Baptist denominations had more backing. Because of this and their absolute opposition to the decadence of American society, the fundamentalists’ in small, rural and often southern towns divorced themselves from these communions and “adopted a separatist outlook that prompted the formation of a religious subculture in which they could preserve the old-time evangelical religion as they understood it.”49

Evangelical Reemergence The third period, since about 1950, evangelicals slowly emerged from their cultural isolation into positions of visibility and influence. The spearhead of this transformation was the revival ministries of the Reverend Billy Graham (1918- ).50 Rev. Graham became a spokesman for the evangelical, or neo-evangelical, as they called themselves, movement. Graham believed his calling was to engage American society to win as many hearts to Christ as possible. Starting with a historic 1949 tent revival in Los Angeles, Graham toured the country preaching to large gatherings about individuals’ desperate need for salvation. Graham became a national figure attracting wide scale media attention.51 The following year, Graham launched his Hour of Decision radio program that further extended his audience. While Graham was gaining national attention, he was also emerging as a source of pride for American evangelicals. Graham’s celebrity and stature provided evangelicalism with some of the credibility they had lost during the Scopes Trial of 1925. To borrow from Michael Cromartie (1993), evangelicals

49 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 20. 50 See William Martin, With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America (New York: Broadway Books, 1996), chapter 1; and Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, chapter 3. 51 William Randolph Hearst ordered his editors to “puff Graham,” a two-word directive that placed the evangelist on the front page of every Hearst newspaper across the country. Soon the Associated Press and other wire services picked up the story, bringing it to the attention of the entire nation. See Martin, With God On Our Side, 29.

23

were “no longer exiles.” This success became a signal to many evangelicals that “neo-evangelicalism” might be presented in a logical fashion so that many Americans would no longer ridicule their faith. The evangelical subculture gradually emerged from its state of isolation into increasing positions of visibility and influence. When fundamentalist Carl McIntire (1906-2002) organized the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) in 1941 as an alternative to the more modernistic Federal Council of Churches (FCC)52, many evangelicals felt uncomfortable with the organization’s separatist stances. Two years later, one of these individuals, Harold John Ockenga (1905-1985), founded the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) as an alternative ecumenical agency to both the liberal FCC and the separatist ACCC. Throughout the next twenty years, evangelicals began to re-enter arenas of American society, from higher education to popular culture. Their efforts led to the creation or expansion of many educational institutions, including Fuller Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Seminary, and Wheaton College (IL), known as the Harvard of evangelical educational institutions. Other organizations, like Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship began massive recruitment campaigns among American youths. Publishing companies, Baker, Eerdmans and Condervan (all located in Grand Rapids, Michigan), were established in the 1940s to provide the evangelical community the ability to disseminate messages about the movement and salvation. One of their first publications, neo-evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry’s (1913-2003) The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947), was the first notable call for evangelicals to engage broader American society in the name of the Lord, including the political arena. Increasingly during the middle of the twentieth century, evangelicals took his advice. Rev. Billy Graham, his father-in-law L. Nelson Bell (1894-1973), Harold John Ockenga, and Carl Henry, founded the periodical Christianity Today in 1956, which they

52 The FCC became the National Council of Churches (NCC) in 1950.

24

envisioned as a magazine “that would give the theological respectability to evangelicals.”53 This was a watershed moment in the resurgence of evangelicalism because “the fortnightly journal of evangelical conviction” served to create a since of community among the nation’s evangelicals, many of whom were still members of denominations (Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians) drifting increasingly toward accommodation with the modern world. In creating a functioning evangelical community with its own publications, institutions and national spokesmen, evangelicalism began to move toward the position it held in American society during the nineteenth century when it influenced the development of the United States in profound ways. Yet, the United States had become a considerably different country from the homogeneous society the evangelicals had exerted influence over in the nineteenth century. Thus, evangelical calls for a recovery of America’s moral and spiritual direction are often counter to the goals and priorities of the increasingly multicultural and secular society of the United States in the mid to late twentieth century. This tension between evangelical perceptions of their own importance to American society, and the difficulty of gaining that power and recognition in a society as diverse as the United States, is at the core of present- day American evangelical political mindset.54 Today, the evangelical subculture is widely visible in American society. Some investigators question whether evangelicals are having more influence on the broader culture than the broader culture is having on them.55 It is not unusual to see fish emblems56 attached to the back of cars, blue yard signs declaring “We

53 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 48. 54 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 21. 55 Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, “America’s Evangelicals,” (April 2004) available at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week733/special.html. 56 The fish was a symbol of early Christians. References in the Scriptures include: Book of John 21:6: “And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes”, the Book of Luke 5:6: “And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake”, and, most importantly, the Book of Mark 1:17: “And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.” Many fish automobile ordainments contain the Greek word for fish “ichtuhus”, spelled “ICTUS”, which many believe for an acrostic for the Greek words: “lesous” (Jesus), “christos” (Christ), “theou” (of God), “uiou” (the Son), “soter” (the Savior). See

25

Stand for the Ten Commandments” and billboards and crosses dotting American highways. Despite a series of scandals involving televangelists in the late 1980s, religious broadcasts continue to fill the airwaves. Evangelical television networks, like CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network), the Family Channel (owned by CBN), TBN (The Trinity Broadcasting Network) and CTN (Christian Television Network), are available in most markets, providing continuous religious programming. The presence of the evangelical subculture can also be found in primetime programming. Such programming includes Touched by an Angel, a show about needed miracles performed by angels in contemporary society, which aired on CBS for nine seasons (1994-2003), and Seventh Heaven, a show about the trials of a ’s family in modern America about to commence its eleventh season on the new CW Network. Fred Willard and Georgina Engel played the McDougles, an ultra-fundamentalist, yet likeable, couple on CBS’s Emmy winning show, Everybody Loves Raymond, which aired for nine seasons from 1996 until 2005. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ recently became a box office hit, becoming the seventh most profitable motion picture of all time, grossing over $370 million. Evangelicals also show their muscle at the bookstores, with the Left Behind series, action novels about the second coming of Christ by evangelical authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, selling more than 42 million copies. The new runaway best seller The Purpose-Driven Life by Pastor Rick Warren has sold more than 15 million copies and topped the New York Times advice best- seller list for over 12 weeks in 2004.57 Clearly, American evangelicals have rejoined the broader society in an effort to win hearts to Christ. As a part of the evangelical community’s efforts to reenter American society in the last half of the twentieth century, they also began to re-engage the American political system, the subject of the next chapter.

the following website for more information on the symbolism of fish for Christians: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm 57 Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, 2004.

26

CHAPTER 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF AMERICAN EVANGELICAL POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT1

Early Evangelical Involvement: 1776-1865 Just as contemporary American society is being influenced by evangelicalism, evangelicals have also played significant roles throughout American political history. However, contemporary evangelicals often overestimate the influence traditional Christianity had on the early development of the United States. The First Great Awakening had planted the seeds of evangelicalism, but it did not initially succeed in transforming the United States into a thoroughly evangelical nation. Thus, contrary to the expressed opinions of many contemporary evangelical leaders, the influence of evangelical theology and values on the American founding was originally rather limited. Studies have shown that only a minority of American colonists were either official members or adherents to Protestant churches prior to the Revolutionary War.2 And compared with the number of evangelical politicians during later periods of American history, only two Methodists and not a single Baptist were among the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.3 The influence of Protestantism or Christianity in the new United States was not forceful enough to prevent ratification of a Constitution without significant symbolic mention of religion in 1788 or the election of an “atheist” Thomas Jefferson to the

1 This section draws heavily upon a recent chapter on evangelical politics by well-respected evangelical historian, Mark A. Noll. See Mark A. Noll, “Politics,” in American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), chapter 9, 183-206; and Martin, With God On Our Side. 2 Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983), 53. 3 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 192.

27

Presidency in 1800.4 Further, in an early attempt to reform American society into evangelical ideals, one of the first evangelical voluntary societies was unsuccessful around 1812 in a petition drive to promote public morality by halting the transportation of mail on Sundays.5 To be sure, the Puritanism of colonial New England colored American political culture and its influence can still be felt today. And the Founding Fathers during the 1770s and 1780s, did ask for divine blessings on their activities and for the future of their enterprise, but they did with at least as much toward an Enlightenment deity as to an explicitly evangelical God.6 As the previous pages detailed, however, evangelicalism grew throughout the early nineteenth century, to become the dominant religious movement in the United States by 1850. Noll (2001) notes, “the key is that in comparative terms the United States possessed no alternative ideology that came anywhere close to the influence of evangelical Protestantism from the early years of the nineteenth century through the Civil War.”7 This resulted from the cohesion between the values of the new American republic and the values of evangelicalism. Each set of values emphasized individualism, equality of opportunity, the necessity of secular authority and the virtues of holy living. By the start of the , evangelicals were fully engaged in politics in every of the country. In fact, due to the numerical increase in American evangelicals since the Second Great Awakening, they were one of the strongest political forces in each section and state. Evangelical support was found on both sides of the American Civil War and each side used the Bible in support of their opposing philosophies regarding slavery. Evangelicals and their clergy were heavily involved in the abolitionist movement in the North, equating the movement to a religious crusade. In equal fashion, southern evangelical clergy preached about the justice of the secession movement, the injustices of

4 A great and unbiased overview of Christian influences during the period 1760 to 1820 can be found in Noll et. al., Search. 5 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 196. 6 Ibid, 192. 7 Ibid, 194.

28

northern aggression and the derogation of the American moral compass that would accompany treating African slaves as equal citizens.

Evangelical Political Dominance: 1866-1900 After the conflict, American evangelicals continued their involvement in political matters. Before addressing these, however, an important point must be emphasized. Prior to the start of the twentieth century, most American evangelicals were postmillennialist, meaning they believed that Jesus would return after the millennium, a thousand-year period of righteousness described in the Book of Revelation.8 Implicit in postmillennialist belief is the conviction that it is incumbent upon believers to establish Christ’s millennial kingdom. Much of the impulse for social reform among evangelicals in the nineteenth century, for example, came from postmillennial sentiments. , on the other hand, is a theology of despair, at least insofar as it relates to the impetus for reforming society according to the norms of Protestant Christianity. It holds that Christ’s return will proceed the thousand year reign of righteousness. Thus, the rapture may occur at any moment. Many postmillennialist evangelicals of the nineteenth century accepted the proclamations of some evangelists that the year 1900 would be the year of the rapture.9 When the millennium passed without Christ’s return, and the new

8 See Revelation, chapter 20: 1-7: “(1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the , and , and bound him a thousand years. (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the sould of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first . (6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (7) And when a thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of this his prison.” 9 See Balmer & Winner, Protestantism in America, 57-59, 82-84, especially the subsections labeled “Postmillennialism and Arminianism”, “Evangelicals and the End of Time” and “Evangelicals and the Apocalypse.”

29

century witnessed the horrors of , the misery of the Great Depression, the emergence of multiculturalism that accompanied rising levels of immigration, and the accompanying difficulties this created for social policy, many American evangelicals shifted from a postmillennialist to premillennialist perspective.10 This shift in theology helps explain why American evangelicals of the nineteenth century practiced a devotion to the spread of the social gospel, a nineteenth century movement among evangelicals to apply Christian principles to solve social problems. As a result of this desire to utilize the social gospel as a vehicle to usher in the millennium, American evangelicals were deeply involved in charity work and the social movements after the Civil War. They participated in programs to assist newly freed slaves, to eliminate poverty, to promote good government and to support prohibition.11 As the number of new southern European immigrants continued to grow in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, evangelicals increasingly attempted to protect their culture through support for various puritanical or blue laws, meaning statutes regulating moral conduct according to religious standards. Examples of these included laws prohibiting business activity on the Sabbath, swearing, gambling and consuming alcohol.

Evangelical Political Disengagement: 1900-1950 When the fundamentalist-modernist controversy erupted during the early twentieth century and evangelicals withdrew into their sub-cultural isolation, they also withdrew from much of the political arena. Two points are worth remembering, however. First, withdrawing from politics was not that large a sacrifice for evangelicals because of the traditional Protestant domination of American society of the time. In short, there was little political disagreement

10 Ibid, 57-63. 11 See Hart, Old-Time Religion, chapter 3- “Evangelicals and the Politics of Morality.” Notice that this list does not include participation in the burgeoning women’s rights movement because for many evangelicals “women’s rights” was contrary to the biblical concept of submission. See the Book of Ephesians, chapter 5:22-24: “(22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

30

between evangelicals and their fellow Christian brethren. Second, evangelicals did not withdraw from the local political realm in areas where their subculture was dominant. This was especially true in small, rural and many southern communities. Local government became the line of defense evangelicals used to preserve their standards and way of life. However, as the span and scope of federal government power expanded during the 1950s and 1960s, evangelicals increasingly found the political arena, even at the local level, difficult to control. While he called for evangelicals to engage the broader culture to win souls for Christ during the 1950s, Billy Graham resisted overt calls for political participation in an effort to avoid alienating any possible constituency. Furthermore, he argued that a truly righteous nation would be one where most of the people have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For this reason Graham concluded, the solution for many social and political problems was nothing less than individual conversion and faith. Undoubtedly, Graham, like many evangelicals, was an anti-communist, describing the communist philosophy as “Satan’s Religion.”12 Little controversy surrounded anti-communist homogeneity of the American political system, except during the McCarthy era. Both Republicans and Democrats denounced communism, thus Graham’s sermons had few partisan overtones. In addition to his anti-communist stance, Graham occasionally denounced deficit spending, the United Nations and the “evils” of big government and big labor, but these messages never amounted to more than broad generalizations and asides to the main points of his .

A Changing Political World: 1950-1976 Occasionally political issues and events would energize evangelicals. Rather than energizing them into greater political participation, some reinforced the evangelical mindset that American society was treading down a slippery slope toward damnation. Others, however, galvanized orthodox Protestants into political activism at the local level. Some of the most significant of these issues and events were: (a) opposition to John Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency

12 Hart, Old-Time Religion, 84.

31

in 1960; (b) the U.S. Supreme Court rules in 1962 and 1963 to outlaw organized prayer and Bible reading in public schools; (c) the Anaheim (CA) sex education protests; (d) the Kanawha County (WV) textbook war; (e) the Dade County (FL) homosexual rights ordinance; (f) the counter culture; and (g) the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

(a) JFK for President 1960 For many the first signs of major culture change came in 1960, when the Democratic Party nominated Senator John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, to be its candidate for president. Al Smith, the only other Catholic to win the nomination of either major , was defeated by Herbert Hoover in a landslide in 1928. Many fundamentalist Christians viewed the Catholic Church not simply as a repository of false doctrine, but in accordance with their dispensationalist philosophy they identified the Vatican as the institution identified in the Book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon, an integral element in the ’s plan for world conquest.13

(b) Prayer and Bible reading Supreme Court Decisions American evangelicals were further disheartened when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school sanctioned prayer (1962) and religious Bible reading (1963) in public schools violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.14 Conservative Protestants, however, viewed the decision as a declaration of war against Christianity and their traditional way of life. For the first time, evangelicals felt the reach of the federal government

13 See the Book of Revelation, chapters 17 & 18 and Martin, With God On Our Side, 47-48. Martin describes the experiences of Father Peter Gilquest, now an Orthodox priest, but at the time of Kennedy’s election a fundamentalist student at Dallas Theological Seminary, a center of dispensationalist thought. According to Fr. Gilquest, “a guy stood up in the chapel and said that John F. Kennedy was ‘the Beast’ of Revelation, that he was the Antichrist, and under no circumstances could anybody vote for him.” Perhaps the fundamentalist fears of President Kennedy were not completely shaken even by the time of his death. Fr. Gilquest also remembered that after the assassination in Dallas as he watched the funeral procession with a fellow graduate of Dallas Seminary, his classmate was “fairly sure [Kennedy] would rise out of the coffin and be the Antichrist.” 14 These cases were Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963), respectively. See Martin, With God On Our Side, 77-78 for more information.

32

challenging their dominance at the local level and their desire to defend their subculture from the forces of modernism, or as evangelicals would say, secular humanism. Billy James Hargis’s son, Bill, recounts in Martin (1996) how he distinctly remembers riding in his father’s car outside of Colorado Springs, CO when they received news of the Court’s 1962 decision. “We…had gone to an ice-cream parlor. As we were leaving, we saw the newspaper machine and the headline that said the Supreme Court had ruled against prayer. All the way home, my dad talked about how this was really the beginning of the end for America, that the country had turned its back on God, and that any country that did that couldn’t stand.”15

(c) Sex Education Protests in Anaheim (CA) In the following years, the local public school systems continued to be the central arena of conflict between evangelical Christians and the government. In 1969, evangelicals organized to prevent the Anaheim School District from implementing a non-traditional sex education curriculum. The goal of the new program, which came to be known as Family Life and Sex Education (FLSE), was to prepare students for the task of forming loving and well-functioning families. To conservative Protestants, however, the program was focused on sexual education and was too explicit. Further, it did not adequately describe pre-marital absence as a viable alternative to the “free love” culture of the 1960s. The evangelical protest organization secured a victory in eradicating the program from the District’s curriculum and replacing it with programs sensitive to orthodox Christian concerns.16

(d) Kanawha County (WV) Textbook War Another local public school conflict erupted in the summer of 1974 in Kanawha County, West . The “Kanawha County textbook war” commenced when school board member Alice Moore, wife of a fundamentalist

15 Martin, With God On Our Side, 47-48. 16 Ibid, chapter 4 “The Battle of Anaheim” pages 100-116.

33

preacher, objected to a series of language arts textbooks that were adopted by the Board of Education. After reviewing the books, chosen for their cultural and ethnic diversity, Moore concluded that they were obscene and inappropriate for schoolchildren. She recruited other preachers’ wives to assist her in mobilizing the conservative Protestants of their congregations within the school district to oppose adoption of the material in classrooms. Throughout the tumultuous summer, contentious protests sprang up all over the county. When the school year began in the fall, violence erupted. Schools were firebombed; buses vandalized or even disabled, and gun shots were fired. Conservative evangelicals had the numerical advantage forcing school officials to ultimately pull the 96,000 controversial textbooks off the shelves, and then organized a community committee to review all future selections.17

(e) Dade County (FL) Homosexual Rights Ordinance One more issue to inspire local protest by conservative Protestants was a homosexual rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida. In November of 1976, gay activists, by quietly organizing money and votes, succeeded in electing a pro- homosexual rights majority to the Metro-Dade Board of County Commissioners. Following the election, the Dade County Commissioners became the latest in a series of local government boards to pass a homosexual rights law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. This came as a shock to many evangelicals in southeastern Florida, including Anita Bryant, a former Miss America runner-up, Miss Oklahoma, singer on the USO tour and television spokeswoman for the Florida Orange Juice Growers Association. Mrs. Bryant, a strict conservative Roman Catholic, felt threatened and decided to speak out against the ordinance. “What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that there is an acceptable alternative way of life,” she said. “I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen

17 See Ibid, chapter 5 “” pages 117-143 and Rusty Marks, “’It was simply overwhelming’—Former Kanawha Student Recalls Role in 1974 Textbook Controversy,” The Charleston Gazette, April 28, 2004.

34

before.”18 She believed that traditional American culture, the institution of marriage, and the morals of children would be threatened if government gave the impression that it condoned homosexual lifestyles. Bryant formed an organization called “,” which placed a referendum of the ordinance on the next election’s ballot and campaigned for the defeat of the newly passed ordinance. In June 1977, the voters of Dade County passed the referendum measure, thus removing the homosexual rights ordinance from the books. After passage of the referendum, Bryant continued to campaign against homosexual rights across the country including speaking the following year on behalf of a movement in California to pass Proposition 6, an initiative making it easier to fire homosexual teachers.

(f) The Counter Culture American evangelicals’ concern over these issues did not occur in a cultural vacuum. America society evolved into a new era during the late 1960s. Gone were the quiet and traditional post-war years of the 1950s. In late 1960s, the country witnessed the emergence of what became known as the counter culture: the peace movement, the sexual revolution, the epidemic use of illegal drugs, the women’s rights movement and a general skepticism of anyone with authority. All of these trends seemed counter to traditional Protestant Christian values. The emergence of the counter culture convinced many evangelicals that the societal atmosphere of the country was not conducive to raising a Christian family. Gradually, many came to view political action as one of the only avenues to protect their children until Christ’s return.19

(g) 1973 Roe v. Wade The U.S. Supreme Court entered the fray again in 1973, when it published its controversial decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. The decision, which essentially removed all existing federal legal barriers to abortion in the United

18 Dudley Clendinen, “Anita Bryant, b. 1940, Singer and crusader,” The St. Petersburg Times, 28 November 1999. 19 The central question of this project concerns the timing and circumstance of this mobilization.

35

States, shocked many Christians, but surprisingly “the strongest opposition to abortion prior to and immediately following the Court’s decision came from Roman Catholics…. Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, many of whom now consider abortion a litmus test of extraordinary importance, had little to say about it one way or the other” (Martin 1996, 193). Records indicate, for example, that fundamentalist Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell did not mention abortion in a single sermon until 1978. Martin (1996) suggests that the fact that Catholics were visible in their protests against legalized caused many Protestants to keep a low profile regarding the issue—the initial thought was “If the Catholics are for it, we should be against it.”20 In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) surprisingly voted almost unanimously in support of a resolution affirming a women’s right to have an abortion if giving birth would pose emotional harm, an action unthinkable by the SBC under their current leadership and a clear example of evangelical apathy concerning the abortion issue in the early 1970s.21 Harold O. J. Brown and C. Everett Koop, with the support of Billy Graham, established the Christian Action Council (CAC) in 1975 to educate the public and lobby public officials against legalized abortions. They soon realized, however, that many evangelicals found it difficult to single out abortion as an extreme evil. Thus, CAC had trouble mobilizing conservative Christians around the issue. Brown recalls, “Many people would like to see abortion as a trivial sort of issue— one among many. But others of us see it as a crucial issue, because it affects what you think human beings are, and what you think they’re worth.” Large scale evangelical concern over the abortion issue began to emerge after a heavily publicized 1977 lecture concerning abortion at the University of by leading evangelical theologian and philosopher, Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer urged conservative Christians to think about the topic of abortion in philosophic terms along with the issue of . Schaeffer soon teamed with Koop, the future U.S. Surgeon General, to produce the 1979 book and

20 See Martin, With God On Our Side, 193. The quote is reported by Martin, but is from Harold O. J. Brown, an evangelical theologian. 21 Ibid, 156.

36

accompanying film, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?. The book and film argued that abortion was both a cause for and a result of the loss of appreciation for the sanctity of human life in American society. Further, Schaeffer and Koop suggested that widespread acceptance of abortion would eventually lead to acceptance of infanticide and euthanasia.22 The five-part film series was especially successful, widely viewed by evangelical congregations across the nation, with tremendous impact. “Conservative Christians not only developed a revulsion for abortion but, as Koop put it, they also ‘began to associate the need for tying their faith to social action’”.23

Evangelical Political Mobilization: 1976-1981

Francis Schaeffer Aside from the abortion issue, Schaeffer’s importance in the shift of American evangelical philosophy towards political activism cannot be understated. Prior to co-authoring Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, he authored another film/book combination, titled How Should We Then Live? (1976). This work reintroduced evangelicals to the concept of secular humanism and warned them of the dangers threatening their children, their churches, their schools and ultimately their world, urging them to take appropriate action to turn society from its path towards self-destruction. Schaeffer’s influential work spurred a special report on secular humanism by a Christian magazine four years later, demonstrating the impact of Schaeffer’s book on evangelicals and the transition in their understanding of politics. “To understand humanism is to understand women’s liberation, the ERA, gay rights, children’s rights, abortion, sex education, the ‘new’ morality, evolution, values clarification, situational ethics,

22 Ibid, 194. 23 Ibid.

37

the separation of church and state, the loss of patriotism, and many of the other problems that are tearing America apart today.” 24

Jimmy Carter How Should We Then Live? hit bookshelves and movie screens in 1976, an important year in the political reawakening of American evangelicals for another reason. A Southern Baptist evangelical teacher brought new attention to the evangelical subculture along the path to winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. Jimmy Carter never suggested his evangelical religious beliefs were out of the ordinary; he did profess, however, that his faith was real and lasting. While dealing with his disappointment of defeat in his first try for the governorship in 1967, “I realized that my own relationship with God and Christ was a very superficial one.” Carter explained that he had experienced a personal conversion during a discussion with his evangelical sister on a hike through the woods. This experience enabled him to form “a very close, intimate, personal relationship with God, through Christ, that has given me a great deal of peace, equanimity, the ability to accept difficulties without unnecessarily being disturbed, and also an inclination on a continuing basis to ask God’s guidance in my life.” He frequently told his campaign audiences, “The most important thing in my life is Jesus Christ.” 25 Given the media’s attention to Carter’s strong faith and his ability to discuss it articulately and without embarrassment, evangelicals throughout the country began to feel they had come into their own again, and to dream about regaining their former position and influence in American society. This recognition climaxed when Newsweek ran a cover story in which it declared 1976 as “The Year of the Evangelical.” Initially, many American evangelicals identified with the Georgia Governor. He spoke about his faith in a fashion with which they related. Further, Carter promised to do what he could to help strengthen the American family, even

24 See “To Understand Humanism: A Special Report,” Christian Harvest Times, June 1980, 1. 25 All quotations in this paragraph can be found in Martin, With God On Our Side, 150.

38

advocating “family impact statements” before governmental actions were under taken. “The American family,” he said during one campaign stop, “is in trouble. I have campaigned all over America, and everywhere I go, I find people deeply concerned about the loss of stability and the loss of values in our lives. The root of this problem is the steady erosion and weakening of our families.” He supported his diagnosis with a depressing list of statistics—a rising divorce rate, an increase in unwed motherhood and the number of single parents. Figures showed increases in juvenile crime, venereal disease, alcoholism, drug addition and suicide. “There can be no more urgent priority for the next administration,” Carter concluded, “than to see that any decision our government makes is designed to honor, support and strengthen the American family.”26 Not only did many evangelicals share Jimmy Carter’s analysis of the country’s problems, they also identified with his plans for formulating solutions. Believing that many actions the federal government took were harmful to the fabric of family life in America, Carter wanted to reform the guilty programs to make them more family friendly. He affirmed his desire to alter the tax code to reward families who stayed intact, enact a national health care system, institute a national child care program and increase the funding for to reduce the occurrence of abortions in the United States. He also called for welfare reforms that “encourages work, encourages family life, and reflects both the competence and the compassion of the American people” and promised to convene a White House conference to discuss other ways to reinforce the American family.27 As the campaign continued, however, Carter lost the support of many evangelicals. As he continued to speak out on the campaign trail, it became clear that he was not a fundamentalist or even conservative evangelical. He did not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, he admired much of the thinking of Reinhold Niebuhr- a liberal theologian, he socially drank alcohol, did not favor

26 All quotes and much of the structure for this paragraph are from Ibid, 155. 27 All quotes for this paragraph are from Ibid, 155.

39

returning institutionalized prayer to schools and was, for the most part, pro- choice concerning abortion. Then in October of 1976, one month before the election, a well publicized interview with Carter appeared in the pages of Playboy. In the interview Carter voluntary admitted that, despite remaining faithful to his wife throughout their marriage, he had “looked on a lot of women with lust.” He continued, “I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” Many evangelicals understood Carter’s comments to be based on the biblical teachings of Jesus, especially the , and showed Carter’s adherence to a strict moral code, without attempting to pass himself off as perfect. Others, however, were disappointed with his frank language (for example, Carter was quoted as saying “Christ says, don’t consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to this wife”) and, more importantly, that the presidential candidate had spoken with Playboy, a pornographic magazine that advocated a lifestyle among men counter to many evangelical traditions. Rev. Jerry Falwell summed up the feelings of many orthodox Protestants when he said, “Like many others, I am quite disillusioned. Four months ago, the majority of the people I knew were pro-Carter. Today that has totally reversed.”28 Despite this, Carter did not lose all of his support from evangelicals. Regular Democrats, Southern and other Republicans who found his appeal to traditional values persuasive, African American evangelicals and millions of white evangelicals cast their votes for him. Many of them disagreed with some of his policy positions, but many recognized him as one of their own. In the end, Jimmy Carter received more evangelical support, and slightly more white evangelical support, than did his Republican opponent .29

28 All quotes contained within this paragraph are from Ibid, 157-8. 29 It is interesting to note that during the 1976 presidential campaign, Gerald Ford, having seen religion as a major source of Carter’s appeal, actively courted evangelical voters and described himself as a “born-again Christian.” Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right (Boston: South End Press, 1989), 56- reports: “Nearly half of the nation’s evangelicals voted for Carter, among Baptists in particular, the Democratic voting percentage was closer to 60 percent.” Paul Lopatto, Religion and the Presidential Election (New York: Praeger, 1985) concludes that Carter split the

40

Much of the evangelical support Carter did retain through the 1976 election soured during his term in office. Many evangelicals who supported him because of his espousal of born again Christianity and family values were disillusioned as they learned that the influence Carter’s religion had on his political worldview was quite different from theirs. He did not abolish or seriously reform welfare. He did not overhaul the federal tax structure. Despite a personal opposition to abortion and , his personal values did not seem to inform his public decisions. Carter remained pro-choice and favored homosexual rights. He supported passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and backed the Internal Revenue Service in its decision to take away ultra-fundamentalist Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. To make matters worse, many of his evangelical supporters on the lower end of the social strata found themselves struggling to maintain their standard of living with double-digit inflation.

Ronald Reagan Disenchantment with Carter was not the only force leading evangelicals away from voting for the Democratic President in 1980. The other was the persona of the former Republican governor of California, . Reagan and his campaign strategists understood that Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968 by using a “Southern Strategy” that involved both explicit and coded appeals—to segregationist sentiments, to resentment of federal interference in state and local institutions and to anxieties over changes in

theologically conservative (or evangelical) vote with Ford, but lost among Protestants more generally. Albert Menendez, Religion at the Polls (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), gives the evangelical edge to Ford, but also concluded that Carter did better with evangelicals than mainline Protestants (who backed Ford by a wide margin). Menendez, Ballot Box, 128 notes “Jimmy Carter clearly did better among evangelicals than Democratic presidential candidates normally do, though probably falling short of a majority…. Fifty key evangelical counties gave Carter 49.4 percent, a 20 percent increase over McGovern [1972]. Assuming that he won 40 percent of all evangelicals, carter received at least 6.4 million of the 16 million evangelical votes. Ford’s 9.6 million, or 3.2 million majority, was not enough to overcome the Catholic, Jewish, other Protestants, and nonaffiliated majority for Carter. This was in addition to his 92 percent landslide among black voters, who are not included in the white evangelical category…. In 1968 Nixon had a 7.2 million-vote majority over Humphrey among evangelicals, which just overcame the 6.7 million lead for Humphrey among Catholics, Jews, and “others.” In 1976 Carter dropped to about a 5-million edge over Ford among nonevangelicals, but cut Ford’s evangelical majority to only 3.2 million. The result? Almost a 2-million-vote victory and the presidency for James Earl Carter, Jr.”

41

traditional social and moral norms.30 Nixon’s strategy resulted in many socially conservative Democrats crossing traditional party lines and voting Republican. Reagan also understood that Jimmy Carter had won the presidency in 1976 by luring many of those Democrats back into the Party’s ranks with his appeal as a man with sincere religious convictions. To win the presidency, Reagan concluded that he would have to reform Nixon’s coalition between those who normally voted Republican and those who were socially conservative, but traditionally voted for the Democratic nominee.31 These voters became known as Reagan Democrats. Reagan, through a mixture of genuine Christian faith and political strategy, learned how to win favor with evangelicals.32 New York Times religion reporter Kenneth Briggs observes, “Reagan very definitely played to the evangelical constituency, and did it rather skillfully. He had a feel for who evangelical people were and what they valued, and I think he spoke very directly and effectively to those people.”33 In one event during the early 1980 primary process, Reagan and former Texas governor John Connally, a potential alternative candidate for many evangelicals, were asked what reason they would give God for letting them enter heaven if they died that day. Connally responded, “Well, my mother was a Methodist, my pappy was a Methodist, my grandmother was a Methodist, and I’d just tell him I ain’t any worse than any of the other people that want to get into heaven.” Needless to say, Governor Connally’s response did not play well with the assembled Christian leaders. Reagan was asked the same question, and responded, “I wouldn’t give God any reason for letting me in. I’d just ask for

30 See Thomas Edsall, and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, Revised Ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992). 31 Martin, With God On Our Side, 203. 32 Many questioned the sincerity of Jimmy Carter’s religious convictions when he became a presidential candidate, thinking he was simply attempting to make a political appeal to middle America. In similar fashion, some have questioned the sincerity of Ronald Reagan’s religious convictions. It became obvious that President Carter’s faith was genuine during and after his presidency. The case of Reagan’s faith is less certain. For example, President Reagan did not attend church on a regular basis while in the White House and often refrained from publicly discussing his faith except in general terms. Yet Paul Kengor of Grove City College argues in a new book that Reagan was a deeply religious man. Kengor backs up his claims with a content analysis of Reagan’s personal letters. See Paul Kengor, God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life (New York: Regan Books, 2004). 33 Martin, With God On Our Side, 209.

42

mercy, because of what Jesus Christ did for me at Calvary.” The evangelical leaders identified with Reagan’s response and identified him as the individual they would like to see in the White House. In the end, Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide, 487 electoral votes to 51.

Development of Evangelical Political Organizations Throughout the period of transition between Presidents Carter and Reagan, evangelicals increasingly organized into political associations, whose goal was to represent evangelical views on a wide variety of political topics to the public and on Capitol Hill. Before this point, most evangelical organizations that dealt with political matters concentrated on a single issue, such as abortion or the ERA, but these new organizations claimed to speak for American evangelicals on a broad scope of issues. Ed McAteer and James Robison founded the Religious Roundtable in March of 1979, whose purpose was to mobilize evangelical voters. Another group, Christian Voice, formed in April of 1979 to work toward a “Christian majority in a Christian ” and gained notoriety for distributing “Biblical Scorecards” that rated candidates for public office according to their stand on a list of issues of interest to conservative Protestants. The most publicized of these organizations was Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, which opened its Washington headquarters in June of 1979. Charles Stanley, James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye and Greg Dixon joined Falwell on its board and Robert Billings served as executive director. On the day of the organization’s founding, Rev. Falwell penned Moral Majority’s mission statement: to exert a significant influence on the spiritual and moral direction of our nation by: (a) mobilizing the grassroots or moral America in one clear and effective voice; (b) informing the moral majority what is going on behind their backs in Washington and in state legislatures across the country; (c) lobbying intensively in Congress to defeat leftwing, social-welfare bills that will further erode our precious freedom; (d) pushing for positive legislation such as that to establish the Family Protection Agency, which will ensure a strong, enduring America; and (e) helping the moral majority in local communities to fight pornography, homosexuality, the advocacy of immorality in

43

school textbooks, and other issues facing each and every one of us.

The failed promise of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the emergence of Ronald Reagan in 1980 marked the beginning of the contemporary political engagement of American evangelicals. Sarah Diamond (1989, 63) reports that the combined efforts of conservative Protestant organizations Christian Voice, the Religious Roundtable and the Moral Majority resulted in the registration of over 2 million new evangelical voters before the 1980 election. Others argue this statistic underscores the impact of these organizations and that the number is closer to 8 million. A 1980 Presidential Election exit poll by CBS singled out “born again white Protestants” (17 percent of all voters according to their estimate) and found that these votes were cast for Reagan over Carter by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin.34 Menendez reports that in 1976, Carter carried 58 of 100 heavily evangelical counties in 12 states. Four years later, he won just 16 of them. Thirty-two of the counties Carter won were in the Electoral Vote rich non-southern states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and Missouri. In 1980, he repeated his success in only 5 of these evangelical counties. In every presidential election since, a large majority of white evangelicals have supported the Republican nominee.35

A House Divided Against Itself: 1981-1993 In the quarter century since 1981, evangelicals, or the “New Christian Right,” have remained politically engaged and have increased their power. The 1988 Republican primary divided the Pentecostals and Charismatics, who largely supported the candidacy of Pat Robertson, from other evangelicals and fundamentalists, who refused to support Robertson because of his belief that contemporary Christians can still receive “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as reported in the second chapter of Acts. Then a year later, Rev. Jerry Falwell closed down

34 Menendez, Ballot Box, 137. 35 Ibid.

44

his Moral Majority organization. These events caused many observers to announce the death of the conservative coalition.36

Onward Christian Soldiers: 1994-2004 These obituaries were premature. Robertson transformed his failed 1988 presidential campaign into a new organization called the Christian Coalition and selected politically savvy as its director. Reed began focusing the organization’s efforts towards controlling the state Republican Party apparatuses and contesting local political offices in order to gain the organization some much needed experience. Evangelicals again united in the 1994 mid-term elections in a backlash against the policies of President , casting 75 percent of their votes for Republican House and Senate candidates.37 Today, evangelicals have become one of the most important constituencies for the Republican Party and one of the most powerful forces in American politics. While certainly not all powerful, they have been essential elements in three of the biggest political victories of the last 12 years, the 1994 “Republican Revolution” in Congress, and both George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 Presidential victories.

36 See Bruce, Rise and Fall & Steve Bruce, “The Inevitable Failure of the New Christian Right,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto, and William H. Swatos, Jr., chapter 1 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995). 37 Kellstedt, et. al., “Godot”, 291-299.

45

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Two groups of scholarly literature explore why groups mobilize for political action, the social movements literature of sociology and the organized interest literature of political scientists. A social movement is a group of individuals, with shared characteristics, that systematically act in unison to promote or resist changes in the society of which they are a part. Sociologists are interested in identifying the causes of social movements. In similar fashion, an organized interest is a group of individuals, with shared goals, that systematically act in unison to promote or resist changes in governmental policies and programs. With such similar agendas, one should not be surprised that there is considerable overlap between social movements and organized interest scholarship. Generally, the works within both sets of literature are divisible into three categories: (a) economic/rational, (b) social/psychological, and (c) elite/resource mobilization theories.

Economic/Rational Models

Economic Status Theory Economic theories of group social mobilization exist in two distinct forms. The first variety argues that social movements are the result of discontent the social groups feel concerning their economic position within society. In an effort to increase their economic well being, group members politically mobilize to work towards more favorable economic policies. This type of collective action is a case of an interest group, rather than a social movement. A more specific example would be the tenants association at a public housing complex working for economic and public housing policies that are favorable to the economic status of their members. The economic status model lacks credibility, regarding the topic of this proposal, the political mobilization of American evangelicals. Although white

46

evangelical Protestant rate below average on factors such as education, income and occupational status, the group has achieved striking gains in its socioeconomic position over the last half-century. Hunter (1987) along with Penning and Smidt (2002) conclude that although white evangelicals continue to lag behind the rest of the white population on most measures of socioeconomic achievement, the younger members of the evangelical community are indistinguishable from other white Protestants and other white Americans. This positive trajectory in evangelical socioeconomic measures makes an economic status theory improbable as a satisfactory explanation for the evangelical political mobilization of the 1970s. Why would a group mobilize to improve their economic condition during a period when their economic lot was dramatically improving and nearing the levels of similar citizens not affiliated with their group? The economic status theory encounters additional problems because evangelicals did not pursue public policies concerning their economic status once they mobilized.

Rational Choice Theory A second variety of economic theory, the rational choice model, borrows the language of utility calculation from the field of economics to explain group formulation. By considering the costs and benefits of group participation, Mancur Olsen (1965) argued that a common status, by itself, was inadequate to motivate people to join groups because self-interested individuals will not voluntarily join a group to work towards a collective benefit. Olsen theorized that anyone within a group could enjoy any collective benefits achieved without having to contribute time, effort or money. In short, self-interested individuals have no incentive to join group efforts towards collective goals when he or she will receive any collective benefits resulting from their membership within the community. Olsen labeled this problem of collective action, the free-rider problem. If Olsen’s logic is valid, how do groups that pursue the provision of collective benefits to the entire group attract contributors? Rational choice theory argues that these groups overcome the free-rider problem through providing

47

donors with “selective material incentives,” tangible goods available only to contributing members. Olsen argues, “the incentive must be selective so that those who do not join the organization working for the group’s interests…can be treated differently from those who do.”1 For example, a group might offer a low interest rate credit card, a quarterly magazine or group health insurance to contributors. These selective incentives would be in addition to any collective benefits the entire group, contributors and non-contributors alike, would receive. The rational choice perspective provides few answers for the topic of this dissertation. Its primary weakness rests with failing to account for the existence and success of many groups that do not provide their contributing membership with selective benefits. Olsen realized this weakness, but argued that from an economic standpoint, these groups were irrational entities, best left to be analyzed by psychologists.2 In an effort to patch the holes in Olsen’s rational choice model, Robert Salisbury (1969) and Terry Moe (1981) reformulated the rational choice model. Both suggest that scholars continue using Olsen’s economic theory, but they conceptualized two additional types of selective benefits: solidary and purposive rewards. Unlike Olsen’s selective material benefits, these rewards are not tangible goods. Solidary benefits consist of the psychological rewards contributors receive from their relations with other group members. These rewards could be friendships, networking opportunities or simply social interactions. Purposive benefits consist of the psychological rewards group contributors receive from helping the organization advance its goals. For example, one would not receive a material selective benefit from contributing time to a local homeless shelter, but the donor might receive positive psychological benefits from helping the less fortunate. While Olsen’s original rational choice perspective does not provide a viable explanation of the political mobilization of American evangelicals,

1 Mancur Olsen, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 51. 2 Ibid, 161-163; see also J. Christopher Soper, Evangelical Christianity in the United States and Great Britain: Religious Beliefs, Political Choices (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1994), 14.

48

Salisbury and Moe’s revision, what Salisbury labeled exchange theory, seems more plausible.

Social/Psychological Models The several social/psychological models of social movement formation build upon the pioneering works of Seymour Martin Lipset (1955), Neil Smelser (1962), Joseph Gusfield (1963) and Richard Hofstadter (1965).3 These models suggest that social movements are the result of group members feeling social or psychological anxiety. This anxiety can result from economic deprivation, loss of social standing, immigration, industrialization and the transformation of cultural norms.4 Three versions of social/psychological models of social mobilization will be considered below: (a) status discontent theory, (b) status inconsistency theory and (c) lifestyle concern theory.

Status Discontent Theory Joseph Gusfield (1963) studied the Prohibition movement through the lens of status discontent theory. According to Gusfield, as Irish and Italian Catholic immigration increased during the late nineteenth century, their presence became a threat to the prestige of the dominant social group, white Protestants. This threat was magnified because industrialization forced white Protestants to migrate from their rural communities to the metropolitan centers of the nation. In the metropolitan areas, they were forced to encounter the Irish and Italian communities, whose religious practices and lifestyles did not conform to Protestant standards. Gusfield theorized that the Prohibition movement was a

3 Various forms of social/psychological models of group mobilization have been used to explain suicide (Gibbs and Martin 1958), susceptibility to illness (Jackson 1962), aggression (Galtung 1964), right-wing extremism (Eitzen 1970), liberalism (Hunt and Cushing 1970), seeing flying saucers (Warren 1970) and drinking behavior (Parker 1979). 4 The reader might be asking what is the difference between a social/psychological model based upon economic deprivation and an economic model based on economic status? In the economic model, the individual will join a movement to work towards public policy directly favorable to the members’ economic standing. In the social/psychological model, the individual suffering from economic deprivation will join similar individuals in a movement working towards changing society in a way that will add legitimacy or standing to the group’s social status. In short, social/psychological models hold that a group’s declining status position rather than its sheer economic position may be the source of discontent and protest.

49

“symbolic” effort by white Protestants to cement their status as the dominant culture. Prohibition was an effort to legitimize an aspect of Protestant lifestyle (temperance) and criminalize an aspect of the immigrant’s culture. Gusfield describes status discontent theory as an effort by a social group to secure its “claim to social respect and honor” by pursuing social changes or public policies that “reaffirm the dominance and prestige of his style of life.” Even if the policy is unenforceable it becomes symbolically important to the reformer because “The public support of one conception of morality at the expense of another enhances the prestige and self-esteem of the victors and degrades the culture of the losers.”5 But Gusfield believed that the main motivation that propelled members of the dominant culture into collective action was economic strain in their personal lives. while these individuals were losing ground economically, they mobilized to prevent such defeats in the cultural realm.

Status Inconsistency Theory Zurcher and his associates (1971 & 1976) adopted a second type of social/psychological model, status inconsistency theory, to analyze two anti- pornography . One case involved a citizen uprising against an adult bookstore in a medium-sized northern city through petitions, public meetings and pressure on local and state officials. The second case concerned a similar movement against an adult theater in a medium-sized city in the southwest. Zurcher et al., believing they could apply Gusfield’s established status discontent theory, were surprised when they discovered that many individuals involved with the campaign reported high level of income, education and occupational status. The researchers, however, believed that they discovered a pattern in the anti- pornographic crusaders’ responses that may have explained the involvement of many participants. Many respondents reported inconsistent ranks on status dimensions. To illustrate, inconsistent ranks on status dimensions would occur

5 Joseph Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1963), 4-5.

50

when an individual reported high educational achievement but low occupational attainment. Zurcher and his associates theorized that this status inconsistency created status anxiety, an anxiety that was expressed through episodes of collective behavior. Yet the behaviors of Zurcher’s et al.’s, subjects are indistinguishable from Gusfield’s respondents. Individuals who participated in the anti- pornographic crusades, “perceive as threatened the prestige (and power) of the life style to which they are committed and respond with protest crusades representing symbolic and public efforts to reassert the prestige of the system of values, customs and habits….”6

Lifestyle Concern Theory The work of sociologists Donald Clelland and Ann Page (1978) and Louis J. Lorentzen (1980) advanced a third social/psychological theory of social movement mobilization, “the lifestyle concern hypothesis.” Both applied this framework to analyzing the political mobilization of American evangelicals during the 1970s. The subtle distinction between lifestyle concern theory and the two previous forms of social/psychological models reviewed, status discontent and status inconsistency, is that status politics interprets symbolic social movements as the result of resentment about declining socioeconomic status (status discontent theory) or anxiety concerning inconsistent social strata (status inconsistency theory). Lifestyle concern theory, however, assumes no underlying economic or social standing anxiety. Instead, lifestyle concern posits that individuals join social movements because they deeply care about the lifestyle for which the group is attempting to promote or defend. Clelland and Page (1978) argue, “…status politics is not, in essence, the attempt to defend against declining prestige but the attempt to defend a way of life.”7 While such participation by individuals may seem “irrational” to those outside the threatened

6 Louis A. Zurcher, and R. George Kirkpatrick. Citizens for Decency: Anti-Pornography Crusades as Status Defense (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1976), 9. 7 Donald C. Clelland, and Ann Page, “The Kanawha Textbook Controversy: A Study of the Politics of Life Style Concern,” Social Forces 57 (1978): 266.

51

lifestyle group, such participation is completely rational to movement members who share the movement’s worldview. “…humans are symbolic animals who organize the world in symbolic terms. A style of life can be maintained or propagated only to the extent that its adherents exercise some control over the means of socialization and social intercourse”.8 Clelland and Page applied the lifestyle concern theory to their analysis of the 1974 Kanawha County (WV) textbook war. They argue that the evangelical mobilization surrounding the textbook controversy is an example of lifestyle concern “because participants on both sides view it as a conflict over beliefs and ways of life and because neither economic nor prestige issues are major elements in the conflict.”9 Instead the actions of the evangelicals were “an indicator of developing status group consciousness representing a vertical cleavage in the status arrangement between cultural fundamentalists and cultural modernists, which cuts across economic and educational class or strata lines.”10 Lorentzen (1980) applied the lifestyle concern theory to his analysis of evangelical support for an evangelical Christian candidate in the 1978 Democratic U.S. Senate Caucus. He found that those evangelicals who participated in the caucus process to support the evangelical candidate were concerned about “morally-laden issues such as abortion, curricula and prayer in schools, and the Equal Rights Amendment.”11 This puzzled Lorentzen, however, because these issues were not a substantial part of the U.S. Senate race. In interviews with some of the evangelical participants, the researcher was informed that “the Senate, especially the Senate, has gotten very liberal in their leanings and their philosophy” (151). Lorentzen concluded that supporting this evangelical candidate was a form of lifestyle protection because, “In the possibility to bring a morally conservative ‘Christian influence’ to government is the possibility to legitimate and protect the conservative evangelical life style” (153).

8 Ibid, 267. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Louis J. Lorentzen, “Evangelical Life Style Concerns Expressed in Political Action,” Sociological Analysis 41 (1980): 152.

52

Conclusion The primary weakness with these social/psychological models is that they leave the reader to conclude that movements naturally arise to represent the concerns of individuals and groups experiencing cultural strain or status discontent.12 Other scholars, however, argue that the existence of grievance is not a sufficient condition for episodes of collective behavior because discontent is often omnipresent. To illustrate, women and African Americans were denied their civil rights for many decades before their respective rights movements.13

Institutional/Resource Mobilization Models The third and final type of social movement model is the institutional framework, also known as the resource mobilization theory.14 This model holds that the formation of a social movement depends on how well the movement’s leadership is able to raise the resources necessary to institutionalize the social movement. The resource mobilization framework is largely associated with the work of sociologists John McCarthy and Mayer Zald (1973 and 1979) and William Gamson (1975). Thus, the main determinant to successful mobilization is not any type of individual motivation, like self-interest with the economic models or social, psychological or cultural strain with the social/psychological models, but

12 This is also a primary weakness in one of the seminal works on the formation of interest groups, David B. Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951). Truman theorizes that a disturbance in the existing equilibrium between groups in a society causes movements and groups to form. However, he does not explain why some groups mobilize after a disturbance, while others do not. As we have seen, Olsen (1965), Salisbury (1969) and Moe (1981) have explored this difficulty further. Later in this section, sociology’s resource mobilization theorists will conclude that organization and leadership are paramount. 13 Chong (1991) has studied the mobilization of African Americans in the civil rights movement and concluded that individuals will join and contribute to make a group successful. See Dennis Chong, Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). Axelrod (1984) uses game theory (specifically a form of the prisoner’s dilemma game) to show that a theory of “tit-for-tat” based on reciprocity is an effective way to build trust and cooperation among “players.” See Robert M. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984). 14 Jack Walker’s (1984) patron theory, a version of institutional theory, outlined how many labor organizations and civil rights organizations lent assistance to newer and politically aligned groups, helping them overcome resource impediments. Thus, depending on who is willing and available to assist a new organization, the resource hurtle to mobilization might be higher or lower. See Jack Walker, “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” American Political Science Review 77 (1983): 390-406.

53

insufficient resources. Examples of these resources include money, leadership and communication capabilities. Yet, resource mobilization theorists have increasingly concluded that leadership is the essential element. According to resource mobilization theorists Aldon Morris and Suzanne Staggenborg (2002), “Leaders are critical to social movements: they inspire commitment, mobilize resources, create and recognize opportunities, devise strategies, frame demands, and influence outcomes.”15 Leadership is necessary because, “…pre-existing opportunities, like grievances, do not by themselves convince people to organize and join movements.”16 Leaders also have a strategic importance in “recognizing and interpreting opportunities…. Opportunities may be missed or, alternatively, mobilization may be attempted under unfavorable conditions”.17 Morris and Staggenborg note that part of a leader’s strategic importance is their ability to create “political and cultural opportunities”.18 They explain, “To mobilize movements out of these early interactions, leaders offer frames, tactics, and organizational vehicles that allow participants to actively construct a collective identity and participate in collective action at various levels.”19 Movement leaders often construct controversies to “punctuate the seriousness, injustice, and immorality of social conditions while attributing blame to concrete actors and specifying the collective action needed to generate social change.”20 Of course, a complete reliance on leadership can only go so far. Without some psychological or sociological distress (real or imagined), the capabilities of leadership to incite a social movement are minimal. Morris and Staggenborg (2002) concur, “Research has identified key ingredients for the emergence of social movements, including political and cultural opportunities, organizational bases, material and human resources, precipitating events, threats, grievances,

15 Aldon Morris, and Suzanne Staggenborg, “Leadership in Social Movements,” 1. An unpublished essay available at: http://www.cas.northwestern.edu/sociology/faculty/files/leadershipessay.pdf 16 Ibid, 18. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid, 19. 20 Ibid, 24-25.

54

and collective action frames.”21 They conclude, “Although it is doubtful that even the most skilled leaders could mobilize movements in the absence of at least some of these factors, leaders make a difference in converting potential conditions for mobilizing into actual social movements.”22

Top-Down or Bottom-Up? Another method of categorizing the social movements literature is to focus on the direction of the impetus to mobilizing for social action. Two possibilities exist. Some suggest that social movements result from grassroots activism and leaders simply emerge to fulfill a leadership vacuum. Such a movement would fit the description of a bottom-up process. Proponents of the top-down argument believe that the leadership of a movement is a critical component in organizing initial grassroots activism. The economic status theory and social/psychological models fall into the bottom-up category. One finds the fuel of movement mobilization in individuals’ economic, social status or cultural discontent. The rational choice theory and institutional/resource mobilization models represent the top-down perspective. According to this theory, leadership capabilities largely make the difference between potential movements and effective mobilization. The division between these two positions is not as distinctive as it might first seem. Remember that the resource mobilization theorists concede that a minimum level of discontent must exist before leaders can mobilize a social group. Advocates of the economic and social/psychological models grant that leadership must emerge in the early stages of a movement to coordination. Thus the distinctions between these two camps are a matter of emphasis, not absolutes. But where should the emphasis lay in the case of the political mobilization of evangelicals during the 1970s?

21 Ibid, 15. 22 Ibid.

55

Applications of Social Movement Mobilization Theory to the American Evangelical Political Mobilization of the 1970s Two scholars have analyzed the evangelical political mobilization of the 1970s through the application of these various theoretical perspectives. The first, Steven Bruce’s (1988) examination of the “rise and fall of the new Christian right,” finds that the resource mobilization theorists’ emphasis on leadership is most beneficial in trying to understand the genesis of the evangelical political activism. After reviewing all the alternative approaches to the study of social movements, as has been conducted above, Bruce argues that the political evangelicalism movement arose at the crossroads of two social currents: (a) the point where a group feels sufficiently troubled about something to want to act and (b) the group feels that such a course of action might produce their desired results.23 He concludes, “A resource mobilization is actually needed for both these currents. Shared objective circumstances do not automatically produce shared responses. People have to communicate amongst themselves in order to construct a shared definition of the situation as being problematic and as being amenable to rectification.”24 Further, he adds, “Leaders—those people engaged in attempting to mobilize resources—play a vital role in stimulating and directing such communication.”25 The vital communication role leaders perform, Bruce notes, ultimately produces a common mindset. He writes, “Collective action is not simply the automatic response of lots of isolated individuals to circumstances which they find worrisome or troublesome. Bruce holds that for any mobilization to be successful, an additional element must be present, ‘consciousness-raising’.”26 What does this “consciousness-raising” function entail? “People have to be persuaded (a) that they share common concerns, (b) that there is a known and identifiable cause for what concerns them, and (c) that collective action of a

23 Bruce, Rise and Fall, 23. 24 Ibid, 23-24. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid, 34.

56

particular kind will remedy the situation.”27 Thus, leaders are moved from facilitating and organizing functions usually associated with their positions to “consciousness-raising” and “interpretative work” in communicating a common agenda to potential followers. Bruce concludes that this aspect is necessary in mobilizing non-economic social movements because it “is required to move people from their unfocused and unorganized sense of being ill at ease with some aspect of the world to a shared understanding of what is wrong and what can be done about it.”28 As a result of coming to this conclusion regarding the impetus of evangelicals’ initial mobilization into national politics, Bruce spends considerable time throughout the rest of his book detailing the activities of evangelical and conservative elites. He describes evangelical leaders Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips and Paul Weyrich as the “catalysts” of organizational component of the mobilization and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim La Haye, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, Greg Dixon and Billy James Hargis as the essential communicators because “Pre-existing networks were very important to the rise of the new Christian right. The two key messages—‘America is degenerate’ and ‘we can and should act to reverse that degeneration’—were transmitted to the existing audiences for evangelistic television and radio shows, and through the fraternal networks which linked fundamentalist pastors to each other and to their congregations.”29 J. Christopher Soper’s (1994) analysis of the evangelical social mobilization of the 1970s is the other work to apply the various theoretical perspectives outlined in the sociological and organized interest literature. In most respects Soper comes to similar conclusions as Bruce (1988) concerning the origins of the political mobilization of evangelicals. In both works, leadership is highlighted as an essential element, especially in communicating to potential movement members and initiating the mobilization. What Bruce calls

27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid, 67. Bruce excludes evangelical periodicals from this list, but I think a strong case can be made that they were also a part of this communication network. Plus, Bruce’s contemporary, Soper includes journals in a similar list.

57

“consciousness-raising” and “interpretative work” Soper terms “group ideology.” Soper explains, “The theory of social movements proposed in this book asserts that a group’s ideology is an important factor in its mobilization and activism.”30 The author posits, “Ideology is important for social movement formation in at least two ways. First, an ideology legitimates social movement formation by teaching believers that they have a responsibility for influencing particular social outcomes. Second, an ideology helps define group membership and enables organizations to communicate effectively with group members.”31 In similar fashion to the lifestyle concern theory, Soper contends “Social movements tend to emerge and take hold when there is a disruption in the moral order which challenges the coherence, norms or beliefs of an ideology.” The author defines ideology as a system of beliefs that “enables people to constitute a sense of what they value and why they value it.” The potential for collective action is at its peak when some form of social change calls into questions the values or beliefs of an ideology or its adherents or its culture because these social changes make it more difficult for group members to make sense of their lives.32 What is the role of social movement elites in composing and communicating in Soper’s theory? On one of the first pages of Soper’s analysis, he argues that “group leaders” consciously appeal “to the shared in their effort to convince fellow believers to become politically aware and involved.”33 Then, near the end of his work, Soper notes “The fundamentalist institutions of churches, schools, journals, and radio and television media allowed for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others to contact potential group members. Religious institutions did use their moral authority and their organizational strength to influence opinion and raise resources.”34 In sum, the only two detailed theoretical investigations of the political reawakening of American evangelicals both come to similar conclusions. Both

30 Soper, Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. and Great Britain, 29. 31 Ibid, 30. 32 All quotations in this paragraph are from Ibid, 29. 33 Ibid, 2. 34 Ibid, 125.

58

highlight the significance of leaders communicating a worldview to potential movement members as an essential element of the mobilization process. While Bruce (1988) describes his approach as an offshoot of resource mobilization theory and Soper (1994) labels his framework as an ideological theory, they are both versions of top-down models with an emphasis on elite to rank and file communication as an indispensable factor of the mobilization process.35

35 For the rest of this dissertation, I will refer to these basic elements of the Bruce (1988) and Soper (1994) models as the Bruce/Soper ideological theory or simply as the ideological theory.

59

RESEARCH DESIGN To test the Bruce/Soper ideological theory of social movement mobilization, I conducted a political content analysis of five American evangelical periodicals for the period 1960 to 1981. If the ideological theory is correct, and as Soper suggests36 these “journals” were conduits for political cues from evangelical elites to evangelical opinion leaders across the nation, then a content analysis should provide evidence of: • An increase in material calling on evangelical readers to participate in the political system (a summons for activism) prior to the evangelical political mobilization in 1976 (participation cues). • An increase in the positive material within the magazines featuring candidates and political parties that supported the “evangelical agenda” prior to the evangelical political mobilization in 1976 (partisanship cues). • An increase in material within the magazines focusing on issues within the “evangelical agenda” prior to the evangelical political mobilization in 1976 (agenda cues). The “evangelical agenda” featured an emphasis on issues of morality and returning the United States to traditional morality of small town orthodox Protestantism. This agenda included support for: right to life legislation, local blue laws, school prayer and bible reading, censorship of obscenity, allowing public displays of religious symbols, sustaining religious freedom, support and defense of the state of , and support for Christian schools. In addition, this agenda opposed: homosexual rights, women’s rights, illegal drug use, pornography, , “secular humanism” in public schools, alcohol and liberalized divorce laws. The evangelical political mobilization was nationally evident by 1976, but flourished in 1978 and 1979.37 Therefore for this project, I identify 1976 as the

36 Soper, Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. and Great Britain, 125. 37 As detailed in Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), the right of the Christian Right first developed in Orange County, California in the early 1970s. Why did this isolated region become the first to mobilize? California has a history of being a trailblazer in American politics, usually addressing issues before the rest of the nation. This appears to be the case in this instance as well. Notice,

60

demarcation point for the start of the evangelical political awakening. As noted above, local evangelical protests over issues of morality did occasionally erupt before this year, but few signs of a national mobilization were noticed until the 1976 presidential election. For the ideological theory to be validated in this study, evidence of increases in political cues suggesting activism or ideological construction should appear before 1976. Accordingly, the hypotheses for this study are: H1- There will be an increase in material calling on evangelical readers to participate in the political system (a summons for activism) prior to 1976 (participation cues). H2- There will be an increase in the positive material within the magazines featuring candidates and political parties that supported the “evangelical agenda” prior to 1976 (partisanship cues). H3- There will be an increase in material within the magazines focusing on issues within the “evangelical agenda” prior to 1976 (agenda cues).

Significance of Evangelical Periodicals These periodicals are not the only mechanism through which evangelical elites communicated with local evangelical opinion leaders. , religious radio programming, political messages from the local pulpit and informal communication networks are also central to the operation of the ideological theory.38 Periodicals are, however, “important conduits of political information”

however, that even in Orange County, California, elites play a vital role in the emergence of the Christian Right there as well (see pages 12-13, 36, 70 and 95). 38 Fairbanks (James D. Fairbanks, “Politics and the Evangelical Press: 1960—1985,” in Religion and Political Behavior in the United States, ed. Ted Jelen (New York: Praeger, 1989), 245-246), concludes, “There is no one authoritative voice to speak for evangelicals but there is a network of denominations, ministries, seminaries, colleges, and publications that is generally recognized as constituting the mainstream of the U.S. evangelical movement.” And evangelical magazines “have helped to create and sustain this sense of community among evangelicals.” Note, however, that cable television was not widely available until the late 1970s and early 1980s (see Judith S. Duke, Religious Publishing and Communications (White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981), chapter 11 and Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, chapter 2). I am not arguing here that religious journals were the most important or only evangelical source of political information for evangelicals, but I am suggesting that evangelical magazines of comment and opinion were a significant and REPRESENTATIVE mode of communication. I suggest this is accurate because the same community of evangelical elites that published books, broadcast

61

and often the only mode of communication for which we have an objective and systematic record.39 Pepperdine University journalism professor Ken Waters recently authored an article titled “Vibrant, But Invisible: A Study of Contemporary Religious Periodicals” (2001) in which he described religious periodicals as an under-utilized database for scholarly research. Quentin Schultze, a leading scholar of religious communication, describes religious “monthly or biweekly journals of comment and opinion,” as “the most significant religious media in the United States during the twentieth century” and “a significant part of the public square where communities of religious interpretation can establish common agendas for discussion and coordinate their thinking for collective political action.”40 If magazines are “the interior dialogue of a society,” as John F. Kennedy once declared, the political content of evangelical periodicals would seem to be a superb reservoir of historical communications between the evangelical community’s elites and the community’s opinion leaders across the country.41 Interestingly, Schultze’s work in religious communication supports the basis of the Bruce/Soper ideological theory’s premise. Schultze depicts religious magazines as one instrument possibly holding a community of believers together. Religious periodicals, he says, help their respective religious community to “recognize what it believes as well as confirm those foundational beliefs in the midst of a wider culture that might dismiss such beliefs or even attack them.”42 While, cable television in the last twenty years has certainly become the leading medium in this process, religious magazines were still the

television and radio programs, and lead major revivals were also largely responsible for the content of these periodicals. 39 Lawrence Mullen, “An Overview of Political Content Analysis of Magazines,” in The American Magazine: Research Perspectives and Prospects, ed. David Abrahamson (Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1995), 4. 40 Quentin J. Schultze, Jr., ed., Christianity and the Mass Media in America: Toward a Democratic Accommodation (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003), 98-101. 41 Quentin J. Schultze, Jr., ed., American Evangelicals and the Mass Media: Perspectives on the Relationship Between American Evangelicals and the Mass Media (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1990), 119. 42 Schultze, Christianity and the Mass Media, 99.

62

principal source of communication for most American evangelicals during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s (see Table 1 below). Table 1: The Evolution of Cable Television in the United States

Year43 Number of Cable Percentage of Subscribers in the American Homes United States with Cable Television 1977 12,168,450 16.6%

1978 13,392,910 17.9%

1979 14,814,380 19.4%

1980 17,671,490 22.6%

1981 23,219,200 28.3%

1982 29,340,570 35.0%

1983 34,113,790 40.5%

1984 37,290,870 43.7%

1985 39,872,520 46.2%

Schultz is also in agreement with Bruce and Soper that it is not just religious beliefs that these publications fortify. They also help their readers to understand appropriate ways of understanding “human culture, including the media and popular culture, but also politics, economics, and the sciences.”44 Thus, they are “a means for a community of faith to locate itself in the wider world.”45 Religious sociologist Nancy Ammerman concurs explaining that religious periodicals “kept ideas and leaders before the people” and “perpetuated

43 Source: The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2005 (New York: World Almanac Books, 2005), 310. 44 Schultze, Christianity and the Mass Media in America, 99. 45 Ibid, 100.

63

an evangelical view of the world, even in a time when the culture and the rest of religion seemed hostile to it.”46

The Concept of Political Cues in Research The study of the transmission of political cues has a long history within the study of religion and politics. However, much of the research to employ political cues as a concept investigates whether clergy can shape the political views of their congregations. Religious leaders enjoy a good deal of public trust, and citizens often look to outside sources of assistance in understanding complex social problems.47 Scholars have found that clergy do take advantage of their position, transmitting political cues through by preaching about political subjects, putting political messages and announcements in bulletins, allowing political literature to be placed in vestibules or even placing the material there themselves and hanging signs and banners in the sanctuary.48 Indeed, some have argued that it is easier for clergy to shape congregants’ attitudes than to mobilize them for political action.49 While there is some debate concerning the degree of effectiveness of these cues in altering the political opinion or behaviors of church attendees50, there is little doubt that these transmissions do take place and have

46 Nancy T. Ammerman, “North American Protestant Fundamentalism,” in Media, Culture, and the Religious Right, ed. Linda Kintz and Julia Lesage, chapter 3 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), 86-88. 47 Henry E. Brady, and Paul M. Sniderman, “Attitudinal Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 1061-1078; Michael R. Welch, David C. Leege, Kenneth D. Wald, and Layman A. Kellstedt, “Are the Sheep Hearing the Shepherds? Cue Perceptions, Congregational Responses, and Political Communication Processes,” in Rediscovering the Religious Factors in American Politics, ed. David C. Leege and Layman A. Kellstedt, 235-254 (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1993). 48 James C. Cavendish, “To March or Not to March: Clergy Mobilization Strategies and Grassroots Anti-Drug Activism,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 203-223 (: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); and James L. Guth, John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, and Margaret M. Poloma, “Pulpits and Politics: The Protestant Clergy in the 1988 Election,” in The Bible and the Ballot Box, ed. James L. Guth and John C. Green, 73-93 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997). 49 Welch, et. al., “Are the Sheep Hearing the Shepherds?” 50 Cavendish, “To March or Not to March”; Paul A. Djupe, “The Plural Church: Church Involvement and Political Behavior” (Ph.D. diss., Washington University of St. Louis, 1997); Paul A. Djupe, “Cardinal O’Connor and His Constituents: Differential Benefits and Public Evaluations,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 188-202 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Joel S. Fetzer, “Shaping : The Role of the Local Anabaptist Pastor,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford

64

at least some influence. In 1995 Kellstedt et al. analyzed the 1994 National Election Study and found that 43 percent of evangelical Protestants felt their church leaders were advising them on how to vote, 71 percent of them voted, and 94 percent of those voters selected the Republican candidate. While cautioning their readers that causation is always difficult to determine, these findings seemed more than a coincidence. Even if evangelical elites were sending political cues, what evidence is there that their readership were influenced by them? The field of mass communication has spent considerable time addressing this question. Generally, most communication theorists believe that the news media people watch or read influence their opinions and worldviews.51 However, controversy erupts when researchers attempt to quantify how much influence the news media has on their readers’ attitudes. Neuman, Just and Crigler (1992) have posited a “constructionist model of political communication” arguing that consumers of mass communication are only moderately influenced by the content of news media because of the “lens” through which they filter political information. Among these lenses are an individual’s partisanship and religious identification. This leads to a further question: what happens when a media source aligned with the reader’s lenses is a source of political communication? It seems safe to assume that information provided from this source will be less filtered. This assumption is supported by the research. Robinson and Goren (1997) investigated the impact upon individuals of knowing that information they were provided came from religious conservative elites. As one would expect,

and Laura R. Olson (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Christopher P. Gilbert, The Impact of Churches on Political Behavior: An Empirical Study (Westport, CT: Greenwoood Press, 1993); James L. Guth, “The Mobilization of a Religious Elite: Political Activism Among Southern Baptist Clergy,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 139-156 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); Ted G. Jelen, The Political Mobilization of Religious Beliefs (New York: Praeger, 1991); Ted G. Jelen, “Notes for a Theory of Clergy as Political Leaders,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 15-29 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); and Kenneth D. Wald, “Religious Elites and Public Opinion: The Impact of the Bishops’ Peace Pastoral,” Review of Politics 54 (1992): 112-143. 51 See Maxwell McCombs, and Sheldon Gilbert, “News Influence on Our Pictures of the World,” in Perspectives on Media Effects, ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, chapter 1 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam Associates, 1986).

65

evangelicals readily accepted information and opinions they believed came from their community’s elites, even if the validity of the information was dubious. For a review of the literature concerning how religious individuals avoid psychological discomfort by (a) selectively attending to sources of information, such as religious television, books, magazines, which bolster their religious beliefs, and (b) selectively avoiding sources such as the secular mass media, which might challenge their faith, see McFarland (1996) and Buddenbaum and Stout (1996).

What is Content Analysis? Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, concepts or trends within material or sets of material. These words and concepts are then systematically identified and categorized according to pre-defined criteria. Usually a researcher will attempt to discover patterns in the content of the material over time. The items being analyzed can be private, such as personal journals, letters or diaries, or public, as with books, journal articles, newspapers, essays, interviews, historical documents, speeches, advertisements, television programs and movies. If content analysis is performed correctly, someone else should be able to apply the same criteria in the same manner as the researcher, and arrive at similar conclusions about the contents of the material in question. There are two forms of content analysis, quantitative and relational. Quantitative content analysis involves computing the number of times a word or phrase is used within a selected text. This type of analysis can be conducted by hand or with a computerized text-scanning program. While this method is attractive because it is completely objective and creates quantifiable data, it usually results in the researcher ignoring the context within which the words or phrases were used. Other drawbacks to using quantitative analysis include that a researcher must completely identify all the synonyms and variants of the word

66

or phrase that could be used in its place and that cartoons and photographs cannot be analyzed.52 Relational analysis differs from quantitative analysis by focusing on the general message and purpose of text. Rather than searching for specific words or phrases, relational analysis attempts to categorize entire articles or books into categories based upon their content. Usually this type of analysis is conducted by hand to allow the classifier to consider the entire context of the text. While this method is attractive because it allows the analyst to consider entire texts, rather than just counting words, it also allows for researcher bias to contaminate the results.53 This can be checked, however, through the application of intra- coder reliability tests (see below). Janet Johnson and H. T. Reynolds (2005) outline four general procedures for conducting a content analysis. The first step is deciding what materials to include in the analysis. This potentially involves two decisions: (a) selecting materials germane to the researcher’s subject and (b) adequately sampling the actual material to be analyzed from that population. The second task in any content analysis is to define the categories of content that are going to be measured. While constructing these categories, the researcher must make sure the categories relate to the research topic and that the categories and their content are both valid and reliable. The third step is to choose an appropriate unit of analysis. Is your focus the content of single words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, entire articles, books or speeches? The final objective is to determine a system of enumeration of the content being coded. How does the researcher plan on determining the content of his selected material? Is he or she going to physically count words, use a computer program to scan text for words or phrases, scan the table of contents or the index? Holsti (1969) provides five general guides for completing the second task described by Johnson and Reynolds, constructing content categories. First, the

52 See an online guide to content analysis by the Writing Center at Colorado State University- http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/content/index.cfm. 53 See an online guide to content analysis by the Writing Center at Colorado State University- http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/content/index.cfm.

67

categories should reflect the purposes of the research. This is commensurate with the first step described above. Second, the categories the analyst creates should be exhaustive, meaning that there must be a category into which each relevant item can be placed. It is often difficult to create exhaustive categories, thus content analysts often establish a category for those items determined to be unclassifiable. Third, the categories should be mutually exclusive, meaning that each item to be coded should only be capable of being placed in only one sub- category. Next, the categories should be independent, meaning that the assignment of one item to a sub-category should not affect its assignment into other sub-categories. Finally, the sub-categories should be derived from a single classification principle. This means that you cannot construct your sub- categories around different units of analysis, because this will result in violating the rule of exhaustive categories mentioned above. There are common problems associated with the use of content analysis as a research technique. These potential problems include: a) selective survival, b) incomplete records, c) unavailable records, d) reliability, e) validity and f) ability to generalize results. There is little a content analyst can do to avoid selective survival and incomplete or unavailable records. There are, however, useful strategies for avoiding the other pitfalls listed. First, to avoid a problem with reliability of the analysis, meaning that the coder is unbiased, effective and consistent in applying the proper standards for categorizing the material, numerous sources suggest employing intra-coder tests. Remember that if a content analysis is constructed properly, another researcher should be able to utilize the same method and arrive at the same results. Thus, intra-coder tests measure the degree of reliability by having multiple coders categorize the same material. It is important to realize that coding errors cannot be completely eradicated because of human nature. Therefore, the Writing Center at Colorado State University, citing Gottschalk (1995), suggests that 80% is an acceptable margin for reliability. An intra-coder reliability test was conducted on Monday, May 8th and Tuesday, May 9th by four fellow graduate students. Each student was given a

68

brief introduction to my coding method and observed me re-coding an issue of Christianity Today. Each of the graduate students then proceeded to independently code five issues randomly selected from this analysis. Three issues of Christianity Today and one issue each of Christian Life and Moody Monthly were used. Over 50% of the time all four graduate students identified the same political content that was selected in the original analysis. Over 77% of the time 3 of the 4 graduate students concurrent with the selection in the original analysis. Over 84% of the time, 2 of the 4 graduate students agreed with my analysis. In only 3 instances did less than 2 individuals not agree on the identification of a specific piece of political material. These results seem to validate my analysis considering those who were testing my coding had little previous knowledge of the evangelical sub-culture and undoubtedly found much of the terminology within the periodicals confusing. Second, to avoid a problem with validity of the analysis, meaning that the analysis is measuring what it claims to be measuring, a researcher should carefully follow the steps for constructing their categories as outlined above, carefully describe the method for placing material in the categories for the reader and only conclude from the analysis what the results legitimately support. Again, the description of the method should be clear enough for another analyst to replicate your findings. Finally, to avoid a problem with generalization one must use caution in the selection of materials to analyze. The materials used must be representative if one wishes to generalize the results of their content analysis to a larger population of material. Despite these potential problems with employing content analysis, there are also many advantages to it as a research technique. Content analysis is non-reactive, meaning that the researcher does not influence the subject of the investigation, as is often a problem with interviewing. Content analysis is relatively inexpensive as a research method because often the materials to be analyzed are publicly available. This technique also allows for both quantitative and qualitative analysis, an opportunity not available with many statistical

69

examinations of datasets. Lastly, content analysis allows for historical investigation because the material under scrutiny often captures temporal change.

Previous Research Limited content analyses of evangelical periodicals have previously been performed. Robert Wuthnow conducted a content analysis of the leading evangelical periodical Christianity Today in chapter 9 of his widely read work, The New Christian Right (1983). Wuthnow compared the political messages of articles during the period from 1969 to 1970 with similar messages of articles during the period from 1979 to 1980. He found that only twelve of the 219 articles he analyzed during the 69/70 period were “devoted to political themes (5.5% of the total), compared with thirty-two articles in 1979-80 (15.4%).” He also concluded that the quality of the political stories had also shifted because “the articles in the latter period also tended to encourage greater political involvement, whereas the earlier ones had been largely critical of involvement.”54 A second scholar, sociologist Wesley Miller, conducted a political content analysis of a random sample of twelve issues of six publications from 1955 to 1980 to test the politics of lifestyle concern model. The publications he used included: Moody Monthly, Christian Beacon, Sword of the Lord, Baptist Standard, Christian Standard and the Western Recorder. Miller concluded, “no significant temporal trend in lifestyle concern, political concern, or calls for political action existed in evangelicalism/fundamentalism between 1955 and 1980 in the nation as a whole or within the Snowbelt or the Sunbelt.”55 This is interesting because Miller’s results, if valid, would seem to refute the ideological theory that Soper and Bruce propose. James David Hunter (1987) used content analysis of four evangelical periodicals to determine if articles addressing a decline in American morals

54 Robert L. Liebman, and Robert Wuthnow, eds., The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation (New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983), 173. 55 Wesley E. Miller, Jr., “The New Christian Right and Fundamentalist Discontent: The Politics of Lifestyle Concern Hypothesis Revisited,” Sociological Focus 18, no. 4 (October 1985): 333.

70

increased from the period 1950 to 1980. This scholar compared the articles published in Christianity Today, Eternity, Moody Monthly and His Magazine using five-year intervals and found that “commentary addressing specific moral problems has increased at a steady rate.”56 James D. Fairbanks (1989) conducted a political content analysis of Christianity Today, Christian Herald and Eternity for the period 1960 to 1985. He found wide variation in the political content of the three over the period, but overall he found “that all three of the evangelical periodicals were giving significant coverage to political topics long before the New Right’s efforts to mobilize evangelicals got under way.”57 Each of these previous analyses suffers from serious problems. Wuthnow only analyzed the content of a single evangelical publication. Miller analyzed several publications with only regional circulations. In addition, one has difficulty categorizing several of his publications within the evangelical mainstream. Hunter’s analysis only considered content concerning commentary on moral problems, thus not really a political content analysis at all. Fairbanks only analyzed editorials for Christianity Today and the Christian Herald but looked instead at featured stories for Eternity. Fairbanks also switched from considering the title and text of the editorials to making decisions based on “the title and of the synopsis given on the Table of Contents page” for the feature stories in Eternity. All of these problems prevent scholars from being confident a methodologically legitimate political content analysis of evangelical periodicals has ever been conducted.58

56 Hunter, James D., Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 61. 57 James D. Fairbanks, “Politics and the Evangelical Press: 1960—1985,” in Religion and Political Behavior in the United States, ed. Ted G. Jelen (New York: Praeger, 1989), 251. 58 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 188- notes, “There has been a notable politicalization of subject matter in evangelical periodicals. More articles address politics and more of these articles do so with engaged or adversarial language.” The endnote that accompanies this pass reads, “I owe this information to a dissertation in progress at the University of Chicago Divinity School by Kristen Burroughs Kraakevik.” I contacted Ms. Kraakevik and obtained a copy of her dissertation, titled “The Political Mobilization of White Evangelical Populists in the 1970s and Early 1980s.” While she has clearly reviewed much of the same material I have for my dissertation, she does not conduct a systematic content analysis but rather uses articles to

71

This Project To conduct this research, I relationally analyzed five evangelical periodicals from the time period of 1960 to 1981. Five criteria guided my selection of these journals. Each magazine had to: (a) have a national circulation during the period of investigation rather than a regional distribution, (b) have a large circulation during the period of investigation, (c) be non-denominational, (d) not have political news as its main focus, and (e) were produced by separate publishing companies. I avoided evangelical news magazines like World and Focus on the Family Citizen, because the sheer number of political articles would not fluctuate over time since their entire focus is news and opinion. Obviously for my findings to be legitimate, I would want large, national and non-denominational circulations. A thorough search in the spring of 2004 yielded five magazines that fit all or most of these criteria: Christianity Today, Charisma, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision. Schultze (2003) describes Christianity Today as “probably the most influential and certainly the most publicly visible of the broadly evangelical periodicals in America.”59 Established in 1956 through a joint effort of Rev. Billy Graham and theologians Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga, Christianity Today was designed to be a nondenominational evangelical alternative to the mainline Protestant publication, Christian Century. According to Kenneth Shipps in the reference book The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America (1999), “Graham wanted a less liberal voice that would speak to evangelical clergy and intelligent laypeople, many of whom were in fundamentalist and denominational churches supporting his crusades.”60 The magazine, however, would not simply limit its focus to theological controversies. In the words of its

illustrate important points in her historical analysis of the movement. Thus her study is not a true political content analysis. 59 Schultze, Christianity and the Mass Media in America, 125. 60 Kenneth Shipps, “Christianity Today,” in The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America, ed., Ronald Lora and William H. Longton, 171-180 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 174.

72

very first editorial from October 15, 1956: “Christianity Today will apply the Biblical revelation to the contemporary crisis, by presenting the implications of the total Gospel message for every area of life.” In doing this, “Christianity Today departed from the dominate twentieth century liberal Christian paradigm and presented instead a distinctly conservative political, economic and social framework.”61 When he was appointed as the magazine’s first editor, Carl F. H. Henry sent out a new release announcing the journal’s founding and explaining its objectives. It read in part: “It is our purpose to win over those of liberal leaning and training” and “Our objective is the formulation of a biblical ethic and attention to its application to the personal, social, political, and economic dimensions of life.”62 “The magazine of evangelical conviction” as its subtitle declares, was printed approximately 24 times a year during the period of investigation. According to Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, its circulation was 249,054 in 1965 and 130,000 in 1975, making it the largest subscription evangelical magazine in-print during this time period. Table 2- Christianity Today Circulation Figures

TITLE YEAR CIRCULATION

Christianity Today63 1965 249,054

1970 153,000

1975 130,000

1980 185,000

1985 185,000

Charisma and Christian Life magazines were eventually combined into one publication, Charisma and Christian Life in 1987, but during this time period

61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Source: Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directories, 11th, 16th and 21st ed. A Bowker Serials Bibliography (New York: R. R. Bowker Co.).

73

they were separate magazines. Charisma was the nondenominational flagship monthly publication of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements and Christian Life was a non-denominational monthly publication of the mainstream to slightly orthodox evangelical community. Because it was only established in 1975, Charisma has been excluded from all of the qualitative analyses in this project. It was analyzed, however, to confirm that its pages fit with the generally patterns evident in the other publications. This was essential considering the growth and growing importance of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements within the evangelical community during this time period. If this publication was not exhibiting the same patterns as the other publications, our findings would be highly questionable. Fortunately, all trends evident in this analysis were also found within the pages of Charisma from 1975 to 1981. In 1975, Christian Life reached 86,000 subscribers according to Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. Christian Life regularly featured articles, interviews and cover stories on today's most recognized Christian leaders, speakers and musicians, as well as commentary on current issues. Table 3- Christian Life Circulation Figures

TITLE YEAR CIRCULATION

Christian Life64 1965 No Figure

1970 No Figure

1975 86,000

1980 87,800

1985 95,000

Table 4- Charisma Circulation Figures

TITLE YEAR CIRCULATION

64 Ibid.

74

Charisma65 1965 Did Not Exist

1970 Did Not Exist

1978 38,015

Decision magazine is the official monthly publication of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and was established by Rev. Graham in 1960. Similar to Christianity Today, Decision features articles concerning , American culture and some limited discussion of world events and politics every month. The circulation for Decision magazine was 2 million in 1965 and grew to 3 million in 1975.66 However, it is important to understand that Decision’s circulation figures are composed differently from the other publications in this analysis. In part, Decision’s circulation figures are very high because the magazine was sent “free of charge” to all dues paying members of the Billy Graham Association. Numerous issues are also distributed free of charge to clergy throughout the country. Thus while Decision’s circulation figures seem impressive, it is important to keep these factors in mind. Table 5- Decision Circulation Figures

TITLE YEAR CIRCULATION

Decision67 1965 2,000,000

1970 3,600,000

1975 3,000,000

1980 3,000,000

1985 2,000,000

65 1978 data for Charisma from Kristen Burroughs Kraakevik, “The Political Mobilization of White Evangelical Populists in the 1970s and Early 1980s” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago Divinity School, 2005) Appendix p. 279. 66 Source: Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directories, 11th, 16th and 21st ed. A Bowker Serials Bibliography (New York: R. R. Bowker Co.). 67 Ibid.

75

Moody Monthly first went to print in 1900 and for many years challenged Christianity Today’s position as the leading evangelical periodical for the nation. While non-denominational, the publication’s affiliation with the largely Baptist- fundamentalist Moody Institute in Chicago probably prevented the magazine from gaining a larger market share. Originally Moody Monthly echoed the normal evangelical view that the church should stay out of politics, but Carpenter (1999) notes that as the editors of the magazine felt increasingly threatened by the counter culture and modernism, Moody Monthly changed its editorial position away from separatism in the political realm to “calls for Christian social action as fundamentalists evangelicals responded to the upheavals of the late sixties and early seventies.” And Corrigan (1986) notes that the magazine took “an even more explicitly conservative position” during this time period. This monthly publication ceased publication in July of 2003 because of declining subscription rates, but in 1965 Moody Monthly reached 102,368 subscribers and their circulation grew to 260,000 subscribers in 1975.68 Table 6- Moody Monthly Circulation Figures

TITLE YEAR CIRCULATION

Moody Monthly69 1965 102,368

1970 108,703

1975 260,000

1980 300,000

1985 230,000

After selecting these five magazines, I conducted a survey of leading religion and American politics scholars across the nation to see if there were any

68 Ibid. 69 Ibid.

76

major evangelical periodicals I had missed. I received responses from Corwin Smidt of Calvin College, Laura Olsen of Clemson University, Ted Jelen of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Paul Djupe of Dennison University, Alan Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma, D.G. Hart of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Doug Trouten of the Evangelical Press Association and Bob Wenz of the National Association of Evangelicals. Overall, the feedback was supportive. The comments included “looks like a good list” from Ted Jelen and “I’d say this is a good list. If nothing else, it’s a good sampling of what’s out there” wrote Laura Olsen. The content analysis was conducted in the following manner. I scanned each issue, page by page. The title of every article was read along with the first paragraph. I scanned everything in each issue, including all types of articles, photographs, advertisements and cartoons. The only items found within the magazines to be excluded from this analysis were letters to the editor and book reviews. Letters to the editor were excluded because they would not necessary reflect the political opinions of those to published the periodical. Book reviews were excluded because it often became difficult to determine if the political content was that of the reviewer or if the reviewer was simply restating the arguments of the book’s author(s).70 If the indication was that the article was non-political, I simply scanned the rest of the article looking for any political references, especially the names of the two major political parties or important politicians of the time period. If I found political material later in the article I stopped and read the article in its entirety to ensure I did not miss any important material. If the article was deemed political, I filled out a coding sheet indicating the size of the published material, its prominence within the magazine and what type

70 It is essential to note that these magazines had complete control over the content of all articles and advertisements within their pages. An example of Christianity Today exercising this power can be found in Robert B. Fowler, A New Engagement: Evangelical Political Thought, 1966— 1976 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 66 in which part of leading evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer’s article was edited to prevent a controversial political statement from appearing in the pages of the periodical. During my own research, I encountered several instances were the magazines would provide a brief explanation to it readers as to why it decided not to allow a certain advertisement or contribution to print.

77

of political material I had encountered (a blank coding sheet is provided in the APPENDIX F). Each article was only coded once, so multiple references to political personalities or issues within one article did not increase the number of instances of political material being identified. Finally, I tabulated the results by entering the coding sheets into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

Significance of Project This project provides not only the opportunity to test a contemporary and important theory of social movement mobilization; it also provides some important clues to our understanding of the rise of one of the most important political phenomena in contemporary American politics, the emergence of the Christian right. By gaining a better understanding of what caused their initial mobilization, we can perhaps gain a better appreciation of what motivates them. We may also find hints as to what causes other social and political movements to materialize. While this investigation is historical in focus, the findings may help resolve the question as to what degree are contemporary movement supporters influenced by movement organizers. A criticism often voiced by contemporary critics of the Christian Right is that the movement’s leadership focuses upon controversial social issues to distract their followers from focusing on economic issues that might benefit from. If evidence exists that elites have been directing the direction of this political engagement from its conception, this criticism would seem to gain validity. How important are elites in these mobilizations and to what extent do they direct the political opinions and behaviors of their followers?

78

CHAPTER 4 POLITICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS FINDINGS

General Findings

Amount of Political Content The political content analysis was conducted from January through July 2005 using a combination of archives at three libraries; the Centennial Library at Cedarville College (Cedarville, OH), the Everett L. Cattell Library at Malone College (Canton, OH) and King Library at Miami University (Oxford, OH). In total, 3,729 pieces of content containing political material were coded, including 2,257 pieces in Christianity Today, 791 pieces in Moody Monthly, 552 pieces in Christian Life and 129 pieces in Decision.1 As Graph A demonstrates, the individual instances of political content in these four magazines generally increased from 1960 to 1976, and then momentarily decreased during the first half of Jimmy Carter’s presidency before rising again during the 1980 presidential election race. It seems as though the internal split within the evangelical subculture during and after the heated 1976 presidential race between Carter and Gerald Ford resulted in these evangelical magazines decreasing their coverage of political matters during the first half of the Carter presidency. While these publications continued to speak out against Carter’s policy positions, they minimized their discussions for fear of alienating many of the evangelicals who continued to support Carter. Slowly as Carter’s popularity with white evangelicals eroded over the course of his term, the magazines felt more confident of their footing when speaking against the White House.

1 Therefore, 60.53% of the coded content is from Christianity Today, 21.21% is from Moody Monthly, 14.8% is from Christian Life and 3.46% is from Decision. So 39.47% of the coded content is not from Christianity Today. I wish the distribution was more even between the periodicals, but Christianity Today was published more often and had more pages to address political issues.

79

How did this increase of political content vary by each magazine? As Graphs B & D show, the amount of political material within the pages of Christianity Today and Christian Life largely follows the general pattern established at the aggregate level. Their political content increased from 1960 to 1976, declined during Jimmy Carter’s presidency and then rose during the 1980 presidential election (See Graphs B & D in APPENDIX A). This pattern is less observable in Moody Monthly and Decision (Graphs C & E in APPENDIX A). In these two publications the amount of political content seems inconsistent throughout the years before reaching its zenith during the 1980 presidential election.

Type of Content Within what type of material was this political content found? During the content analysis, each piece of political material was categorized as to if it appeared in a: a) cover story, b) non-cover feature, c) non-feature, d) editorial, e) advertisement or f) a photograph or cartoon. Composing a system of classification posed the problem of making sure that they were applied consistently across all four magazines. For example, what Decision magazine considered a feature story might be different than what Christianity Today considered a feature story. Therefore, generic rules were constructed for determining what type of content each piece of political content was considered. For material to be assigned as a cover story, a photography or title pertaining to the article had to dominate the cover of that issue of the magazine. In some of the magazines, the cover story was actually labeled, but even when it was not it was usually quite easy to determine which article occupied this prominent position. While the numbers of cover stories containing political content is small, one can see from Graph F that this number reached its greatest levels during the 1976 and the 1980 presidential elections. For material to be considered from a non-cover feature, some reference to the story had to appear on the cover along with the cover story, but in a secondary position, or some reference had to occur in the editor’s notice at the

80

beginning of the issue. Graph G indicates that the number of non-cover features with political content increased significantly when comparing the early 1960s to the late 1960s and the 1970s. Political material was classified as from an editorial, if the magazine labeled the article an editorial. It was necessary to use such a system because the distinction between “straight” reporting on political matters and editorializing was not always apparent. To illustrate, consider this article not labeled by Christianity Today as an editorial but explicitly labeled as a “news story” which clearly advocates one political position on the abortion issue. In “Rebirth of Opposition? The Abortion Issue” Christianity Today (April 23, 1971, page 36), the author states that “Many evangelicals are rethinking their position on this topic.” He then ends the “news story” with the subjective statement, “Tissues anyone?” Another problem resulted from Christianity Today’s practice of having dozens of “editorials” in each issue. As has already been noted, the distinction between the straight news reporting and editorializing within most of these periodicals was not always easy to discern. Therefore, only the lead editorial in Christianity Today was classified as an editorial. To have done otherwise would have resulted in Christianity Today’s editorial line dominating the results within that category. Using this system of classification produced the results illustrated in Graph H across all four magazines during this period. Notice the very low numbers of editorials with political content each year, but also observe that the quantity seems to spike during election years and during the Watergate scandal. For material to be considered from a non-feature story, no reference to the story could appear on the cover of the magazine or in the editor’s notice of that issue. Graph I indicates that the number of non-feature stories containing references to political or policy matters remained fairly consistent throughout this time period, fluctuating between approximately 100 and 135 stories per year. As one would suspect, observable spikes seem apparent during each election cycle and during the unfolding of the Watergate scandal.

81

Political references were considered to be from advertisements if they appeared in space that was purchased by an outside party. Usually it was clear if the content was within an advertisement, but other times this decision became murkier. Fortunately, the publications would often label questionable content as an “advertisement” if there was any doubt. Graph J shows the yearly occurrences of political content within advertisements, with large spikes during the Watergate scandal and the 1976 & 1980 presidential elections. A final classification of material was cartoons and photographs. Christian Life magazine actually had a regular section in each issue called “The News in Photos.” Although these photographs often dealt with ecclesiastical news, occasionally they ventured into the political realm. Few discernable patterns can be drawn from the data displayed in Graph K because of the small numbers of political photographs recorded for each year. What is noticeable in this classification schema is that the two most prominent types of content, cover stories and non-cover features, were experiencing an unsteady but increasing politicalization throughout this time period, completely consistent with the ideological theory. This tendency of advertisers to use the pages of evangelical magazines to print political messages also seems to have risen.2 The increase in importance of political matters within these evangelical publications cannot only be seen in the number of political references and the type of content within which these references were found, but also the length of the content within which these political statements were found. Graphs L through R show the length of the articles within which coded political material was discovered each year. Graph L shows the number of brief content, less than 1/12th of a page, within which political content was found each year. Graph M provides the annual data for content ranging from 1/12th of a page to 1/4th of a

2 Especially noticeable was the increase in advertisements about books concerning political affairs which were advertised between 1972 and 1977. These titles included: Political Evangelism by Richard Mauw (1973), Dictionary of by Carl F. Henry (1973), The Young Evangelicals by Richard Quebedeaux (1974), Politics for Evangelicals by Paul B. Henry (1974), A Charismatic Approach to Social Action by Larry Christenson (1974), Memo for 1976 by Wesley Pippert (1974), God in Public by William Coats (1974), If My People… by Jimmy & Carol Owns (1974) and Vision and Betrayal in America by John B. Anderson (1975).

82

page. Graph N provides the annual data for content ranging from greater than 1/4th to 1/2 of a page. Graph O concerns content ranging from greater than 1/2 to 1 full page. Graph P concerns content ranging from greater than 1 full page to 3 full pages and Graph Q provides the annual data for content from greater than 3 full pages though 5 full pages. Finally, Graph R presents the data for content spanning more than 5 pages of the magazine. What is noticeable from these graphs is that the number of multi-page content containing political references seems to have increased from 1960 to 1976 and then dropped during the first half of the Carter presidency before rebounding significantly for the 1980 presidential election. What is especially interesting is that the larger the length of the classification, the more discernable the trend is toward politicalization (the number of larger political material each year increased as the 1980 election approached). So not only were these periodicals talking more often about politics but they were also publishing longer material concerning political issues. Even in the smaller length classifications, a trend emerges in Graphs M and O toward greater politicalization. Unmistakably, these four evangelical periodicals were experiencing an increase in political content during the period from 1960 through 1981, and this seems consistent with the ideological theory of social movement mobilization. The politicalization within the pages of these periodicals is noticeable not only in the number of political references each year but also in an increasing prominence and length of the content in which these references where found.

Participation Findings Part of this more general politicalization of these evangelical magazines was an increase in the explicit calls for evangelicals to participate in the American political system. This dramatic increase in calls for evangelical political participation, especially after the Watergate scandal, is evident at the aggregate level (Graph S) as well as the individual magazine level (Graphs T, U, V & W). Although probably encouraged by the possibility of a Catholic being elected to the presidency, as early as 1960, these magazines were usually encouraging

83

their readers to be politically active. A November 1960 article in Moody Monthly entitled “Should Christians Go Into Politics?” answers the question in the affirmative declaring that biblically there is nothing to prevent Christians from being involved and it is actually each individuals duty as an American citizen to be informed and involved.3 A month later, another article appeared in Moody Monthly encouraging active “Christian Citizenship.”4 In similar fashion, Christianity Today declared that it was the responsibility of “each and every Protestant churchgoer to get active in one of the 150,000 precincts and learn how politics operates so he or she can become a factor in good government.”5 But these calls for political involvement did not end after the 1960 election. They increased and by the 1970s and 1980s these magazines were printing even more explicit appeals for political activity. In 1972, Moody Monthly called for a “Great Reversal” concerning how American evangelicals approached the political system, with more emphasis on social evils as well as personal evils.6 That same year, Christianity Today declared that it was their “Assignment for Christian Citizens” to get more politically involved7 and urging their readership to “without cutting back on their contributions to specifically Christian agencies, make political contributions as well.”8 Four years later, Christianity Today declared that “Being indifferent is worse than voting for the wrong candidate. Not nearly enough good people are involved in the events that shape our culture.”9 By the 1980 presidential election, Christian Life was providing their readership with “A Believer’s Checklist for Choosing a Candidate.”10 In addition to coding explicit calls for political involvement by evangelicals, instances where an explicit call was not offered but the content provided a positive example, or examples, of evangelicals being politically involved was also

3 “Should Christians Go Into Politics?” Moody Monthly 61, no. 3 (November 1960): 97-99, 101. 4 “Christian Citizenship,” Moody Monthly 61, no. 4 (December 1960): 14. 5 “Christian Responsibility in Political Affairs,” Christianity Today IV, no. 22 (August 01, 1960): 24. 6 “The Great Reversal,” Moody Monthly 73, no. 2 (October 1972): 18. 7 “Assignment for Christian Citizens,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 25 (September 15, 1972): 34- 35. 8 “Dollars for Democracy,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 14 (April 14, 1972): 25-26. 9 “Election ’76: Indifference Is No Virtue,” Christianity Today XXI, no. 2 (October 22, 1976): 37. 10 “A Believer’s Checklist for Choosing A Candidate,” Christian Life 42, no. 7(November 1980): 20-21.

84

tracked (Graph X). Although not as numerous, the record of this type of material displays a similar trend to that of the explicit calls for evangelicals to politically participate. A harmonizing finding is displayed in Graph Y. As these magazines increasingly contained calls for evangelicals to politically participate, there was also a drop-off in statements that the Church should stay out of political matters, dwindling to the point that no calls for the Church to abstain from politics were recorded after 1976. Calls for the Church to stay out of the political realm were often made toward theologically liberal Protestant denominations and Catholics because evangelicals believed that such involvement divided the Church.11 These findings make sense because it seems hypocritical for evangelicals to increasingly encourage their own constituents to participate while criticizing others for engaging in similar activities. The null hypothesis for H1 states that there should not be a marked increase in material calling on evangelical readers to participate in the political system prior to 1976. Clearly, as Graphs S through X demonstrate, this hypothesis cannot be accepted. There was a marked upsurge in participation cues for both direct calls for political involvement and content providing examples of political participation well before 1976. The first null hypothesis is rejected.

Partisan Bias Findings Graph Z depicts the instances of political content determined to contain a partisan bias each year for all four of the publications under investigation. Two points are worth noting. First, notice that during election seasons (every two even years at the national level) the amount of content determined to contain a partisan bias spikes. Surely this is partly a result of the increased attention political races garner during election years, but might also be an indication of the magazines printing messages to help guide their readers in the political arena. Second, comparing the 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1966 national election cycles with

11 Of course, it is probably no small matter that most of the editors and contributors in these evangelical magazines were probably opposed to the political positions these liberal Protestants and Catholics were endorsing.

85

the 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1976 and 1980 election cycles seems to indicate a significant increase in the amount of partisanship during the second period when compared to the first. From Nixon’s presidential campaign forward, the political content in these evangelical magazines seems to have become gradually more one-sided toward the Republican Party, Republican politicians and conservative politics more generally. Little additional information is provided by breaking these partisan bias findings down by each individual magazine (Graphs A1, B1, C1 and D1). One problem is that while the number of articles containing such politically biased messages was considerable, when broken down by both magazine and year, the numbers become fairly small. Nonetheless, several observations can be made. First, in Graph A1, which deals with Christianity Today, the trend toward increasing partisanship is more evident than even in the graph of the aggregate results. According to these results, each successive election cycle produces more partisanship than the preceding one. This pattern holds until the 1980 presidential election in this particular magazine. Second, in Graph B1, which provides data for Christian Life, shows two significant spikes in the amount of partisan content, one in 1968 and one in 1980. This seems like an intriguing disparity between these two magazines. One would normally think of Christianity Today being one of the more moderate of the magazines under investigation, yet it contained far more partisan material during the Watergate scandal and the 1976 elections. Could this be a reflection on the connection between Christianity Today and Rev. Billy Graham and Graham’s known relationship with President Nixon? In Graph C1, covering Moody Monthly, we again see the anticipated spikes during the election cycles but the results here are indicative of the data in Graph A1 for Christianity Today. What is meant by partisan bias? Hopefully some examples will be illustrative. Considerable partisan bias was found throughout all four magazines in varying ways.12 Sometimes the partisan bias was clearly evident and direct.

12 Two points should be made here. First, is that these magazines enjoyed tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service and thus had to avoid being overly partisan. Therefore, any

86

For example, in the issue of Decision that would have reached readers right before the 1968 presidential election there is a prominent picture of candidate Richard Nixon with Rev. Graham at one of Graham’s crusades in !13 Moody Monthly and Christianity Today also ran similar stories and pictures.14 Richard Nixon was clearly a favorite of the editors and writers of these magazines. The editor of Christianity Today admitted directly before the 1972 presidential election that he intended to cast his vote for President Nixon and proceeded to encourage his readers to participate in the election as well.15 In that exact same issue of Christianity Today (October 27, 1972), the editors also printed a quotation from Rev. Graham, in which he admitted he too would cast his vote for President Nixon and observed that “he will probably go down as one of the country’s best presidents.”16 About a month later, an associate editor of Christianity Today also printed that he had cast his vote for Nixon during the election.17 But the bias was not limited to Richard Nixon, it extended to other conservative and especially conservative Republican candidates.18 During the 1964 presidential campaign, Christianity Today rushed to the defense of Republican nominee Berry Goldwater when the “liberal” media began portraying

findings of partisanship as noted in the following pages are remarkable and would probably been more substantial if the external constraints of the tax exemption status were not placed upon them. Second, there are certainly examples that can be found in each magazine illustrating the exact opposite trends I am highlighting here; probably many of these anomalies are in my own research notes. But I highlight the examples herein because after my systematic analysis I feel they are representative of the general trend within the magazines. But please keep in mind that I am aware that Christian Life or Moody Monthly did not always speak positively about the Republican Party or Richard Nixon’s policies. My argument is that they generally spoke positively about the Republican Party, conservative politicians and especially Richard Nixon. 13 “The Steel of Pittsburgh,” Decision 9, no. 11 (November 1968): 8-9; 12. 14 “Report,” Moody Monthly 69, no. 9 (November 1968): 8-9; & “ Searching in the Steel City,” Christianity Today XII, no. 25 (September 27, 1968): 31-32. 15 “Editor’s Note,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 2 (October 27, 1972): 3. 16 “The Religious Campaign: Backing Their Man,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 2 (October 27, 1972): 38-39. 17 “A Boon from the Secular,” Christianity Today XIX, no. 5 (December 6, 1974): 49-50. 18 There were a few instances where content seemed to contain biased statements favoring Democratic candidates. Usually, however, these were conservative southern Democrats. These references were so infrequent I never systematically kept record of them, but I estimate such references to number less than 20 for the entire time period. Even less frequently a message containing a liberal political bias would be discovered but such instances were very rare, probably less than 5 during the period under investigation.

87

his policy positions as too radically conservative.19 When Vice President Agnew was forced to resign, Moody Monthly’s reaction was noticeably apologetic. Rather than forcefully criticizing Mr. Agnew for his lapses in moral judgment, the magazine proceeded to admonish Democrats for their “partisan attacks” against him.20 In their November 1976 issue, which subscribers would have received directly before the 1976 election, Moody Monthly ran a large article about a meeting President Gerald Ford had with major evangelical leaders.21 The article was highly flattering of the candidate and contained a picture of them meeting together. By itself this does not seem highly partisan but it is when one considers the biased treatment Jimmy Carter was concurrently receiving, that is when he and his candidacy were even mentioned (I will return to this point later). Christian Life ran a very favorable cover story about the Governor Ronald Reagan as early as 196822 and then returned him to their cover shortly after the 1980 presidential election, declaring Reagan “Southern California’s #1 Religious Hero.”23 Christianity Today apparently shared their enthusiasm for Reagan’s 1980 victory declaring in their December 1980 issue, “Ronald Reagan’s election day sweep raised the hopes of many evangelical Christians for a more conservative, moral course for the country.”24 Notice that in this statement political conservatism is equated with morality, not political liberalism. The partisan bias within these publications cannot only be seen in what was said about conservative and Republican politicians, but also in what was explicitly said about liberal and Democratic politicians. They explicitly noted in their pages that, unlike the majority of Republican National Convention delegates, most Democratic National Convention delegates in 1968 did not stick

19 “Current Religious Thought,” Christianity Today IX, no. 1 (October 9, 1964): 55. 20 “Mr. Agnew’s Exit,” Moody Monthly 74, no. 4 (December 1973): 22. 21 “President Confers with Evangelicals,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 3 (November 1976): 8-10; 12; 14. 22 “The Reagan’s and their Pastor,” Christian Life 30, no. 1 (May 1968): 24-25; 44-48. 23 “Ronald Reagan: Southern California’s #1 Religious Hero,” Christian Life 43, no. 3 (July 1981): 20-22. 24 “The Religious Right: How Much Credit Can It Take for Electoral Landslide?,” Christianity Today XXIV, no. 21 (December 12, 1980): 52-53.

88

around for the benediction after each night’s ceremonies.25 It should be of little surprise that these magazines were highly critical of Catholic John F. Kennedy during the 1960 presidential election, Christianity Today went as far as asking their readers “Would the Roman Catholic Church Change the Constitution?” in September 196026 and Moody Monthly pessimistically declared in their November 1960 issue that the only thing left for evangelicals to do was to “Vote and Pray.”27 These publications largely supported President Johnson’s stance on foreign policy matters, including Vietnam, but they were highly critical of his liberal social politics, even accusing him of doing whatever was politically expedient on the domestic front to win re-election including providing Americans with wasteful social programs.28 Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern’s policy proposals were also frequently criticized and when spoken about in terms of religion were continuously associated with the theologically liberal clergy these magazines were highly critical of. Without question, however, the most maligned Democratic politician during this period was Jimmy Carter. Almost always all of the magazines commended Carter’s deep religious faith. They described him as the “nicest man you would ever want to meet” and were astonished when they discovered how vast his knowledge of the Scriptures was after his election.29 Yet the pleasantries ended when the topic turned to the political realm.30 One aspect of the 1976 presidential race that has not received adequate attention was the clear attempt by evangelical leaders to keep evangelicals from supporting Carter. At first, those involved with the publication of these magazines did not know quite how to take Carter’s candidacy (in terms of his religion, politics and chances of winning), but by the summer and fall of 1976 there was a movement away from him by most members of the evangelical elite.31 Christianity Today asked their

25 “Democratic Convention Rough on Benedictions,” Christian Life 30, no. 7 (November 1968): 17. 26 “Would the Roman Catholic Church Change the Constitution?,” Christianity Today IV, no. 25 (September 26, 1960): 30. 27 “A Time to Vote and Pray,” Moody Monthly 61, no. 3 (November 1960): 12. 28 “State of the Union,” Christianity Today XII, no. 6 (January 31, 1967): 27-28. 29 “People and Events,” Christian Life 41, no. 7 (November 1979): 12. 30 For example, see “From the Editor,” Christian Life 38, no. 3 (July 1976): 8. 31 Three notable exceptions are Rev. Pat Robertson, David Kucharsky, an associate editor for Christianity Today who took a leave from his position to work full-time for Carter’s campaign, and

89

readers “Should Christians Vote for Christians?” and they concluded that “Christians should not automatically vote for Christians because they are Christians any more than Jews should vote in a bloc for Jews.”32 By September 1976 Moody Monthly was asking its readers “Do We Really Want a in the White House?”33 The intent of this article is clear; Carter “the Saint” might be a very bad president while Gerald Ford “though not as saintly” would be a reliable president. It goes on to state that, “A saint in the White House would not necessarily hold the conservative position on political issues, as evangelical Christians might expect.”34 In that same issue, Chuck Colson wrote that “there was a danger in thinking that a born-again Christian would be a perfect president.”35 A month later, Rev. Graham is quoted in Moody Monthly as saying that “electing an evangelical with the wrong polities is not a good idea.”36 An advertisement in Christian Life asked “What about Christian candidates, who take positions on issues contrary to God’s word?” in an ad for a book about evangelical politics. In July 1976, the editor of Christian Life wrote, “But, it also appears to me that even an inept believer is undesirable. The political scene being what it is today the U.S. desperately needs honest, able politicians in office. Neither the nation nor the cause of Christ can afford the ignominy of a bumbling believer no matter how earnest he may be.”37 The pages of Christianity Today echoed these sentiments, “A ‘converted’ president who has never worked out the implications of his conversion theologically- who reads the Bible ‘devotionally’ but does not apply its specific teachings to his decision making and policies- would be of little more consequence than an unbeliever in

Wes Pippert, a UPI reporter and frequent contributor to several of the magazines under investigation. 32 “Should Christians Vote for Christians?,” Christianity Today XX, no. 19 (June 18, 1976): 32-33. 33 “Do We Really Want a Saint in the White House,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 1 (September 1976): 21-22; 24. 34 Ibid. Notice that, as I often found, the editors and writers in these publications often simply assumed that evangelicals were conservative politically. This mindset may help explain why the evangelicals associated with these magazines were so taken by Carter initially; they simply assumed a fellow evangelical would share their conservative political mindset as well. 35 No title, Moody Monthly 77, no. 1 (September 1976): 21. 36 “Graham Clarifies Position on Bright, Politics,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 2 (October 1976): 10; 13; 15. 37 “From the Editor,” Christian Life 38, no. 3 (July 1976): 8.

90

the same position.”38 By the November 1976 issue, Christian Life was clearly sending a politically biased message to its readers. In talking about the upcoming election, the editor of the magazine wrote, “Jimmy Carter could have simplified the whole matter. All he would have needed to say was it’s true that I live in the South, but I’m not a Southern Baptist, and I don’t have any idea of what you mean by being “born again.”39 Later in that same issue, Christian Life published an instructional article to help their readers cast informed votes for president, entitled “Where do they stand? Issues significant to Christians.” The article describes the election as between, “Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian whose political views and statements have aroused suspicions among some Christians; and Gerald R. Ford, whose testimony may be less explicit but whose politics are more acceptable to many fundamentalists.”40 Within a year of his Administration, these magazines were not parsing their words concerning Carter. Christianity Today was discussing “President Jimmy Carter’s apparent liberal [theological]-conservative [political] schizophrenia….”41 Although not included in the content analysis results, one article in Charisma magazine from this period actually attacks Carter’s religion declaring that the President’s conception of God was nothing more than “mush” with no concrete theological foundation.42 By the 1980 presidential election, the negative portrayal of President Carter was almost without reservation. Christian Life urged their readers to pray for “God to give us strong, Godly leadership again, from the precinct to the presidency.”43 The obvious implication being that the country currently lacked Godly leadership in the White House. Moody Monthly in June of 1980 attacked the Carter Administration’s White House Conference on Families. The article makes in clear that “liberals” cannot be true evangelicals. It further states, “Evangelicals see the Conference as an attempt of

38 “Will an Evangelical President Usher in the Millennium?” Christianity Today XXI, no. 2 (October 22, 1976): 65-66. 39 “From the Editor,” Christian Life 38, no. 7 (November 1976): 6. 40 “Where do they stand? Issues significant to Christians,” Christian Life 38, no. 7 (November 1976): 14-15; 76-78; 97-99. 41 “A Political Machine,” Christianity Today XXII, no. 8 (January 27, 1978): 15-17. 42 “The Great ‘Mush God’,” Charisma 3, no. 7 (June 1978): 12. 43 “Our Nation Needs Your ,” Christian Life 41, no. 12 (April 1980): 26-28.

91

the Administration to expand social control over more people and to extend the protection of the law to the deviant community by redefining “family” to mean anyone living together under the same roof and sharing the same kitchen.”44 In an article appearing earlier in that same issue, Moody Monthly reminded their readers that “It is sometimes better to select a competent non-believer rather than an incompetent believer” and Christian Life published an article “What Your Vote Can Mean” clearly depicting Reagan as moral, Carter as confused and equated evangelicalism with the rising Religious Right in the Republican Party.45 Even when attempting to be neutral towards Carter, the magazine’s bias is evident and the depictions of his candidacy were at best lukewarm.46 The bias evident in these magazines was not limited to the electoral arena. In an editorial entitled “The Vietnam Pact” the editors of Christianity Today showed some clear bias toward American foreign policy as well as American electoral politics. In part the editorial reads, “For four years Nixon- haters have accused him of not wanting to end the war. Now he has fulfilled his pledge.” It continues, “McGovern would have given them all they wanted.”47 There were also occasional content advocating conservative approaches to economic matters, including an article entitled “The Economics of Justice: A Conservative View” which provided readers a “conservative guide to economic policy”48 and an article which asked, “Can Reagan Solve All of Our Economic Problems?”49 Most of the magazines frequently noted that evangelicals were typically conservative politically and tended to vote Republican. After the 1964 presidential election, Moody Monthly prominently noted that, “most evangelicals supported Goldwater”50 and eight years later they declared, “It has been

44 “That White House Conference on Families,” Moody Monthly 80, no. 10 (June 1980): 38-40. 45 “How to Know How to Vote- Election 1980,” Moody Monthly 80, no. 10 (June 1980): 22-24; & “What Your Vote Can Mean,” Christian Life 42, no. 7 (November 1980): 18-19. 46 “Jimmy Carter,” Christian Life 42, no. 7 (November 1980): 22. 47 “The Vietnam Pact,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 10 (February 16, 1973): 34. 48 “The Economics of Justice: A Conservative View,” Christianity Today XXIII, no. 12 (March 23, 1979): 24-30. 49 “Can Reagan Stop Inflation?” Christian Life 43, no. 3 (July 1981): 47. 50 “1964 Top Stories Show Tragedy and Change,” Moody Monthly 65, no. 5 (January 1965): 1-2.

92

documented that evangelicals lean decidedly conservative in their politics- though of course, there are many exceptions.”51 Christianity Today noted in 1967 that, “Many who are theologically conservative also find themselves holding to conservative political convictions, and the vast majority of evangelicals do favor a politics of principle rather than of pragmatic change.”52 Sometimes the bias was less explicit. For example, Christianity Today carried articles of both the 1976 Republican and Democratic National Conventions. When covering the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri the title of the article read, “God and the GOP in Kansas City”. Notice that this title is presented as a clear statement, apparently there is no doubt concerning the religious aspects of the convention.53 But a month earlier when Christianity Today placed a similar title over an article describing the religious aspects of the 1976 Democratic National Convention in Madison Square Garden it read, “The Democrats: God in the Garden?”.54 Apparently there is some question as to if God would be with the Democrats. At other times partisan bias could be seen in who the magazines praised or associated themselves with. Conservative figures like political pundit Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Religious Right activist John Conlan and head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover were frequent contributors to the publications and were cited as authorities concerning political and social matters.55 Several of the journals also ran subscription advertisements and made frequent references to

51 “Religion and the ’72 Election Campaign,” Moody Monthly 73, no. 1 (September 1972): 8. 52 “Who Are the Evangelicals?,” Christianity Today XI, no. 19 (June 23, 1967): 22-23. 53 “God and the GOP in Kansas City,” Christianity Today XX, no. 24 (September 10, 1976): 59- 60. 54 “The Democrats: God in the Garden?” Christianity Today XX, no. 22 (August 6, 1976): 34. 55 See “Summer of Racial Discontent,” Christianity Today XI, no. 21 (July 21, 1967): 27; “The World Council & Secularism,” Christianity Today XII, no. 22 (August 16, 1968): 29; “The Sunday School Can Lead Us Back,” Christian Life 32, no. 1 (May 1970): 36-39; “The Communist Menace: Red Goals and Christian Ideals,” Christianity Today V, no. 1 (October 10, 1960): 3-5; “Communist Propaganda and the Christian Pulpit,” Christianity Today V, no. 2 (October 24, 1960): 5-7; “Soviet Rule or Christian Renewal?,” Christianity Today V, no. 3 (November 7, 1960): 8; 10-11; “An Analysis of the New Left: A Gospel of Nihilism,” Christianity Today XI, no. 22 (August 18, 1967): 3-6; “The Interval Between,” Christianity Today XIV, no. 6 (December 19, 1969): 3-5; “Christians in Washington—Our Only Hope,” Christian Life 37, no. 3 (July 1975): 21; and “You Can Help Guide America,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 2 (October 1976): 47-48.

93

articles printed within conservative publications like Human Events and the National Review.56 A couple of the magazines, including Christianity Today, ran advertisements and articles pushing a “new” periodical called Applied Christianity.57 Applied Christianity was actually a new name for the old publication Christian Economics. Sara Diamond (1995) describes Christian Economics as “aimed primarily at inculcating clergy with a philosophy of anticommunism and libertarian economics. In that respect, Christian Economics was an evangelical version of the 1950s “fusionist” publications National Review and Human Events.”58 Further connecting Christian Economics with the political right was that “Human Events editor Frank C. Hanighen was a frequent contributor to Christian Economics.”59 Although the magazines under investigation occasionally referenced Christian Economics, it was not until the publication changed its name and mission that the magazine received considerable advertising space and press with these journals. Diamond (1995) notes that the group of evangelical elites that formed the Third Century Foundation (especially Bill Bright and John Conlan) discussed in the second chapter, “assumed legal control of the tax-exempt Christian Freedom Foundation, publishers of the “free market” Christian Economics magazine….”60 After taking over the magazine, Bright and Conlan attempted to shift the mission of the periodical from indoctrinating clergy to indoctrinating evangelical laymen and pressing them into political action.61 Christianity Today also regularly published advertisements for the “Conservative Book Club” whose ads described it as “A book club specifically for political conservatives.”62 Another way in which political bias was evident was with the types of political messages the magazines would not associate itself

56 For example, see page 13 in October 25, 1968’s issue of Christianity Today. 57 “Applied Christianity,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 15 (April 26, 1974), 11. 58Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion: Right Wing-Movements and Political Power in the United States (New York: Guilford Press, 1995), 98-99, 173. 59 Ibid, 99. 60 Ibid, 173. 61 Ibid. 62 “Conservative Book Club,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 25 (September 29, 1972): 51.

94

with. For example, Christian Life, and Moody Monthly would occasionally publish articles with liberal political viewpoints, but they would place a disclaimer at the start of these articles stating that the views expressed in the article did not necessarily reflect those of the editors or publishers.63 Similar disclaimers were noticeably absent from articles containing conservative political messages. By the end of the investigatory period (during and directly after the 1980 presidential election) the bias in the magazine’s associations was crystal clear. Christian Life did not hesitate to heap praise on leading Religious Right figures Paul Weyrich and Connie Marshner of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress and warmly embraced their comments about their common “liberal enemies.”64 Bias was also evident in the ways in which the term “liberal” was used. “Liberal” already carried a negative connotation with it in these periodicals because they were opposed to liberal Protestant theology. Soon the phrase was frequently being used in a negative fashion involving political matters as well. A reader quickly notices in these magazines how frequently the phrases “too liberal” and “far left” are printed, yet the phrases “too conservative” and “far right” are almost completely absent. In 1964, Christianity Today declared that the far left was much more dangerous than the far right and warns that is coming to the United States.65 Christianity Today went on to publish an article to “Confirm Your Worst Suspicions About Liberal Media Bias.”66 In another incident Christianity Today blasted the “liberal” Washington Post in August of 1965 for their political reporting, but then eulogized the closing of the politically conservative New York Herald Tribune one year later.67 Moody Monthly ran an article in 1969 titled “The Cross and the Sickle” in which liberalism is almost directly equated with communism.68 Another Moody Monthly article “The New

63 For example see “Perhaps We Should Take a Second Look,” Moody Monthly 75, no. 9 (May 1975): 60-63. 64 “People of the Free Congress,” Christian Life 41, no. 11 (March 1980): 29-30. 65 “The Triple Revolution,” Christianity Today VIII, no. 24 (September 11, 1964): 31-32. 66 “Confirm Your Worst Suspicions About Liberal Media Bias,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 10 (February 15, 1974): 13. 67 See “Uneasy Doubts in a Free Society,” Christianity Today IX, no. 23 (August 27, 1965): 32; and “Death of a Great Newspaper,” Christianity Today X, no. 23 (September 2, 1966): 38. 68 “The Cross and the Sickle…” Moody Monthly 69, no. 6 (February 1969): 26-27; 62-63, 74-75. See also “Facing the Communist Menace,” Christianity Today VI, no. 15 (April 27, 1962): 4-7

95

Protestant Revolt” rails against “the liberal establishment” in the NCC churches and declares that Protestant laymen “are disgusted with a liberal social gospel which would create a Utopia by radical mass movement and political pressures.”69 Bias could also be seen in the amount of space dedicated to the candidates of the two political parties. In a preview of the 1968 presidential election in Moody Monthly, the amount of space devoted toward Richard Nixon and his campaign is noticeable greater than that of all the other candidates individually, perhaps even all the other candidates combined!70 Similarly, a preview of the 1976 presidential election in Christianity Today provides a much larger amount of space devoted towards Gerald Ford and his candidacy when compared with their treatment of Jimmy Carter.71 This tendency was also observed in Charisma. During an issue dominated by political stories during the summer of 1980, Charisma attempted to be balanced by publishing an article favorable toward Jerry Falwell, and consequently also favorable toward the Republican Party and its presidential nominee, and an article critical of Ronald Reagan and favorable toward President Carter.72 The Falwell article is about four times longer than the pro-Carter article. The partisan bias was perhaps most evident (although not coded) in what political events and stories were covered when compared with those that were not covered. For example following the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, Christianity Today printed a transcript of Reverend Graham’s prayer at Nixon’s Inauguration, something not done for Kennedy in 1961, Johnson in 1965, or

which seems to suggest that to be pro-communist is to be “liberal” (especially on page 7) and “Keeping Tabs on Red Religion,” Christianity Today XI, no. 13 (March 31, 1967): 42, which makes the argument that leftist pronouncements by the NCC give aid and comfort to communist. 69 “The New Protestant Revolt,” Moody Monthly 69, no. 1 (September 1968): 16-19. 70 “Religion and the ’68 Presidential Election,” Moody Monthly 69, no. 2 (October 1968): 22-23. 71 “Interviews and Issues,” Christianity Today XXI, no. 1 (October 8, 1976): 66-68. Also notice how positive the information about Ford is when compared to the statements about Carter, especially his Playboy interview. 72 “Minister with a Message,” Charisma V, no. 10 (July-August 1980): 32-36; & “Praying and Weeping for America,” Charisma 5, no. 10 (July-August 1980): 10.

96

Carter, himself a self-described evangelical, in 1977.73 Decision magazines went even further, reprinting President Nixon’s entire 1969 inaugural address and placing a beautiful color photograph of him on their cover, a courtesy not extended to Jimmy Carter 8 years later.74 In fact, Jimmy Carter’s presidential candidacy and victory was almost completely ignored by several of these journals. While Carter’s candidacy was widely discussed in Christianity Today and received its first mention in January 1975, Moody Monthly and Christian Life both ignored the southern Governor until he had secured the Democratic nomination and Decision never mentioned Carter’s name until May of 1977, six months after he had been elected President!75 What makes this publishing decision even more interesting is that in February 1978 the publication reprinted the first public speech former President Gerald Ford gave after leaving office, in its entirety.76 While Decision provided the defeated candidate, President Ford’s comment one full page, President Carter had only had 4 short articles in the back part of the journal printed about him or his administration during the first year he had been in office. If one adds up all of the space dedicated to discussing Jimmy Carter in Decision from the June 1975 issue to the February 1978 issue it does not equal the amount of column inches dedicated to Ford in this one article! Another interesting aspect concerning biased coverage was the yearly decisions to report, or not report, the events at the annual Presidential Prayer Breakfast. Since its inception in 1953, the Prayer Breakfast received regular coverage by at least one and sometimes several of the evangelical magazines under investigation. In fact from January 1960 until December 1981, there was at least one publication covering this event except for four years: 1962, 1977, 1978 and 1980. All four years there was a Democratic president and for three of the four years, Jimmy Carter was president. What makes this even more interesting is that Carter was undoubtedly the most religious man to hold the

73 “The 1969 Protestant Inaugural Prayers,” Christianity Today XII, no. 10 (February 14, 1969): 27. 74 “A Nation Under God,” Decision 10, no. 4 (April 1969): 1; 14. 75 “Religion in Transit,” Christianity Today XIX, no. 7 (January 3, 1975): 37-38; “The Faith of Our Fathers, Running Still,” Moody Monthly 76, no. 10 (June 1976): 8, 12; “From the Editor,” Christian Life 38, no. 3 (July 1976): 8; and “Observations…,” Decision 18, no. 5 (May 1977): 13. 76 “The Reward Is So Great,” Decision 19, no. 2 (February 1978): 4.

97

office during this time period and he surely delivered addresses at the annual breakfast replete with Biblical passages and references. When Decision finally ran an article about Billy Graham’s address at the 1979 Presidential Prayer Breakfast, it was not only the first time that any mention of the Breakfast since Carter became President, but it also included the first photograph of President Carter and Rev. Graham in any of the periodicals since Carter was elected.77 Photographs of Graham with previous presidents had become routine. Graph E1 is similar to Graph Z except that the individual instances of political content judged to contain a partisan bias in Graph E1 contained no ambiguity concerning the partisan bias and required little or no interpretation to understand the message. In the same way that Graph Z showed a shift in the amount of content coded as containing a partisan bias from the early 1960s to the late 1960s and the 1970s, Graph E1 displays a comparable pattern with anticipated spikes during national election years. Notice however, that even within the spikes there seems to be a trend toward increasing partisanship even at this elevated standard. All of the content within Graph E1 is also contained in Graph Z, but the partisan content in Graph E1 was judged to contain a clear and explicit partisan bias. Some examples will help to differentiate the differences between the simple “partisan bias” and “clear and explicit partisan bias” thresholds. “All in a Women’s Day” of the July 1980 Christian Life is a good example of content that met both the “partisan bias” and “clear and explicit” standard. The author spends much of the article describing the evils of “human secularism” and how this negative ideology had corrupted American society and politics. The statement is then made that Vice President Walter Mondale is a “humanist” and that evangelicals must take “all necessary steps to get known humanists out of elected office.”78 This is as explicit a statement as one can find in a publication that has to protect its tax exempt status. In another article that meets the standard for “clear and explicit” partisan bias from Christian Life, “Your Family

77 “Billy Graham in Washington, D.C.,” Decision 20, no. 4 (April 1979): 12. 78 “All in a Women’s Day,” Christian Life 42, no. 3 (July 1980): 14.

98

and the Federal Government,” the author clearly associates the Democratic Party with liberalism and then equates “our liberal enemies” with “secular humanism” and additionally declares, “Too often the actions of these so-called political/social liberals are covert—or at best highly organized and politically financed.”79 “Why the U.S. is in Trouble,” provides an example of this type of article from the pages of Moody Monthly. In one of the most unambiguous attacks on “Liberals, whether political or religious,” this article describes liberalism as “a sick ideology” and directly compares liberalism with socialism and communism: Liberalism, socialism and communism all agree that man and his society are changed by changing his environment and external conditions, rather than by personal forgiveness and redemption.”80 It continues, “Thus religious liberalism contributes to political liberalism and sometimes results in legislation unrealistic to the facts of life and human nature and ineffective in resolving the problems that face us. Social legislation often encourages sloth and laziness, discourages industry, ambition, incentive. Too many come to prefer government doles over accepting personal responsibility for their own future welfare…. Speaking even more directly of the political scene, it should be obvious that if the good society is to come by education and legislation, it is advantageous to have more centralized government which can plan a uniform educational program for all, and legislate it. Modern liberalism with its view of man insists that the entry of government into nearly every facet of social life aids rather than hinders the reach of the good life and society. It is no accident that for many dedicated liberals committed to this good society on a world-wide scale, patriotism is distasteful.81

As each example shows, there is no doubt when reading these articles which side of the political debate the author of the pieces prefers. Therefore, they are categorized as both “partisan biased” and “clear and explicit bias.” Graph F1 shows a line graph indicating the individual instances of political content that was judged to contain an apparent attempt at partisan neutrality. As

79 “Your Family and the Federal Government,” Christian Life 41, no. 11 (March 1980): 29-30. 80 “Why the U.S. is in Trouble,” Moody Monthly 68, no. 6 (February 1968): 20-22. 81 Ibid., 21-22.

99

one would expect, there is a decline in annual appeals toward non-partisanship as the partisanship of the publications increased. This downward trend in political neutrality may have been more pronounced if not for the Watergate scandal and evangelical Jimmy Carter’s presidential candidacy, which temporarily served to fuel the flames of non-partisanship and bi-partisanship within the evangelical subculture. As the aggregate data suggests, appeals for neutrality were more common during the 1960s. A staff writer for Christianity Today in 1966 wrote, “In the complexities of politics it is often difficult—and sometimes well-nigh impossible—for anyone to assert that a given viewpoint is the Christian position.”82 Moody Monthly concurred in the 1967 article “When Christians Disagree,” positing that, “Christianity does not necessarily reflect a conservative or liberal political position.” When discussing the Vietnam conflict specifically and politics more generally in 1970, Christianity Today cautioned its readers, “The problem is that we, as fallible human beings, cannot claim justifiably to have God’s support for our fallible political judgments and actions…. It may well be true that God is on our side, but we have no right to make the claim, either explicitly or implicitly, that we have his support.”83 Four years later, Christianity Today expressed these sentiments again when discussing the Watergate scandal, “It is to say that when we speak [about politics] we should take care to distinguish between the explicit commands of God and the inferences we draw— however compelling they seem—in applying these commands to the issues of our time.”84 As Graph F1 indicates, similar cautionary notes were nearly absent from these journals just six years later. Another type of tracked content was material which suggested that liberal Protestants were incorrect politically as well as theologically. This is important because all of the magazines made abundantly clear that many liberal Protestants were politically liberal. If these evangelical elites cast the political views of theologically liberal Protestants in a negative light, they were obviously

82 “The Church, Politics and the NCC,” Christianity Today XI, no. 1 (October 14, 1966): 35-36. 83 “Churches and the Vietnam Issue,” Christianity Today XV, no. 2 (October 23, 1970): 15-16. 84 “The Humble Voice,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 16 (May 10, 1974): 33.

100

also casting liberal political views in a negative light. It was also observed that in order to avoid overtly discussing political matters and jeopardizing their tax exempt status, the writers and editors of these periodicals would broadly attack liberal Protestants in an ambiguous fashion. Those cases where the attacks shifted to political as well as theological positions are charted for each year for each publication in Graph G1. A good example of this is Moody Monthly’s “Change in the Church” from May 1973 which blamed the steady decline in Mainline church membership with liberal political stances by the leadership of the Mainline denominations.85

Politician Findings Another type of tracked content was references to individual politicians. As would be expected, Graph H1 shows that the references to individual politicians closely resembles the trend concerning overall political content. It steadily rises throughout the 1960s and early 1970s with biannual election spikes and takes a moderate dip following the 1976 presidential election before slightly rebounding during the 1980 election cycle. Table A1 shows the partisan breakdown of these references and the percentages that were judged to be positive, negative and neutral. It should not be surprising that these magazines more often talked about Republicans and, at the aggregate level, were more positive about Republicans than Democrats. The research method employed additionally allowed the tracking of the tone of these references about politicians. Graph I1 shows the number of instances each year when individual instances of material was judged to contain a positive reference to an individual Republican politician. The data points show an increase in these references throughout the 1960s and 1970, slightly decreasing during the Watergate scandal and then falling off after the 1976 presidential election. Examples of positive statements about Republican politicians would include the August 1970 edition of Christian Life which published an article about President Nixon’s recognition as “Churchman of the

85 “Change in the Church,” Moody Monthly (May 1973): 35.

101

Year” by the evangelical Religious Heritage of America, Inc. for “creating an atmosphere for a return to the spiritual, moral, and ethical values of the Founding Fathers”86 and a photograph that appeared in the May 1976 edition of Christian Life showing then candidate Gerald Ford praying with evangelist Jess Moody.87 Christianity Today’s December 12, 1980 issue would also qualify, with an that Ronald Reagan often discusses religion in private with his minister and he “can talk intelligently about Christian doctrine… he knows the Bible.”88 Graph J1 illustrates the cases in which a reference toward an individual Republican politician was judged to contain a negative tone. As would be expected, the instances in which individual Republicans were portrayed poorly were quite limited in the pages of these evangelical periodicals, except during the Watergate crisis. A good example of the limited criticism the Nixon Administration received during the Watergate scandal is a June 1974 article in Christianity Today. It states that President “Nixon has let us down” after detailing how the President had been clearly caught lying about both Watergate and Vietnam. Although the Watergate scandal was clearly the highpoint of Republican criticism during the period of investigation, there were occasions when these magazines expressed discontent with Republicans at other times. An August 1975 article in Christianity Today provides a case in point. The author heavily criticizes Mrs. Ford for comments she made during a nationally televised interview. During the interview, the First Lady stated that she would not be surprised if her daughter had engaged in pre-martial sex and drug use and voiced her support for abortion rights.89 Graph K1 depicts instances in which a reference was made about an individual Republican politician but the reference was judged to be neither clearly

86 “Briefly,” Christian Life 32, no. 4 (August 1970): 8; and “No. 1 Churchman of 1970” Christianity Today XIV, no. 18 (June 5, 1970): 44. 87 “News in Pictures,” Christian Life 38, no. 1 (May 1976): 15. 88 “North American Scene,” Christianity Today XXIV, no. 21 (December 12, 1980): 60. 89 Material discussing the spouse, child or sibling of a politician was considered a reflection of the politician. Thus, negative or positive depictions of Mrs. Ford were classified in President Ford’s material and negative or positive depictions of Rosalyn Carter or Ruth Carter Stapleton was counted in President Carter’s running total.

102

negative nor positive. While we will reference this particular graph later in this chapter, notice for now that the number of neutral references toward Republican politicians clearly declines after the 1976 presidential election. This decline may be the result of two different forces. One is that this decline is a simple reflection of the decline in political material during this period. Another explanation is that as the evangelical subculture became increasingly Republican following the 1976 election, there was no longer any need to be overtly neutral when discussing political controversies. Which Republicans received the most attention from these periodicals? It should not be surprising that those politicians at the highest levels of the government during the period of investigation would receive the most attention. As Table B1 shows (in APPENDIX B) Richard Nixon received the most attention from these periodicals, being the subject of just fewer than 17% of all the stories concerning individual politicians during the period of investigation. The Republican with the next amount of attention was a liberal Republican U.S. Senator, Mark Hatfield of Oregon. President Ford places third in the race, being the subject of just under 6% of all individual politician references during this period. President Nixon was clearly a favorite among the editors and writers of these evangelical periodicals and Nixon’s friendship with the Reverend Billy Graham strengthened this bond. During the 21 years of the investigatory period, sixty-seven individual pieces of political content were judged to contain a reference to the friendship between Richard Nixon and Billy Graham. For example, “From the President’s Pew,” in the November 1969 issue of Christian Life stated, “President Nixon made no secret of the fact that Graham is one of his closest friends.”90 Rev. Graham also often appeared within the pages of these journals praising Nixon, even right before elections. In one article directly proceeding the 1968 election, Graham admitted that he planned on voting for Nixon and he went on to describe Nixon as “a man of high moral principal.”91

90 “From the President’s Pew,” Christian Life 31, no. 7 (November 1969): 30-31; 65-68. 91 “Politics,” Christianity Today XIII, no. 2 (October 25, 1968): 47.

103

Again, right before the 1972 election, Rev. Graham acknowledged he was supporting Nixon in the pages of Christianity Today and further stated that, “he [Nixon] will probably do down as one of the country’s best presidents.”92 If Moody Monthly was correct in 1972 to describe Billy Graham as the white evangelical subculture’s “political spokesman” then certainly these statements carried considerable weight and the relationship between Nixon and Graham helped to portray Richard Nixon in a vary favorable light.93 In similar fashion to content about individual Republican politicians, records were also kept concerning individual Democratic politicians. Graph L1 illustrates the number of positive references to individual Democratic politicians each year in all four journals. Concurrent with Table A1 and Graph I1, this graph shows that the amount of content judged to contain a positive reference to a Democratic politician is smaller than for Republicans. Of interest are three spikes of this graph. The first, albeit a minor increase, is during the early stages of the civil rights movement in 1964 & 1965 when the Democratic Party took more of the lead in the fight to end segregation in the South. The second spike, during the early to mid- 1970s, parallels the breaking of the Watergate scandal. The third spike in positive content about individual Democrats matches the campaign of Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter for the presidency. Surely, much of the content that constitutes this spike are direct references to Carter and his campaign. It is also true that Carter’s campaign and the considerable support he received from white southern evangelicals, temporarily debunked the assumption of many northern white evangelicals that all true evangelicals were Republicans. An interesting point should be iterated. During the first part of Carter’s candidacy several of these publications ran articles about Carter and his faith. Initially, evangelicals seemed to enjoy the considerable exposure Carter brought to the evangelical subculture. In addition, evangelicals, like many Americans, longed for “a man of the people” following the corruption uncovered during the

92 “The Religious Campaign: Backing Their Man,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 2 (October 27, 1972): 38-39. 93 “Election-Time Report to the Nation,” Moody Monthly 73, no. 2 (October 1972): 56-67.

104

Watergate investigations and Governor Carter seemed to fit the bill.94 Only after the editors and writers of these publications better understood where Carter stood politically did they turn against his candidacy. Despite this, those magazines that talked about Carter and his campaign continued to portray him positively when discussing his faith and personality.95 Usually they only reported negative stories about his campaign and political positions.96 While positive references about Jimmy Carter did constitute 37% of the positive references to Democrats in the entire study, other Democrats were positively discussed. A clear pattern was evident however. Southern conservative Democrats were more often portrayed positively than northern liberal Democrats (except on the issue of civil rights). A good example is a March 1968 Moody Monthly favorable profile of Mobile, Alabama’s mayoral candidate Lambert C. Mims, a white southern .97 Graph M1 depicts the individual instances of political content judged to contain a negative reference toward an individual Democratic politician. Due to the low numbers of articles coded in this category, possibly a reflection of the researcher being overly conservative in his assessments, there is no clear trend except a clear spike during the 1960 presidential election and during the Carter presidency and the 1980 presidential election. It is interesting to note that 57% of the negative stories about individual Democratic politicians during this period were about either Catholic John Kennedy (24%) or political liberal Jimmy Carter (33%). The negative stories about Kennedy focused more on his religious faith

94 For an example of Carter being treated reasonably well early in his campaign, see “Carter’s Credibility,” Christianity Today XX, no. 14 (April 9, 1976): 31. 95 See, for example, “Inner Healing” Christian Life 38, no. 3 (July 1976): 16-17; 53-55. 96 For two exceptions see “The Great ‘Mush God’,” Charisma 3, no. 7 (June 1978): 12 and “Stapleton Denies ‘only a man’ Quote,” Moody Monthly 79, no. 1 (September 1978): 18, 22. 97 “Meet Mobile’s Next Mayor,” Moody Monthly 68, no. 7 (March 1968): 34-35, 105-106.

105

rather than any specific policy positions98, while just the opposite was true for Jimmy Carter.99 Graph N1 illustrates the individual instances of political content judged to contain a neutral reference to an individual Democratic politician. Notice the increase in neutral references to individual Democratic politicians during the 1976 presidential campaign and the first part of the Carter presidency and then the steady and steep decline from 1978 through 1981. If one compares Graph N1 with Graph K1, it becomes apparent that politically neutral references were declining during the Carter administration. Either a politician was good or bad, there was very limited middle ground. A good example of this polarized thinking can be seen in the title of this article, “Whose Side Are You On?,” from the February 1980 issue of Moody Monthly.100 Which Democrats received the most attention from these periodicals? Again, it should surprise no one that those politicians at the highest levels of the government during the period of investigation would receive the most attention. As Table B1 shows (in APPENDIX B) Jimmy Carter received the most attention from these periodicals, being the subject of 13% of all the stories concerning individual politicians during the period of investigation. The Democrats with the next amount of attention were Presidents Johnson (5.5%) and Kennedy (5%). Another way to consider how individual politicians were discussed is to focus on the length of the material devoted to them. Every political profile was separated out in these four magazines during the investigatory period of a length greater than 1 page. There were 27 political profiles of politicians covering 1 page of length or greater. Of those, 19 described Republican politicians and only 8 were of Democrats. Of the 8 profiles of Democrats, 3 were of southern conservative Democrats. Clearly, even during the 1960s and 1970s there was a preference for Republicans in these magazines.

98 For example see “Hate,” Christian Life 21, no. 9 (January 1960): 57; “The Religious Issue,” Moody Monthly 61, no. 1 (September 1960): 14; and “Bigotry or Smear?,” Christianity Today IV, no. 9 (February 1, 1960): 20. 99 For example see “Graham Clarifies Position on Bright, Politics,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 2 (October 1976): 10, 13 and 15; and “Decision ’76: What Stand on Abortion?,” Christianity Today XX, no. 25 (September 24, 1976): 54. 100 “Whose Side Are You On?,” Moody Monthly 80, no. 6 (February 1980): 25-27.

106

The null hypothesis for H2 states that there should not be a marked increase in positive material within the magazines featuring candidates and political parties that supported the “evangelical agenda” prior to 1976. In short, there should not be evidence of bias or preferential treatment towards one political party or its candidates leading up to the 1976 election. Clearly, as Graphs Z through N1 demonstrate, this hypothesis cannot be accepted. There was a marked upsurge in partisanship cues at both the party and individual politician levels well before 1976. The second null hypothesis is rejected.

Evangelical Political Leader Findings What about evangelical leaders who became involved in political matters? How were they portrayed within these journals? Table C1 shows the data concerning these matters. The individuals represented in this table are not politicians (during this period) but they were evangelical leaders who became involved in political affairs. Most of them founded political organizations (for example, Falwell’s Moral Majority, Bryant’s Save Our Children, Robison’s Religious Roundtable, Schlafly’s Concerned Women for America, and STOP ERA, Marshner & Weyrich’s Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress and Bright’s Third Century Foundation). Others listed in the table were evangelists who became involved in political matters on their own (including, Robertson, Swaggart, McIntire and Hargis). Rev. Graham was excluded from this list because his level of political engagement never matched the involvement of these other individuals. As Table C1 shows, Rev. Jerry Falwell dominated references about politically involved evangelicals during this period, accounting for about 30% of all such references. Anita Bryant places second with about 18% of all discussions. Also interesting is the large degree to which these references about politically involved evangelicals were judged positive. Sixty-four percent of the references about Jerry Falwell were deemed positive as were 84% of the materials concerning Anita Bryant. For example, Christian Life wrote an article about Rev. Falwell receiving the “1979 Clergyman of the Year” award and

107

published a very positive article about Falwell and his political positions right before the 1980 election.101 A 1977 Christianity Today article was titled “Let’s Hear It for Anita Bryant!” and that same year Christian Life wrote favorably about “Anita’s Crusade.”102 At the same time however, support for Falwell and other evangelical leaders involved in political affairs began to erode as the editors and writers of these publications turned a more critical eye toward their endeavors. Moody Monthly reminded its readers in September of 1980 that “There is no single ‘Christian’ position on these controversial matters, yet many evangelical leaders presume to speak God’s mind on them.”103 The article then goes on to remind their readers about the Billy James Hargis sex scandal and that these evangelical political leaders were “only men.” The editors at Christianity Today wrote, “Evangelical leaders themselves are asking some unflattering questions about those among them who are aggressively organizing and mobilizing evangelical political opinion and action, but who are Johnny-come-lately to political concerns.”104 So while many evangelical political leaders enjoyed early support and encouragement from these magazines and when one surveys the entire period their coverage is generally favorable, this support showed signs of weakening in the months leading up to the 1980 election. One almost walks away with the impression that these evangelical elites felt they had helped to create a monster but were now having a difficult time controlling it. Overall, however, most of the references about these evangelical leaders were heavily positive in tone and supportive in nature, reflecting the subculture’s own positive attitude toward political involvement and conservative political positions.

101 See “People and Events,” Christian Life 41, no. 7 (November 1979): 15; and “Jerry Falwell: ‘Let’s Love America,” Christian Life 42, no. 5 (September 1980): 36-37. 102 “Let’s Hear It for Anita Bryant,” Christianity Today XXI, no. 18 (June 17, 1977): 6 and “Anita on Crusade,” Christian Life 39, no. 1 (May 1977): 16-17. 103 “Shall We Join the New “Christian Crusade?,” Moody Monthly 81, no. 1 (September 1980): 20. 104 “Evangelicals Jump on the Political Bandwagon,” Christianity Today XXIV, no. 18 (October 24, 1980): 20-23, 25.

108

Political Organization Findings In addition to tracking references about evangelical political leaders, references were recorded concerning political organizations (see Table D1). This was the portion of this project I wish most I could reconstruct. The multitude of organizations discussed overwhelmed my template of organization names from categorizing many references. Many early organizations have faded as there was strong competition early in the process for dominance, or several of these early organizations combined into the organizations we recognize today. Rather than creating categories with specific names of organizations, a better approach would have been to construct broad categories surrounding certain policy areas grouping the assortment of early organizations in that fashion. Early on I recognized this difficulty concerning early anti-abortion and pro-choice groups and I implemented this plan for that policy. In hindsight, I should have done the same for other policy areas because the results would have been clearer. As Table D1 indicates, Falwell’s Moral Majority outpaced all other organizational references, being the subject of 16% of all such material. This position seems to confirm that this group was considered at this time the principal of the new Christian Right organizations. Notice however that only about 55% of these references were considered positive. Two organizations opposed to the agendas of many of the emerging new Christian Right organizations placed second and third with high percentages of negative references, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Abortion policy organizations were the subject of many references, reinforcing this topic’s image as one of the chief concerns of evangelical elites during this period.105 The Christian Action Council and Christian Voice also received considerable positive attention in these periodicals, following the Moral Majority.

105 It should be noted that if I would have categorized these organizations based on policy area, I believe pornography would have competed with abortion in terms of attention. There were many local, state and national “decency” organizations mentioned during this time period.

109

General Public Policy Findings Graph P1 illustrates the instances of political content containing a discussion of some public policy issue. A clear trend is evident. Public policy issues were increasingly being discussed throughout the 1960s into the 1970s. There is a slight decline during the 1976 election, when the editors discovered that not every evangelical was a Ford supporter and Republican, but then it rebounds during the 1980 presidential election. There is little doubt that an increase in the discussion of public policy issues took place during this time period and this increased attention predates the major mobilization of evangelicals during the 1976/1980 presidential election cycles.

Moral Public Policy Findings To gain a better understanding of this interest in public policy issues, moral public policy issues were designated from non-moral public policy issues. I hesitated to introduce this classification because what may not seem like a moral issue for some individuals may be an essential moral issue for another (poverty programs come to mind). Nonetheless, certain issues consisting of a moral element have clearly been emphasized by evangelical leaders, including abortion, pornography, prayer in public schools, drug and alcohol abuse, the teaching of the theory of evolution, the Equal Rights Amendment and women’s liberation more generally, homosexual rights, gambling and capital punishment. Graph Q1 provides the data for moral issues across this time period. Again, the same trajectory as was apparent in Graph P1 is evident. From the 1960s through the mid 1970s, there was a vivid increase in the discussion of moral public policy issues. Clearly much of the increase in the discussion of public policy issues revolved around these moral issues. While there seems to be evidence of increases in political material throughout many of the categories that have been analyzed to this point, this immense increase in the dialogue concerning moral issues surely accounts for much of the increase in political content throughout this time period. What moral issues were being discussed in the pages of these magazines?

110

Abortion Graph R1 illustrates the data for material concerning abortion policy. While the data spikes during presidential election periods, the decisive increase in the discussion of this issue is unquestionable. What’s more, the discussion on the pages of these periodicals seems to foreshadow the emergence of abortion as a major element of evangelical concern in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While the elites represented within the pages of these periodicals clearly did focus on the abortion issue before most lay evangelicals across the country, one interesting finding emerging from this research is the debate which occurred within the evangelical elite community over the issue in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When the issue first became a subject of debate during this time period, not all evangelical elites argued that abortion was immoral or unbiblical and many often labeled abortion as a “Catholic issue.”106 At first, many discussions concerning abortion seemed to indicate that therapeutic abortions would be acceptable to God and to think of abortion as murder was “a little simplistic.”107 One article in Christian Life attempted to provide a biblical justification for therapeutic abortions.108 Evangelical opinion on the topic was so moderate that a panel of evangelical scholars in 1968 endorsed a series of moderate abortion guidelines approved by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in May of that same year. This group of evangelical scholars issued a statement that read, in part: “Birth control decisions [including therapeutic abortions] may be based on such factors as psychological debility, family size, and finances, the declaration says. As for the various methods, the evangelicals said this is not a religious issue but a scientific one, to be determined in consultation with a

106 See “Abortion: ‘Holy Innocents’?” Christianity Today XIV, no. 16 (May 8, 1970): 39-40. 107 See “Abortion—Is it Moral?” Christian Life 29, no. 5 (September 1967): 32-33; 50-53. 108 Ibid. This article argues that therapeutic abortions are biblical because the Scripture makes a distinction between the relative importance of a fetus and of women in Exodus 21:22-24. According to this Scripture, “If as men are quarreling, a pregnant woman is struck, so that she miscarries, without any further mischief to herself, the striker must pay such fine as the woman’s husband imposes upon him, as a payment of the untimely birth; but if any further mischief follow, then it must be life for life, and eye for an eye.” According to the author, “the death of the fetus can be compensated by money but the death of an adult must be matched with the execution of the person involved. Here the Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult. Thus, the Bible would appear to disagree with the official Catholic view that the tiniest fetus is as important as an adult human-being.” (p. 50).

111

physician.”109 Even representatives of both the NAE and Christianity Today signed a declaration in November of 1968 with very moderate language concerning the issue of abortion.110 Christianity Today declared in 1967 that “many Protestants find it difficult to take a solid stand because they see no clear New Testament teaching on the subject.”111 Another explanation for the lukewarm response resulted from the strong opposition toward abortion from the Catholic Church. Many evangelicals felt that if the Catholics were against abortion, then good evangelicals should not be against it.112 Slowly however, the message concerning abortion that emerged from these magazines coalesced around the idea that evangelicals had a moral obligation to oppose abortion in the political arena, even if that meant aligning themselves with Catholics on this particular issue.113 Christianity Today had the following to say regarding the matter: “Abortion ought not to be regarded as a Catholic issue because Catholic leaders oppose it- any more than liquor or gambling is a Southern Baptist issue because Southern Baptists have been in the forefront of campaigns against these practices at the state level.”114 Almost instantly, moderate arguments concerning abortion were absent from the pages of these periodicals and a harsher tone enveloped their discussion of the abortion debate. Abortion was soon described as “more sinister than birth control” “evil” and the “murder” of “helpless unborns”

109 “Evangelical Scholars Endorse Birth Control,” Christianity Today XII, no. 25 (September 27, 1968): 33-34. 110 “Groups—Declaration,” Moody Monthly 69, no. 3 (November 1968): page number uncertain. 111 “Inter-Faith Debate on Easing Abortion Laws,” Christianity Today XI, no. 15 (April 28, 1967): 43. 112 See no title, Christian Life 29, no. 2 (June 1967): 15; and “Abortion: ‘Holy Innocents’?,” Christianity Today XIV, no. 16 (May 8, 1970): 39-40. 113 See “What Price Abortion?,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 11 (March 2, 1973): 39; “Anti- Abortion: Not Parochial,” Christianity Today XIX, no. 22 (August 8, 1975): 22; and “Is Abortion a Catholic Issue?,” Christianity Today XX, no. 8 (January 16, 1976): 29. Why this happened I am not completely sure and it is probably a topic to which future research should be focused. Was it that the evangelical elites simply determined through an internal debate amongst themselves that abortion was not biblical or, as some suggest, did evangelical elites recognize that abortion was the perfect moral issue to which an evangelical and conservative Catholic political coalition could be forged? 114 “Baptist Bombast,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 14 (April 12, 1974): 31.

112

“monstrous” and comparing abortion to cannibalism and the Holocaust.”115 A writer in the pages of Christianity Today in early 1971 argued that, “Many evangelicals are rethinking their position on this topic.”116 The language pertaining to abortion not only became harsher but opposition to abortion was portrayed as a noble “Reverence for Human Life” and those who supported abortion were characterized as depriving “an innocent unborn child of life.”117 By the time of the Roe v. Wade decision in February 1973, the consensus within these publications were clearly against abortion and were considering the possibilities of a political alliance with conservative Catholics on the issue.118 By the 1976 presidential election, the pages of Christianity Today were regularly admonishing its readers for not being active enough on the issue and encouraging them to become involved. Abortion provides one of the clearest validations for the ideological theory. It is evident that elites were out in front of lay evangelical opinion on this topic and the elites in these periodicals then attempted to direct lay opinion concerning the matter to reflect their policy preferences.119 And after 30 years of hindsight, the strategy seems to have worked.

115 See “The War on the Womb,” Christianity Today XIV, no. 18 (June 5, 1970): 24-25; “Financing Murder,” Christianity Today XV, no. 9 (January 29, 1971): 22; “Will an Evangelical President Usher in the Millennium?”, Christianity Today XXI, no. 2 (October 22, 1976): 65-66; and for the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust see “Where Silence Is Guilt,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 8 (January 18, 1974): 32 and “Twisted Logic…” Christianity Today XVII, no. 6 (December 22, 1972): 24-25. 116 “Rebirth of Opposition? The Abortion Issue,” Christianity Today XV, no. 15 (April 23, 1971): 36. 117 See “Reverence for Human Life,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 17 (June 9, 1972): 8-12 and “No Right to be Born?,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 3 (November 10, 1972): 39. 118 “Abortion Decision: A Death Blow?” Christianity Today XVII, no. 10 (February 16, 1973): 48. 119 Unlike many other topics under analysis in this work, one cannot help but notice the plethora of articles concerning abortion emerging from the pages of Christianity Today and the absence of similar material in the other publications. I think this is a reflection of the status of Christianity Today in comparison with the other publications. While all of these publications served to influence opinion leaders in the evangelical community, Christianity Today was the most sophisticated of them all. This publication was directed towards the upper echelons of the evangelical subculture (theologians, teachers, preachers, writers). Therefore, it should not be surprising that a debate that took place during the late 1960s and early 1970s within the elite circles of the evangelical subculture would be most fully evident in this particular journal.

113

Pornography & Obscenity Graph S1 depicts the data for discussions of public policy regarding pornography and obscenity. Again, the upward trend is apparent through the periodic spikes. While pornographic and obscene material was always a concern for the evangelical community they began discussing it more in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The emergence of the counter culture in the 1960s surely accounts for much of this increase. But this attention to this area of public policy also likely helped inspire evangelicals to get involved in the political arena. And these magazines did use this issue in this regard. As early as 1966, Moody Monthly encouraged evangelicals to get involved in the fight against pornography, including utilizing boycotts, litigation and organizing into political pressure groups.120

School Prayer & Bible Reading The attention these journals paid toward the issues of organized prayer and Bible reading in public schools, illustrated in Graph T1, departs from the normal trend found throughout this work. Rather than increasing over time, attention to this issue peaks early following the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court decisions on the matter and then ebbed and flowed throughout the remainder of the investigation. This issue is also unique in the difference of opinion present in different journals. The more fundamentalist Moody Monthly came out strongly opposed to the Supreme Court decisions121, in one 1963 article arguing that, “No nation can turn its back on God without facing the consequences.”122 This was an issue Moody Monthly used to prod its readers to become more politically involved.123 Most arguments presented in Christianity Today, however, seemed to defend the Court’s decision as the best decision for all the parties involved. Specifically they argued that officially sanctioned prayer and Scripture reading in

120 “Let’s do something about the Mind Smears,” Moody Monthly 67, no. 3 (November 1966): 24- 26, 48. 121 See “Who Is Undermining the Constitution?” Moody Monthly 65, no. 2 (October 1964): 1-3; “Taking the Bible from the Schools,” Moody Monthly 64, no. 1 (September 1963): 20-23, 84-85; and “Bringing the Bible Back,” Moody Monthly 67, no. 6 (February 1967): 19. 122 “Is the Supreme Court Right?” Moody Monthly 63, no. 11 (July-August 1963): 16. 123 “The Feud Over School Prayer,” Moody Monthly 68, no. 4 (December 1967): 18-20, 33-34, 42.

114

public schools might be turned against Protestants someday.124 On similar grounds, Christianity Today repeatedly came out against proposed Constitutional amendments to allow school prayer, in one editorial arguing, “…passage of the amendment would mean that Mormons could mandate the reading of the Book of Mormon and Catholics could force children to pray to Mary.”125/126 Despite Christianity Today’s position, they apparently realized that their position was unpopular with many readers, and hence they avoided the topic throughout most of the 1970s, whereas Moody Monthly and to a lesser extent Christian Life continued to highlight this specific moral issue.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Graph U1 presents the data for political content containing a discussion of drug and alcohol abuse policy. The low number of cases falling within this category each year prevents any great analysis. Despite this, one can see a clear jump in concern over drug and alcohol abuse within these magazines during the 1960s.

Evolution Graph V1 illustrates the instances of discussing public policy regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools. Again, the low number of cases for each year within this category prevents any firm conclusions, but there did seem to be an increase in attention involving this issue during the early 1970s, clearly before the great mobilization of evangelicals in the 1976 and 1980 presidential elections.

ERA & Women’s Liberation Graph W1 depicts the instances of political content containing a discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment or public policy towards women’s liberation more generally. This is another category which suffers from low

124 “Prayer in the Schools,” Christianity Today XI, no. 19 (June 23, 1967): 23. 125 Articles showing Christianity Today’s support for the Supreme Court decisions include “Church –State Separation: A Serpentine Wall?,” Christianity Today VI, no. 21 (July 20, 1962): 29-31; and “Making No Amends for Prayer,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 5 (December 3, 1971): 31-32. 126 “What About the Becker Amendment?,” Christianity Today VIII, no. 19 (June 19, 1964): 20-22.

115

numbers. What is noticeable is a slight increase leading into the 1976 election cycle and a tremendous spike during the 1980 and 1981 period. Not only was 1980 a presidential election year, but it also was nearing the deadline for ratification of the proposed ERA resulting in the increased attention.

Homosexual Rights Graph X1 presents the number of instances of political content containing a discussion of public policy concerning homosexual rights across all years of the investigation. The line depicted in this graph returns to the familiar trajectory of a jagged increase from the early 1960s to the 1980 presidential election. While there were occasional voices within these periodicals warning their readers that evangelicals, “have much to learn from the account of how Christ ministered to the adulteress” there was little support for expanding civil right protections to this minority group.127 The editors and writers within these publications cheered Anita Bryant’s efforts against homosexual rights in the late 1970s, admonished the mainstream media for providing the group with so much attention and encouraged readers to write government officials, circulate and sign petitions and work for the election of Christians to public office who believed that “homosexuals should be retrained by suitable laws.”128 Without question, the discussion of homosexual rights as public policy had increased and was increasing as the evangelical mobilization was taking place.

Sexual Education Another moral issue that was focused upon in these journals before the increase in evangelical turnout was sex education, as shown in Graph Y1. There was a tremendous amount of attention on this topic during the late 1960s and early 1970s. If you remember from the second chapter, this was one of the main

127 “Gay Liberation Confronts the Church,” Christianity Today XIX, no. 24 (September 12, 1975): 14, 16-17. 128 See “Anita Bryant Wins Battle Against Gays,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 11 (July-August 1977): 8, 10; “’Unhappily Gay’: From the Closet to the Front Page,” Moody Monthly 78, no. 5 (January 1978): 62-67; “Homosexuality: Part IX- Militant Christian Compassion,” Christian Life 40, no. 7 (November 1978): 64-67; and the quotation can be found it “That Gay Drive for Acceptance,” Moody Monthly 76, no. 3 (November 1975): 23-24.

116

issues that galvanized the early mobilization of evangelicals in Orange County, California during this time period. On this issue, Christian Life and Moody Monthly seemed more concerned than Christianity Today, both in terms of number of discussions and the tone of the stories.129 This moral issue is unusual in that it garnered the most attention earlier in the time period and then received less attention as evangelicals were mobilizing. Nevertheless, the increase in attention on this topic does precede the spike in evangelical turnout in 1976 and 1980, consistent with the ideological theory.

Gambling & Capital Punishment Graphs Z1 and A2 illustrate the amount of attention the issues of gambling and capital punishment received in these periodicals over the span of the investigation. While the low levels of discussion inhibit much analysis, there does seem to be a slight spike in the years directly before the increase in evangelical political mobilization, consistent with the research hypothesis. The evangelicals represented within the pages of these periodicals were almost uniformly opposed to legalized gambling but opinion was slightly more mixed concerning the application of the death penalty.130 The null hypothesis for H3 states that there should not be a marked increase in material within the magazines focusing on issues within the “evangelical agenda” prior to 1976. Clearly, as Graphs P1 through A2 demonstrate, this hypothesis does not seem to be acceptable. There was a marked upsurge in the discussion of moral issues leading up to 1975, especially concerning the topics of abortion, pornography, and homosexual rights, which are easily identifiable as traditional evangelical policy concerns.

129 Compare “The Church and Sex Education,” Christian Life 30, no. 2 (June 1968): 36-37; and “Behind the Sex Education Smoke Screen,” Moody Monthly 70, no. 4 (December 1969): 24; with “Sex Education in Public Schools,” Christianity Today XIII, no. 25 (September 26, 1969): 5-8. 130 “Gambling: Parasite on Public Morals,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 17 (June 8, 1973): 4-6.

117

Non-Moral Public Policy Issue Findings A second categorization of public policy issues was non-moral issues and Graph B2 provides the annual aggregate data for this category. Again, an apparent surge in discussion of these issues is observable throughout the 1960s, but especially in the 1970s leading up to the 1976 presidential election. The graph clearly shows that non-moral public policy issues were being discussed more frequently, just as was the case concerning moral issues. While not observable from the data, I can also inform you that the intensity of these public policy discussions was also noticeably more intense as one moves throughout the period of investigation, peaking during the 1976 and 1980 election cycles. It is also interesting how the numbers in this category decrease following their peak in 1974 and return to their 1960 levels. This may be a reflection of two phenomenon: a negative reaction following the Watergate scandal and a desire not to offend southern readers concerning the non-moral politics of the Carter administration. Watergate rather explicitly showed evangelical elites that they were not all-knowing concerning political matters. Hence a subsequent drop in discussion of policy issues they did not feel absolutely certain on resulted. In addition, Carter’s campaign and election in 1976 surprised many evangelical elites when they discovered that many southern evangelicals were Democrats and supporters of Governor Carter. There were many non-moral public policy issues that were coded during this content analysis, but several issues deserve special attention because of what they reveal about the evangelical subculture during this time period. The first is poverty, whose data is presented in Graph C2. Poverty, like so many other types of political content already discussed, displays the now typical pattern of haphazardly increasing during the 1960s and 1970s, only to drop-off following the 1976 election. What I found surprising considering the portrait of evangelicals typically painted today, is how often the pages of these magazines spoke about poverty and the issues surrounding poverty. Throughout the early 1970s especially, these evangelical elites seemed to be having a conversation with themselves about what a Christian’s proper response to the issues of

118

poverty should be. These writers did not always simply blame the victim. There was recognition that social structures sometimes placed individuals in these types of unfavorable situations and these same structures also sometimes made escaping difficult. While there was little support for large government programs to assist those less fortunate, the general message did seem to indicate that evangelicals did have a moral obligation to assist the poor personally.131 Another surprising finding was the early attention paid to environmental policy. Keeping in mind the low numbers of data points represented, Graph D2 depicts a clear difference these evangelicals paid to environmental policy from the period 1969-1976 and 1977-1981. What’s more, the message within this material concerning environmental policy also shifted as the years passed from about 1972 to 1973. During the earlier period, pieces within these magazines were generally supportive of progressive measures to protect “God’s creation.” The lead editorial in the September 1970 issue of Moody Monthly ask its readers to support environmentally friendly legislation, while the July 1971 edition of Christian Life quizzed its readers about their E.Q. (“environmental quotient” a play on intelligence quotient).132 In similar fashion, Christianity Today labeled the possibility of continued environmental damage “Terracide” (meaning land suicide) in a 1971 editorial.133 But just a few years later the message emerging from these publications on environmental policy had completely shifted. By 1973, Christianity Today complained about “Ecological Phonies” who would “take things too far” and the editor of Christian Life in 1978 declared that “the environmental problem is not as significant as many people think.”134 Another public policy issue of considerable importance during this time was the topic of civil rights for African Americans. As shown in Graph G2, much

131 See the entire July 16, 1976 edition of Christianity Today for a detailed discussion of poverty and the issues surrounding poverty. The discussions within this issue are representative of the types of debates one found concerning poverty throughout this period. 132 See “Christians and the Crisis,” Moody Monthly 71, no. 1 (September 1970):18-21; and “What’s Your EQ?” Christian Life 33, no. 3 (July 1971): 20-21, 41-42. 133 “Terracide,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 2 (October 26, 1973): 47. 134 See “Ecological Phonies,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 2 (October 26, 1973): 47; and “From the Editor,” Christian Life 40, no. 1 (May 1978): 8.

119

of the discussion of civil rights policy took place during the mid to late 1960s. As these discussions took place a constant theme emerged. While evangelicals were supportive of the idea of civil rights for African Americans, they did not support federal intervention to force southern states to comply with national civil right goals and they did not condone the African American community’s attempt to bring about change through nonviolent resistance. Evangelicals embraced a strategy of patience to allow their southern brethren to see the error of their behavior and traditions. Unlawful demonstrations by blacks and federal meddling would only agitate the white community and cause more tension. Anyway, the argument went, the civil rights problem could not be solved by the passage or enforcement of new laws. The nation could only be healed by a change in hearts.135 Whether this was an attempt to bring respectability to political support for segregation has been debated numerous times. While I can not clarify that issue, I can show that the tone of these discussions concerning civil rights changed over time. During the period from 1960 to 1968 the messages coming forth from these magazines was judged to be either generally positive or indifferent concerning civil rights (see Graphs H2 & I2). A 1962 editorial in Christianity Today encouraged the acceptance of integration and reconciliation with African Americans.136 Reflecting these sentiments, the National Association of Evangelicals issued proclamations supporting the civil rights movement in 1964.137 But after 1968, the support for civil rights seemed to sour as the number of instances of negative comments directed towards civil rights increased to match the number of positive references (see Graph J2). Christianity Today by 1968 was bemoaning “Mobbism” and arguing that the use of civil disobedience

135 For a good example displaying all these lines of thinking see “The Awakening of National Conscience,” Christianity Today IX, no. 14 (April 9, 1965): 32. 136 “Race and Reconciliation: We Reserve the Right,” Christianity Today VI, no. 17 (June 8, 1962): 27-28. 137 See “NAE Take Civil Rights Stand at Convention,” Christian Life 26, no. 2 (June 1964): 10; and “NAE and Civil Rights,” Christianity Today VIII, no. 16 (May 8, 1964): 50.

120

had resulted in “lawlessness.”138 That same year, Christianity Today published an unflattering obituary of Martin Luther King, Jr. following his assassination. There are two possible explanations for this shift from total support for the civil rights movement to a less intensive support. First, white evangelicals, like most white Americans, probably reacted negatively to the race riots across the country stating in 1966 and the emergence of militant African American leaders (Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael) and groups (Nation of and the Black Panthers). This negative reaction is probably reflected in the more cautious and sometimes negative tone directed towards the civil rights movement after 1968. Secondly, many Americans (rightly or wrongly) saw a shift in emphasis of the civil rights movement following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act from struggling for equality of opportunity to perusing equality of results. While many white Americans were ready to accept the concept of equality of opportunity for African Americans, fewer were prepared to accept anything more drastic. As a result, the percentage of positive references toward civil rights policy in these publications fell while the percentage of negative references increased until the Civil Rights movement died down in the 1970s. One aspect of non-moral public policy discussions classified were negative remarks made about large or ineffective government, bureaucracy or social welfare programs or policies. For example, on several occasions writers would bash Lyndon’s Great Society initiatives, labeling them “a façade” or “a dream.”139 At other times the rhetoric became more dire: “Also, the welfare state saps individual initiative, increases the size and cost of sustaining bureaucracy, reduces the citizenry to dependence on the largesse of the state, and at last assures some form of totalitarian control that spells the death of democracy” or “Unhappily, we have departed from our Judeo-Christian heritage and one of the results of that is an ever-increasing economic and psychological dependency on government with the result that we have a government of unattainable goals and unbearable controls. Our government reflects our unlimited appetites, and if it is

138 See “Principles and Prejudices,” Christianity Today XVI, no. 9 (February 4, 1972): 22; and “Civil Disobedience,” Christianity Today XII, no. 14 (April 26, 1968): 20-21. 139 “Letter from the Editor,” Christian Life 26, no. 10 (February 1965): 8-9.

121

left unchecked will lead to a totalitarian state.”140 Instances of political content falling within this category are displayed in Graph K2. A low number of cases prevent much concrete analysis, but there does seem to be a spike around the 1972-1975 time period, exactly when one would expect when considering the ideological theory. The treatment of another topic during this time period is rather insightful. As one would expect, the Watergate scandal created considerable cognitive distress among evangelicals because the very President and Administration they had so vigorously supported for their moral rhetoric and stances were clearly engaged in unethical behavior on many fronts. The way in which each magazine chooses to deal with the scandal provides keen insights into each magazine and the political desires of all four magazines together. Each magazine dealt with the crisis with one or more of the following coping mechanisms: 1) ignore the scandal for as long as possible (out of sight, out of mind), 2) report the scandal but without implicating Nixon to reduce the political damage, 3) minimize the significance of the scandal, or 4) present Nixon as a victim being unfairly attacked. Moody Monthly, Decision and Christian Life are the best examples of attempts to ignore the scandal for as long as possible. The first mention of the Watergate scandal appeared in Moody Monthly in July 1973, Decision in September 1973 and in Christian Life in September 1974, two well past the point when the scandal broke and the third only after President Nixon had actually resigned from office.141 While Moody Monthly and Christian Life immediately discussed Nixon’s role in the scandal once they reported it, Decision magazine did not publish any material about Watergate that included any mention of President Nixon personally until May 1977, nearly three years after his

140 See “The Road to Bankruptcy,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 16 (May 10, 1974): 35; and “Putting the Government In Its Place,” Christianity Today XXI, no. 24 (September 23, 1977): 40- 41. 141 The three articles are: “Watergate: Are We Listening,” Moody Monthly 73, no. 11 (July-August 1973): 20-21; “The Word is Integrity,” Decision 14, no. 9 (September 1973): 2; and “God’s Giant in Washington,” Christian Life 36, no. 4 (September 1974), 67.

122

resignation!142 Undoubtedly, this was a reflection that Decision was the main publication of the Billy Graham Evangelical Association and Graham’s close personal friendship with Richard Nixon, a connection that probably colored other publishing decisions during this period. Another coping strategy was to minimize the significance of the scandal. This was the strategy used most readily by Christianity Today. This took a number of forms. One method was to highlight political scandals in other countries to demonstrate that political scandals were not that uncommon and was simply an unpleasant, but necessary or typical aspect of politics.143 Another technique was to equate the Watergate scandal with something the opposition had done, so turn about became fair play. The most frequent use of this strategy involved comparing the Watergate episode with the leaking of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. The question was asked, since his political opponents engage in such behavior why shouldn’t President Nixon?144 An added strategy utilized by Christianity Today and Christian Life was to present President Nixon as a victim of his political adversaries. Christianity Today first assured its readers that, “We do not think that Nixon knew what was going on with Watergate at the time it happened” and “a man should be considered innocent until proven guilty. And even if he is found guilty, he should be treated as a person who is created in the image of God and still loved by him.”145 When that strategy fell through, the magazine then accused the President’s foes of “just being out to get him” only “playing politics” and “not being consistent.”146 After Nixon’s resignation, Christian Life published a sympathetic interview with Julie Nixon, the President’s daughter, who was

142 “Observations…,” Decision 18, no. 5 (May 1977):13. 143 A good example of this strategy can be found in “Ends and Means in West Germany,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 22 (August 10, 1973): 27. 144 See “Watergate and Religion,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 23 (August 31, 1973): 27-28; “Personal Pietism and Watergate,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 25 (September 28, 1973): 61-62; and “Some Things Are Always Wrong,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 18 (June 7, 1974): 28-29. 145 See “Political Espionage,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 16 (May 25, 1973): 33; and “Biblical Lessons from Watergate,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 12 (March 15, 1974): 8-10, 12. 146 See “Consistency: Hobgoblin or Jewel?,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 6 (December 21, 1973): 41-42; “Let’s Clear the Air,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 9 (February 1, 1974): 29; and “Should Nixon Resign,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 18 (June 7, 1974): 28-29.

123

unchallenged when she described Watergate as an “unfair attack” against her family.147 Graph L2 provides the data for content discussing the Watergate affair. Because this was a time bound event most of the coverage occurred during the period between 1972 and 1975. But also note that again, this is the precise time period when an increase in the discussion of political matters would serve to immerse the evangelical subculture into national political affairs as predicted by the ideological model. However, the Watergate scandal was more than just a period of heightened evangelical awareness of political matters; it was also used by these elites to encourage evangelicals to get involved with the political process. According to the argument found many times across all four publications, God allowed Watergate to happen as a wakeup call for evangelicals to get involved. The lessons of Watergate included: 1) when evangelicals abdicated their responsibilities in the political process they were inadvertently playing into the hands of human secularists, 2) it was important for evangelicals not only to vote but also to run and be elected to important positions at the local, state and federal level, because Watergate demonstrated that 3) just electing the right man or the right party was not enough because evangelicals could be fooled.148 While most of this discussion has focused on domestic policy areas, two issues in foreign policy also deserve consideration. The first being the Vietnam conflict (Graph M2). The view from these periodicals toward the conflict was generally supportive. Some diversity of opinion on the matter was allowed as prominent evangelical U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield would author articles asking evangelicals to reconsider their position, but most of the references about the war reflected those found in a July 1967 article in Christian Life titled “We Belong in Vietnam” or an editorial from the February 4, 1966 issue of Christianity Today which asked readers to pray for President Johnson so he could resist the

147 “Julie Nixon Shares Her Faith,” Christian Life 37, no. 1 (May 1975): 18. 148 See “Biblical Lessons from Watergate,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 12 (March 15, 1974): 8- 10, 12; “Watergate,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 7 (January 4, 1974): 8-10; 12-14; 16; 18-19; and “Billy Graham: Watergate Was Good for U.S.,” Christian Life 36, no. 6 (November 1974), 29.

124

pressures to pull American troops out of Vietnam.149 Of the four publications, only Christianity Today slowly started to question the purpose and benefits of the conflict, starting with an editorial in September 1969 titled “A Nation in Trouble.”150 Graph N2 tracks the instances of content every year that was judged to contain an anti-communistic message. The number of these types of articles falls steadily throughout the entire investigatory period. Why? During this time the antagonist within the evangelical worldview was shifting from the communist to the human secularist. The threat evangelicals focused their attention upon evolved from that of a foreign enemy dedicated to world domination to a domestic enemy dedicated to dominating American society and culture. This raises an important point, according to the ideological theory of social movement mobilization, the elites have to develop a consensus surrounding the identity of what or who threatens the group and what can successfully be done to combat their efforts. Because almost all Americans, liberals and conservatives, were to some degree anti-communists, this “enemy” did not provide a large enough treat to mobilize large numbers of evangelicals into conservative politics. When the main adversary in the evangelical worldview shifted from communism to human secularism, evangelical elites found a rallying point on which there was not consensus in American politics. As the threat of human secularism was communicated, so was the message that evangelicals were crucial to the fight because many of their fellow Americans were either not concerned or humanists themselves, advancing their policies of abortion, pornographic, homosexual and women’s rights. The null hypothesis for H3 states that there should not be a marked increase in material within the magazines focusing on issues within the “evangelical agenda” prior to 1976. Earlier, after reviewing the evidence concerning the discussion of moral public policy issues, we indicated that there appeared to be ample evidence to reject the third and final null hypothesis.

149 See “We Belong in Vietnam,” Christian Life 29, no. 3 (July 1967): 16-18, 26-28; and “Pressures on the President,” Christianity Today X, no. 9 (February 4, 1966): 49. 150 “A Nation in Trouble,” Christianity Today XIII, no. 24 (September 12, 1969): 37-38.

125

Nothing in the discussion of non-moral public policies since calls this decision into question. There was a marked upsurge in the discussion of public policy issues and moral issues leading up to 1975, especially concerning the topics of abortion, pornography, and homosexual rights, which are easily identifiable as traditional evangelical policy concerns. Therefore, the third null hypothesis is rejected.

CONCLUSION The data acquired from this political content analysis suggests that readers of these four evangelical periodicals were receiving a substantial increase in the number of participation, partisanship and agenda cues preceding the 1976 presidential election. It is hypothesized that the political mobilization of evangelicals during the later half of the 1970s and early 1980s resulted from this and other methods of “conscientious raising” by evangelical elites. As such, these findings appear to validate the ideological theory of social movement mobilization as proposed by Steven Bruce and J. Christopher Soper.

126

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

Review

Much of the literature surrounding this topic implies or assumes that the political mobilization of American evangelicals during the 1970s was a bottom-up or grassroots phenomenon. The typical depiction of these events credits Jimmy Carter’s 1976 presidential campaign with galvanizing the historically dormant white evangelicals across the nation into the political realm. This portrayal proceeds to credit a coalition of conservative political strategists and evangelical televangelists with understanding the potential power of a politically unified and active evangelical vote, who proceed to establish voter education and mobilization organizations in the period leading up to the 1980 presidential election. For example, a leading religion and politics textbook explains the process in the following fashion:

An important watershed for modern evangelicals was the year 1976, when presidential candidate Jimmy Carter proclaimed himself a ‘born-again Christian.’ It was at that time that evangelicals burst onto the pages of the elite press and into academic consciousness; a bevy of journalists made pilgrimages to the South to discover just what evangelicalism was…. But this evangelical phenomenon would have remained of limited political interest had the Christian Right not burst onto the scene as a political force in the late 1970s.1

But Steven Bruce and J. Christopher Soper, the only two scholars to analyze the political resurgence of evangelicals during this time period, both argue that the political mobilization of evangelicals was the result of a top-down phenomenon,

1 Robert B. Fowler, Alen D. Hertzhe, Laura Olson and Kevin den Dulk, Religion and Politics in America: Faith Culture, and Strategic Choices, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004), 36- 37.

127

in which evangelical elites formulated and communicated an ideology of conservative politics and collective action to their followers.2 This investigation has tested Bruce’s and Soper’s assertion that evangelical elites were communicating a political ideology to their followers through the pages of four large, national, non-denominational evangelical publications. The results of the political content analysis described in the previous chapter appear to add credibility to Bruce & Soper’s ideological theory of social movement mobilization, at least in the bounded case of American evangelicals. The results of the analysis showed that the amount of political content within the pages of these evangelical magazines significantly increased prior to 1975. More importantly, it was discovered that the amount of participation cues, partisanship cues and agenda cues all significantly increased prior to 1975, an outcome seemingly consistent with the ideological theory.

Interpretation It should not come as a complete surprise that evangelical elites would have been thinking about the possibilities of politically mobilizing evangelicals on behalf of conservative political causes and candidates. The potential of this subculture to be a useful political ally of the conservative right had long been acknowledged. Pierard (1970) notes that a group called Christian Citizen was established as early as 1962, bankrolled by Denver real estate developer Gerri von Frellick, whose aim was training “’evangelical Christians’ in the techniques of practical politics so that they could gain control of the local, state and federal governments and combat the inclination of the ‘public to accept the inevitable success of communism in America.’”3 During this same time period fundamentalist preachers Carl McIntire and Billy James Hargis had encountered some limited success in propagating a mixture of traditional Christianity and intense anticommunism and Dr. Fred Schwarz’s Christian Anti-Communism

2 See Bruce, Rise and Fall, 1-50; and Soper, Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. and Great Britain, 1-34. 3 Richard V. Pierard, The Unequal Yoke: Evangelical Christianity and Political Conservatism (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1970), 67.

128

Crusades crisscrossed the country speaking to audiences large enough to fill entire athletic stadiums. In 1974, evangelical elites, evangelist Bill Bright and U.S. Representative John Conlan (R- AZ), joined forces to establish the Third Century Foundation, an organization dedicated toward politically mobilizing American evangelicals for conservative political causes and candidates.4 Third Century utilized several strategies to accomplish this goal. First, they published books for the Bicentennial celebration in 1976 and the 1976 election cycle. Titles included Rus Walton’s One Nation Under God, that combined patriotic “Christian Nation” messages with right-wing political and economic philosophies, In the Spirit of ’76: the Citizen’s Guide to Politics, which strongly encouraged evangelicals to become involved at the local, state and federal levels of the government and The Nature of Government and Politics, a supplement to The Spirit of ’76 prepared for every state in the Union.5 In addition to these works, John Conlan’s wife, Irene, published a book, Women, We Can Do It!, that same year which explicitly urged evangelical women to become involved in the political system.6 Second, Bright and Conlan traveled the country during the bicentennial celebrations with the “Here’s Life, America” and the “I’ve Found It” tours, to encourage attendees to become more politically involved.7/8 They were also involved in the establishment of an organization linked with these rallies, Intercessors for America.9 Third, Third Century took over the American Freedom Foundation in 1975, including its main periodical the free-market advocating Christian Economics. Third Century’s vision was to change the name of the journal to

4 Some sources refer to this organization as “Third Century Publishers” while others refer to this group as “Third Century Foundation.” It is unclear which label the group actually assumed. 5 See “Which Way, America?” Moody Monthly 76, no. 4 (December 1975): 76- for an advertisement in Moody Monthly for One Nation Under God by Rus Walton. These activities are described in detail in Jim Willis and Wes Michaelson, “The Plan to Save America: A Disclosure of an Alarming Political Initiative by the Evangelical Far Right,” Sojourners 5, no. 4 (April 1976): 4- 11. 6 See “Quiet Witness in Washington,” Moody Monthly 75, no. 5 (January 1975): 24-27. 7 Willis and Michaelson, “The Plan to Save America”, 10. 8 See “Our Bicentennial Founder’s Week,” Moody Monthly 76, no. 4 (December 1975): 3; and “If My People,” Charisma 1, no. 4 (March/April 1976): 30-31, 33. 9 I believe I also remember seeing advertisements in these publications for a book published in association with Intercessors for America that encouraged evangelicals to become more involved in the political process prior to the 1976 election.

129

Applied Christianity and use it as a vehicle to mobilize evangelicals into the political realm. Applied Christianity only stayed in publication for a short period, however before reverting back to its previous name and focus, probably for fear of contributing to some evangelicals’ involvement in Jimmy Carter’s victory in 1976.10/11 Fourth, Third Century began publishing the “Third Century Report” each month to highlight measures before Congress and activities of politicians, through a decidedly conservative viewpoint, with Rus Walton serving as chief editor.12 Third Century also started publishing the “Third Century Index”, which evaluated the voting records of all members of Congress during 1975 based upon clearly conservative political criteria. Politically liberal evangelicals, like Senator Mark Hatfield and Rep. John Anderson, were ranked low concerning the godliness of their votes.13 Finally, Bright and Colan were both instrumental in establishing the Christian Embassy in Washington, D.C. While on the surface the Christian Embassy seems like a non-political effort to evangelize officials in Washington, D.C., Conlan and Bright’s remarks at the opening of the Embassy seem clearly partisan.14 Evangelicals Dr. C. Everett Koop and Rev. Harold O. J. Brown, then an associate editor of Christianity Today, established the Christian Action Council (CAC) in 1975. The main focus of this organization has been combating the legalization of most abortions and remnants of this organization are still active today. That same year Dr. Robert Grant formed American Christian Cause, which found moderate success in fighting “anti-family” measures in Southern California. This group would later formulate the organizational skeleton for his Christian Voice organization that he helped establish in 1978. In addition to these early attempts at politically organizing and mobilizing evangelicals, a broader movement was afoot within the evangelical subculture to

10 Applied Christianity was first advertised in Christianity Today in the April 26, 1974 (Vol. XVIII #15) issue on page 11. 11 The existence and activities of the Third Century Foundation were originally exposed in an expose in the April 1976 edition of Sojourners magazine and later more fully researched by Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, especially chapter 2. 12 Willis and Michaelson, “The Plan to Save America”, 4. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid, 9.

130

become more involved in matters of social concern through the political process. In October 1973, humbled by the lack of evangelical involvement in trying to alleviate such social ills as segregation, economic injustice, militarism, materialism and sexism, a group of 53 American evangelical elites met at the YMCA Hotel on South Wabash Street in Chicago and penned their names to the “Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.” This prestigious group included Carl F. H. Henry and his son Paul Henry. The document called on evangelicals to increase their concern about social evils, in addition to personal moral evils. Thus, it asked American evangelicals to become more involved in matters concerning racism, poverty, peace and gender discrimination, including involvement to alleviate these problems through the political process. While most of the individual signers of this declaration were an entirely different type of group than those who were making more direct attempts into getting American evangelicals more politically involved, their actions in Chicago demonstrate that evangelicals from many different political viewpoints were nudging their fellow evangelicals into politics. Unfortunately for the evangelicals in Chicago, many evangelicals would become increasingly involved in political affairs, but more in order to address the personal moral vices rather than the broader societal injustice. Why exactly most of the evangelical community responded in this fashion is a topic that deserves further attention (see discussion below). Thus, it is not improbable that the editors and writers of these evangelical periodicals would have purposefully considered trying to educate and activate their readers for the political realm because similar attempts were being conducted by other elites in the evangelical subculture.15 While these cues took

15 A fundamental assumption of this dissertation and of the ideological theory of social movement mobilizations is that the members of the elite community professionally or personally know one another and that if they decided to start mobilizing their followers they could easily communicate and debate this amongst themselves. I found significant evidence while conducting the content analysis suggesting that the evangelical elites involved with these publications did in fact know one another and often were close associates. For example, Christianity Today Editor Harold Lindsell describes in the June 18, 1976 “Editor’s Note” how he and Wilbur Smith and editor at Christian Life had been close friends for many years. In fact, the relationship was so close between some of these magazines, they sometimes shared each other’s articles (see “One Vote Does Make a Difference” Moody Monthly 72, no. 11 (July-August 1972): 20-22; & Decision 9, no. 11 (November 1968): 2) and advertised in each other’s publications (for an example of Moody

131

many forms depending upon the time period and the author(s) of the content, a perceivable pattern was apparent. A general overarching pattern was that a shift was apparent in evangelical thinking concerning what was the greatest threat to the subculture during this time period. Prior to the late 1960s, the biggest threat evangelicals constantly discussed and demonized was communism. This external anti-God threat had the potential to destroy the American way of life and the evangelical subculture along with it. But a change in focus took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The position of greatest threat to the evangelical faith shifted in the eyes of these evangelical elites from the external communists to the internal secular humanists. This shift caused a sea-change in the evangelical attitude toward politics (at least at the elite level originally). With the communist threat, evangelicals were complacent to sit back and entrust their fellow Americans to wage the battle against communism. After all, most Americans during this period were certainly anti-communists. There might be disagreements about the proper amount of resolve that was necessary but nothing to overly disturb the average evangelical’s faith in their fellow Americans. Undisputedly, some fundamentalist evangelicals were concerned, including Billy James Hargis and Carl McIntire, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule. The perceived rise of secular humanism necessitated a different reaction. No longer was the perceived enemy of evangelicals in a distant land. Rather, many of their fellow Americans and their modernistic and humanistic philosophies had become the threat. To protect their subculture, and most importantly their children, evangelical elites would have to wage this war themselves and the political arena would eventually become the prime battlefield. But first elites would have to make their followers understand this new threat and recognize that defeat was not inevitable. In repeated fashion certain events were highlighted and interpreted in such a fashion as to encourage

Monthly advertising in Christianity Today see the January 2, 1981 issue of CT page 35.). These gentlemen would also socialize at conferences and were often scheduled together to give lectures at conferences and rallies. For additional associations, see Willis and Michaelson, “The Plan to Save America”, 4-11 and Fowler, A New Engagement.

132

evangelicals to become more politically involved. These events included: a) Vietnam, b) Watergate, c) the Bicentennial celebration, and d) the abortion issue. The pattern of this “consciousness raising” consisted of casting the American quagmire in Vietnam as God’s punishment for America’s moral drift during and following the counter-culture of the late 1960s. Only if evangelicals became more involved to restore traditional order and morality could future tragedies be avoided.16 In similar fashion, God allowed Watergate to happen to America because evangelicals were not involved enough in the political process and there were not enough “true” evangelicals in the apparatuses of the government.17 All four publications printed material and publicized events during the 1976 Bicentennial celebration which mixed a constant stream of patriotic “Christian Nation” reality and mythology with appeals for greater evangelical involvement. For example, Moody Monthly during the Bicentennial year featured a story about some orthodox Christian figure from the nation’s past in each issue. Explicit or implicit in these stories was the morale that God-fearing Christians could alter the course of the country. Repeatedly, readers were told that the United States was once a Christian Nation and could be again if only God’s people would become the light and the salt of the political realm, referring to Matthew 5: 13-14. The abortion issue is perhaps the instance in which the complete application of the ideological model can be most fully witnessed. The evangelicals elites represented within the pages of these periodicals were clearly out in front of lay evangelical opinion on this topic. Long before the right-to-life movement galvanized, the editors and writers within these periodicals were trying to shape their reader’s opinions and demand they become more politically involved. A 1974 editorial in Christianity Today compared those evangelicals who remained silent on the abortion issue were no less guilty of murder than the German citizens who did not try to intercede to stop the Holocaust.18 In similar fashion, Harold O. J. Brown chastised readers in the December 1976 Moody

16 See for example, “A Nation in Trouble,” Christianity Today XIII, no. 24 (September 12, 1969): 37-38. 17 See for example, “Watergate: Are We Listening,” Moody Monthly 73, no. 11 (July-August 1973): 20-21. 18 See “Where Silence Is Guilt,” Christianity Today XVIII, no. 8 (January 18, 1974): 32.

133

Monthly that, “Christian citizens should be warned by Proverbs 24:11-12 that ignorance is no excuse for indifference or inaction.”19 Even earlier the importance and “correct” position on this topic were abundantly clear. One story in the January 29, 1971 issue of Christianity Today labeled abortion as “evil” and “murder” of “helpless unborns.”20 Another story on abortion in the April 23, 1971 issue of Christianity Today ended with the question “tissues anyone?”21 And an attempt was even made to depict and hype the 1972 elections as the year of the “abortion backlash.”22 From all accounts the top-down drive toward evangelical political mobilization on behalf of conservative politicians and issues was progressing nicely until a little-known southern governor entered the scene. Jimmy Carter’s candidacy and eventual election certainly helped mobilize evangelicals but he also splintered the evangelical vote, winning a majority of the votes of fellow Southern Baptists, and considerable support from Pentecostals and charismatics. Ultimately however, Carter’s presidency served to politically unite the evangelical subculture. As an increasing number of evangelicals became dissatisfied with Carter’s politically liberal interpretation of his evangelical faith, what one of the magazines described as “President Carter’s apparent liberal- conservative schizophrenia”, conservative political operatives saw their opportunity to politically mobilize a united evangelical subculture for the 1980 election.23 Following the initial shock of the 1976 presidential election, these conservative political strategists, notably Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie with considerable assistance from wealthy business partners Howard Pew, Joseph Coors, Art De Moss and Richard DeVos, redoubled their efforts to court and mobilize evangelical voters. They became instrumental in establishing the first wave of successful New Christian Right voter education and mobilization groups,

19 “The American Way of Death,” Moody Monthly 77, no. 4 (December 1976): 32-35. 20 “Financing Murder,” Christianity Today XV, no. 9 (January 29, 1971): 22. 21 “Rebirth of Opposition? The Abortion Issue,” Christianity Today XV, no. 15 (April 23, 1971): 36. 22 “The Election’s Religious Issues: What Happened at the Polls,” Christianity Today XVII, no. 5 (December 8, 1972): 38-39. 23 “A Political Machine,” Christianity Today XXII, no. 8 (January 27, 1978): 15-17.

134

including Christian Voice in 1978, the Religious Roundtable and Moral Majority in 1979.24 I am not convinced that the type of political evangelicalism that this group along with their televangelist partners achieved, was the type of application of the Bible to social and political affairs the editors and writers in these magazines exactly had in mind. But nonetheless, the messages these publications had sent to their readership since 1960 had laid the foundations, which others would use for their own purposes from the late 1970s forward. Notice that when these conservative political strategists began these evangelical voter education and mobilization organizations in the late 1970s, for the most part they did not work with the traditional, or established, elites of the subculture including those elites who were affiliated with these publications; Rev. Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry or his son, Paul Henry, Harold Lindsell, or others. Instead they worked with a new group of evangelical elites, televangelists, who were on average less educated, more southern and more politically conservative than the traditional elites involved with Christianity Today, Moody Monthly, Christian Life and Decision.

Significance The findings from this study make significant contributions to two general areas of academic research. One of these areas is the social movement literature of sociology, and to a lesser extent the interest group literature of political science. Clearly, this dissertation provides support to those who argue for the imperative role of elites in mobilizing social and political movements. It also provides evidence and legitimization for those social movement scholars who focus on the use of frames and cultural symbols by elites to mobilize their followers. This study is unique in that while many recent studies have suggested the use of frames and cultural symbolism by elites in mobilization by focusing on selective evidence, this project is, to my rather limited knowledge, the only systematic study of mobilization cues ever produced.

24 Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, chapter 2.

135

Future Research Future research should focus on the analysis of other movements to determine the function ideology and elites played in their development. Are the findings from this specific case an anomaly or can the ideological theory of social movement mobilizations be correctly classified as a general theory of the social sciences? A second area of scholarly impact is within our historical understanding of the rise of American evangelicals as an important force within the American political system. It would appear that those who point to those organizations which formed during the late 1970s and early 1980s, like Christian Voice or Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, as the genesis of the “New Christian Right” in contemporary America are too short sighted in their understanding. If the rise of the “New Christian Right” were a locomotive, the organizations that arose during the late 1970s and early 1980s were more akin to the caboose than the engine. As this analysis seems to indicate, the necessary cultivation of these evangelicals to allow these later organizations to become successful occurred throughout the late 1960s and 1970s. While many have often speculated that this was indeed true, this project finally provides empirical evidence to support that assumption. Future researchers should systematically analyze other modes of top- down communication during this time period to see if of these results can be found. An analysis of evangelical books concerning politics during this period may also prove beneficial, as paperbacks were becoming an increasingly popular form of communication throughout the evangelical subculture during this period. In addition, a replication of this study by another researcher would certainly be useful for verification purposes or an expansion of this content analysis to cover the Reagan Administration might be informative. But there are other avenues of possible research that could compliment this study and increase our understanding of this period and the American

136

evangelical political mind. Unfortunately, many of the influential elites within the evangelical subculture during this time period, who had first hand knowledge concerning many of these topics, are no longer living, including Francis Schaeffer (d. 1984), Paul Henry (d. 1993), Harold Lindsell (d. 1998), Carl F. H. Henry (d. 2003), and Bill Bright (d. 2003). Two other vastly important figures’ health is rapidly declining, Rev. Graham and President Gerald Ford. Before more of these individuals’ perspectives are lost forever, they should be interviewed so we can better understand exactly what transpired within the evangelical subculture and the political realm during this important period. Among those whose thought should surely be recorded would be President Carter, Chuck Colsen, Sen. Mark Hatfield, Rep. John Conlan, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson, Paul Wyrich, Richard Viguerie, C. Everett Koop, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Philips, Dr. Robert Grant, Rep. John Anderson and Connie Marshner. One topic that deserves additional attention is the rise of concern about abortion within the elite circles of the evangelical subculture. An interesting finding in this work is the early degree of intensity many evangelical elites seemed to have concerning this particular moral issue, an intensity clearly preceding that of lay evangelicals throughout the country. Sara Diamond (1995) notes, “Richard Viguerie promoted the anti-abortion cause as an emotional means of mobilizing new political activities for a slate of related family issues.”25 How exactly was abortion used by elites to mobilize this community? Another avenue of future research would be to observe and interview lay American evangelicals. Little has been written concerning what they think the relationship is between their faith and politics. In addition, researchers could gain a better understanding of the degree of political knowledge many evangelicals operate under. A different approach to field research would be to analyze the types of political messages parishioners receive during religious services normally and during electoral seasons. Do these messages from the “bully

25 Diamond, Roads to Dominion, 171.

137

pulpit” vary by religious tradition, specific denominations or geographic locations?26 A possibility that has not yet been explored is that the political content in these magazines that have been identified in this study were merely preaching to an already politically conservative but not mobilized evangelical choir. Pierard (1970) argued that evangelicals were “unequally yoked” with conservative politics even as early as the 1960s.27 But this conservatism did not necessarily mean they were Republicans, especially in the South. (Remember that evangelical/fundamentalist Democrat William Jennings Bryant lead a coalition of white evangelical populists, when he wrestled control of the Democratic Party from President Grover Cleveland and the Bourbon Democrats in 1896. Why haven’t evangelical political mobilized for economic concerns in the modern era?) Nevertheless, the “natural” conservatism of the evangelical subculture probably made the task of mobilizing this subculture easier. But the possibility of a positive correlation between conservative theological beliefs and conservative political views raises an intriguing additional question. What causes this positive correlation? In other words, why are so many white evangelicals political conservatives? We know there are a minority of American evangelicals, most notably President Carter, who do not fit this pattern and share conservative theological beliefs with liberal political viewpoints.28 Why do not more American evangelicals share his perspective? Is this correlation a product of the types of individuals that are typically drawn to and born within the evangelical Protestant religious tradition (nature) or is it a result of the impact that this particular faith has on the political outlook of its followers (nurture).

26 James L. Guth, John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, Layman A. Kellstedt, and Margart Poloma, The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1998). 27 Pierard, The Unequal Yoke. 28 Other notable theologically conservative but politically liberal evangelicals include Dr. Ron Sider (Evangelicals for Social Action), Dr. Richard V. Pierard (author and Professor Emeritus of History at Indiana State University), Jim Wallis (founder and editor of Sojourners), former U.S. Representative Tony Hall (D- OH) and Dr./Rev. Anthony Campolo (Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University).

138

This is a topic that deserves further attention but the development of the literature on this topic has been impeded because of the fear of the type of backlash Michael Weiskopf, a reporter for , received when he described the followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.”29 While obviously not wishing to unnecessarily negatively stereotype members of the evangelical subculture, this desire should not prevent scholars from studying the causes of this important relationship. I do not know the answers to these questions but I am prepared to offer some initial propositions. While I am almost certain that both nature and nurture have some impact on this correlation, I am inclined to give more weight to the nurture side of the equation. In the past, the nature explanation might have been more attractive. It was widely known that those Americans within the evangelical subculture typically had lower levels of formal education and other aspects of their socio-economic status.30 In recent years however, the social characteristics of the evangelical subculture have become almost indistinguishable from those of the larger American society.31 The typical evangelical has gained in educational attainment, income levels and occupational status. It is also true that 44% of all white evangelicals live in the South32, and this region was experiencing a regional realignment during the late 1960s through the 1980s. But even so, this does not account for why the other 56% of white evangelicals living outside the South have also aligned with the GOP. Perhaps therefore, we should cautiously consider the second explanation, that there is something about accepting or being raised in the evangelical tradition, especially the fundamentalist subtype, that increases the likelihood those individuals will be politically conservative. Corwin Smidt, Jim Guth, Bud Kellstedt and John Green discovered in their recent survey research that across

29 Michael Weiskopf, “Energized By Pulpit or Passion, the Public is Calling “Gospel Grapevine” Displays Strength in Controversy Over Military Gay Ban,” Washington Post, 1 February 1993. 30 See Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation and Noll, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. 31 James M. Penning, and Corwin E. Smidt, Evangelicalism: The Next Generation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002). 32 Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 69.

139

all religious traditions in the United States, the more orthodox within that religious tradition one’s beliefs and behaviors are, the more likely they are to support the Republican Party and its candidates.33 Conversely, the less orthodox someone’s religious views are, the more likely they are to support the Democratic Party and its candidates. It just so happens that the white evangelical tradition has the largest percentage of its adherents who can be categorized as “traditionalists”, or those with the most orthodox behaviors and beliefs. This question provides lush, largely unexplored ground for future scholarship.

33 James L. Guth, John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, “America Fifty/Fifty,” First Things 16 (October 2001): 19-26.

140

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikman, David. A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush. Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2004.

Ammerman, Nancy T. “North American Protestant Fundamentalism,” in Media, Culture, and the Religious Right, ed. Linda Kintz and Julia Lesage, chapter 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Axelrod, Robert M. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Baker, James T. A Southern Baptist in the White House. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Balmer, Randall. Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey Into the Evangelical Subculture in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

______. Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelism in America. New York: Beacon Press, 1999.

Balmer, Randall, and Lauren F. Winner. Protestantism in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Bebbington, David W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

______. The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody. A History of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Bell, James S. Jr., and Tracy Macon Sumner. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Reformation and Protestantism. New York: Alpha Books, 2002.

Bendyna, Mary E., and Clyde Wilcox. “The Christian Right Old and New: A Comparison of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 3. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Benson, Peter L. Religion on Capitol Hill: Myths and Realities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Berkowitz, Laura, and John C. Green. “Charting the Coalition: The Local Chapters of the Ohio Christian Coalition,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 4. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

141

Bibby, John F. Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2003.

Black, Amy E., Douglas L. Koopman, and David K. Ryden. Of Little Faith: The Politics of George W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2004.

Blumhofer, Edith L., Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker, eds. Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Boston, Robert. The Most Dangerous Man in America?: Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996.

______. Why the Religious Right is Wrong About the Separation of Church and State, 2nd ed. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Brady, Henry E., and Paul M. Sniderman. “Attitudinal Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning,” American Political Science Review 79 (1985): 1061- 1078.

Brown, Ruth M. For a “Christian America”: A History of the Religious Right. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002.

Bruce, Steve. The Rise and Fall of the New Christian Right: Conservative Protestant Politics in America 1978—1988. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

______. “The Inevitable Failure of the New Christian Right,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto, and William H. Swatos, Jr., chapter 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Bryant, Jennings, and Dolf Zillmann, eds. Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.

Buddenbaum, Judith M., and Daniel A. Stout. “Religion and Mass Media Use: A Review of the Mass Communication and Sociology Literature,” in Religion and Mass Media: Audiences and Adaptations, ed. Daniel A. Stout and Judith M. Buddenbaum, chapter 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Bullock, Charles S., and Mark J. Rozell, eds. The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.

142

Burkinshaw, Robert K. Pilgrims in Lotus Land: Conservative Protestantism in British Columbia, 1917—1981. Buffalo: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995.

Burroughs Kraakevik, Kristen. “The Political Mobilization of White Evangelical Populists in the 1970s and Early 1980s.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago Divinity School, 2005.

Calhoon, Robert M. Evangelicals and Conservatives in the Early South, 1740— 1861. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.

Carwardine, Richard. Evangelicals and Politics in Antebellum America, 2nd ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1997.

Cavendish, James C. “To March or Not to March: Clergy Mobilization Strategies and Grassroots Anti-Drug Activism,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 203-223. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Chong, Dennis. Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago: University or Chicago Press, 1991.

Clelland, Donald C., and Ann Page. “The Kanawha Textbook Controversy: A Study of the Politics of Life Style Concern,” Social Forces 57 (1978): 265-281.

Cleary, Edward L., and Hannah W. Stewart-Gambino, eds. Power, Politics, and Pentecostals in . Boulder: Westview Press, 1997.

Clendine, Dudley. “Anita Bryant, b. 1940, Singer and Crusader,” St. Petersburg Times, 28 November 1999, np.

Cooperman, Alan, and Thomas B. Edsall. “Evangelicals Say They Led Charge for the GOP,” Washington Post, 8 November 2004, A01.

Corbett, Michael, and Julia Mitchell Corbett. Politics and Religion in the United States. New York: Garland Publishing, 1999.

Crawford, Alan. Thunder on the Right: The New Right and the Politics of Resentment. New York: , 1980.

Cromartie, Michael, ed. Evangelicals and Foreign Policy: Four Perspectives. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1989.

______. No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.

143

______. A Public Faith: Evangelicals and Civic Engagement. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.

Dayton, Donald W., and Robert K. Johnson, eds. The Variety of American Evangelicalism. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991.

Deardorff, Michelle D. “Religion and the Bill of Rights,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 4. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Deckman, Melissa M. School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2004.

Diamond, Sara. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press, 1989.

______. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press, 1995.

______. Not By Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right. New York: Guilford Press, 1998.

Djupe, Paul A. “The Plural Church: Church Involvement and Political Behavior.” Ph.D. diss., Washington University of St. Louis, 1997.

______. “Cardinal O’Connor and His Constituents: Differential Benefits and Public Evaluations,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 188-202. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Djupe, Paul A., and Laura R. Olson, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. New York: Facts on File, 2003.

Dockery, David S., ed. Southern Baptists and American Evangelicals: The Conversation Continues. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1993.

Duke, Judith S. Religious Publishing and Communications. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981.

Durham, Martin. The Christian Right: The Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.

Edsall, Thomas, and Mary Edsall. Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Right, and Taxes on American Politics. Revised Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1992.

144

Eitzen, Stanley D. “Status Inconsistency and Wallace Supporters in a Mid- Western City,” Social Forces 44 (1970): 493-98.

Erickson, Millard J. The Evangelical Mind and Heart: Perspectives on Theological and Practical Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993.

Fairbanks, James D. “Politics and the Evangelical Press: 1960—1985,” in Religion and Political Behavior in the United States, ed. Ted G. Jelen. New York: Praeger, 1989.

Finke, Roger, and Rodney Start. “How the Upstart Sects Won America, 1776- 1850.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 18 (1989): 27-44.

Fowler, Robert B. A New Engagement: Evangelical Political Thought, 1966-1976. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.

Fowler, Robert B., Alen D. Hertzhe, and Laura R. Olson. Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.

Fowler, Robert B., Alen D. Hertzhe, Laura R. Olson and Kevin den Dulk. Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004.

Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Henry Holt Publishers, 2004.

Freston, Paul. Evangelicals and Politics in , and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Fetzer, Joel S. “Shaping Pacifism: The Role of the Local Anabaptist Pastor,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2001.

Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Aggression,” Journal of Peace Research 1 (1964): 36-54.

Gamson, William. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood: IL: Dorsey Press, 1975.

Gaustad, Edwin S. Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776— 1826, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 2004.

Gibbs, Jack P., and Walter J. Martin. “A Theory of Status Integration and Its Relationship to Suicide,” American Sociological Review 23 (1958): 140-147.

145

Gilbert, Christopher P. The Impact of Churches on Political Behavior: An Empirical Study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 2003.

Goldenberg, Sheldon. “Content Analysis,” in Thinking Methodologically, ed. Sheldon Goldenberg, chapter 14. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.

Gottschalk, Louis A. Content Analysis of Verbal Behavior: New Findings and Clinical Applications. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

Green, John C. “The Christian Right and the 1994 Elections: An Overview,” in God at the Grassroots: The Christian Right in the 1994 Elections, ed. Mark J. Rozell and Clyde Wilcox, chapter 1. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995.

Green, John C., James L. Guth, and Kevin Hill. “Faith and Election: The Christian Right in Congressional Campaigns, 1978—1988,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996.

Green, John C., James L. Guth, and Corwin E. Smidt. “Evangelical Realignment: The Political Power of the Christian Right,” Christian Century 112 (July 1995): 676-79.

Green, John C., Corwin E. Smidt, Layman A. Kellstedt, and James L. Guth. “Bringing in the Sheaves: The Christian Right and White Protestants, 1976— 1996,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and Jim M. Penning. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Green, John C., Mark J. Rozell, and Clyde Wilcox, eds. Prayers in the Precincts: The Christian Right in the 1988 Elections. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2000.

______. The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

Greenberg, Anna, and Jennifer Berktold. Evangelicals in America Survey Report. Washington: Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, 2004.

Guliuzza, Frank. “Religion and the Judiciary,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

146

Gusfield, Joseph. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1963.

Guth, James L. “The Bully Pulpit: Southern Baptist Clergy and Political Activism,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt, chapter 9. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996a.

______. “The Politics of the Christian Right,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt, chapter 2. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996b.

______. “The Mobilization of a Religious Elite: Political Activism Among Southern Baptist Clergy in 1996,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 139-156. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Guth, James L., and Layman A. Kellstedt. “Religion and Congress,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Guth, James L., and John C. Green. “Politics in a New Key: Religiosity and Participation Among Political Activists,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt, chapter 8. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996.

Guth, James L., Cleveland R. Green, John C. Green, Layman A. Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Smidt. “Religion and Foreign Policy Attitudes: The Case of ,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, chapter 17. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996a.

Guth, James L., John C. Green, Layman A. Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Smidt. “Onward Christian Soldiers: Religion Activist Groups in American Politics,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, chapter 5. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996b.

Guth, James L., John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, and Margaret M. Poloma. “Pulpits and Politics: The Protestant Clergy in the 1988 Election,” in The Bible and the Ballot Box, ed. James L. Guth, and John C. Green, 73-93. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.

147

Guth, James L., John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, Layman A. Kellstedt, and Margaret Poloma. The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy. Studies in Government and Public Policy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1997.

Guth, James L., John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt. “America Fifty/Fifty,” First Things 16 (October 2001): 19-26.

Hadden, Jeffery. “ and the Mobilization of the New Christian Right,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 26, no. 1(1987): 1-24.

Hullum, Anne M. “The Transformation of the Christian Right in ,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 11. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Hammond, Phillip, Mark A. Shibley, and Peter M. Solow. “Religion and Family Values in Presidential Voting,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto, and William H. Swatos, Jr., chapter 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Harding, Susan F. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Harrell, David E., Jr., ed. Varieties of Southern Evangelicalism. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1981.

Harris, Harriet A. Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Hart, Darryl G. That Old-Time Religion in Modern America: Evangelical Protestantism in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publishers, 2002.

______. Deconstruction Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Hart, Roderick P. The Political Pulpit. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1977.

Hatch, Nathan O. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven, CT: Press, 1989.

148

Hecht, Stacey H. “Religion and American Political Culture,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Henry, Carl F. H. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Press, 1947.

Henry, Paul. Politics for Evangelicals. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1974.

Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. The Encyclopedia of Protestantism. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Hofrenning, Daniel J. B. “Religious Lobbying and American Politics: Religious Faith Meets the Real World of Politics,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Hofstadter, Richard. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Harper’s, November 1964, 77-86.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. New York: Knopf Publishers, 1965.

Hollenweger, Walter J. Pentecostalism: Origins and Development Worldwide. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Holsti, Ole R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Hoover, Dennis R. “The Christian Right Under Old Glory and the Maple Leaf,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 10. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Hunt, Larry L., and Robert G. Cushing. “Status Discrepancy, Interpersonal Attachment and Right-Wing Extremism,” Social Science Quarterly 51 (1970): 587- 601.

Hunter, James D. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Hutcheson, Richard G. God in the White House: How Religion Has Changed the Modern Presidency. New York: Macmillian, 1988.

149

Jackson, Elton F. “Status Inconsistency and Symptoms of Stress,” American Sociological Review 27 (1962): 469-477.

Jefferson, Charles E. The Fundamentals: Testimony to the Truth. New York: Young Men’s Christian Association Press, 1907.

Jelen, Ted G. The Political Mobilization of Religious Beliefs. New York: Praeger, 1991.

______. The Political World of the Clergy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993.

______. “Notes for a Theory of Clergy as Political Leaders,” in Christian Clergy in American Politics, ed. Sue E. S. Crawford and Laura R. Olson, 15-29. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Jelen, Ted G. and Clyde Wilcox, eds. Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective: The One, the Few, and the Many. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Johnson, Janet B. and H. T. Reynolds. Political Science Research Methods, 5th ed. Washington: CQ Press, 2005.

Johnson, Stephen D. “What Relates to Vote for Three Religious Categories?,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto and William H. Swatos, Jr., chapter 3. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Jones, Russell A. “Archival Research and Content Analysis,” in Research Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. Russell A. Jones, chapter 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1985.

Jorstad, Erling. The Politics of Moralism: The New Christian Right in American Life. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1981.

Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, and Elizabeth Orr. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkley, CA: The University of California Press, 1992.

Kellstedt, Layman A., John C. Green, James L. Guth, and Corwin E. Smidt. “Religious Voting Blocs in the 1992 Election: The Year of the Evangelical?,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto, and William H. Swatos, Jr., chapter 6. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

______. “Grasping the Essentials: The Social Embodiment of Religion and Political Behavior,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the

150

Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, chapter 10. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996.

______. “Has Godot Finally Arrived? Religion and Realignment,” in Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front, ed. John C. Green, James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Layman A. Kellstedt, chapter 15. Landam, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996.

Kengor, Paul. God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life. New York: Regan Books, 2004.

Kintz, Linda, and Julia Lesage, eds. Media, Culture, and the Religious Right. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Koopman, Doug. “Religion and American Political Parties,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 7. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Krippendorf, Klaus. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.

Lakoff, George. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Larsen, Timothy, Mark A. Noll, and David W. Bebbington, eds. Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Layman, Geoffrey. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.

LeBeau, Bryan F. “The Political Mobilization of the New Christian Right,” American Project at the University of West Virginia. http://are.as.wvu.edu/lebeau1.htm, 1998.

Leege, David C., Layman A. Kellstedt, and John C. Green, eds. Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1993.

Lehmann, David. Struggle for the Spirit: Religious Transformations and Popular Culture in Brazil and Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, 1996.

Lenski, Gerhard. “Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status,” American Sociological Review 102, no. 1 (1954): 79-92.

Liebman, Robert L., and Robert Wuthnow, eds. The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation. New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983.

151

Lienesch, Michael. “The Origins of the Christian Right: Early Fundamentalism as a Political Movement,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 1. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Lindner, Eileen W, ed. Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, 2002. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002.

Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970.

Lipset, Seymour M. “The Sources of the ‘Radical Right’,” in The New American Right, ed. Daniel Bell. New York: Criterion Books, 1955.

Lopatto, Paul. Religion and the Presidential Election. New York: Praeger, 1985.

Lorentzen, Louis J. “Evangelical Life Style Concerns Expressed in Political Action,” Sociological Analysis 41 (1980): 144-154.

Mansfield, Stephen. The Faith of George W. Bush. New York: Penguin Press, 2003.

Marks, Rusty. “’It Was Simply Overwhelming’—Former Kanawha Student Recalls Role in 1974 Textbook Controversy,” Charleston Gazette (28 April 2004) 6.

Martin, William. With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books, 1996.

McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1973.

McCombs, Maxwell, and Sheldon Gilbert. “News Influence on Our Pictures of the World,” in Perspectives on Media Effects, ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, chapter 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam Associates, 1986.

McFarland, Sam G. “Keeping the Faith: The Roles of Selective Exposure and Avoidance in Maintaining Religious Beliefs,” in Religion and Mass Media: Audiences and Adaptations, ed. Daniel A. Stout and Judith M. B uddenbaum, chapter 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Menendez, Albert J. Religion at the Polls. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

152

______. Evangelicals at the Ballot Box. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1996.

Mewes, Horst. “Religion and Politics in the United States,” in The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion and Politics, ed. William Safran, chapter 2. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.

Miller, Wesley E, Jr. “The New Christian Right and Fundamentalist Discontent: The Politics of Lifestyle Concern Hypothesis Revisited,” Sociological Focus 18, no. 4 (October 1985): 325-336.

Moe, Terry. “Toward a Broader View of Interest Groups,” Journal of Politics 43 (1981): 531-543.

Moen, Matthew C. The Christian Right and Congress. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1989.

______. The Transformation of the Christian Right. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1992.

______. “From Revolution to Evolution: The Changing Nature of the Christian Right,” in The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto and William H. Swatos. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

______. “The Evolving Politics of the Christian Right,” PS: Political Science & Politics 29, no. 3 (1996): 461-464.

______. “The Changing Nature of Christian Right Activism: 1970s-1990s,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 2. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.

______. “The New Christian Right in the Twenty-First Century,” in Religion, mobilization and social action, ed. Anson Shupe and Bronislaw Misztal, chapter 12. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

Morris, Aldon, and Suzanne Staggenborg. “Leadership in Social Movements.” http://www.cas.northwestern.edu/sociology/faculty/files/leadershipessay.pdf, 2002.

Mouw, Richard J. Political Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1973.

Mullen, Lawrence. “An Overview of Political Content Analysis of Magazines,” in The American Magazine: Research Perspectives and Prospects, ed. David Abrahamson, 37-47. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1995.

153

Neuman, Russell W., Marion R. Just, and Ann N. Crigler. Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Noll, Mark A. One Nation Under God?: Christian Faith and Political Action in America. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.

______, ed. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

______. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1994.

______. “Evangelicals in the American Founding and Evangelical Political Mobilization Today,” in Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the Founding of America, ed. James H. Hutson, chapter 5. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

______. American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

______. The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

Noll, Mark A., Jon Butler, and Harry S. Stout, eds. Protestants in America. Religion in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Noll, Mark A., Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden. The Search for Christian America. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983.

Noll, Mark A., and George A. Rawlyk, eds. Amazing Grace: Evangelicalism in , Britain, Canada, and the United States. Buffalo, NY: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1994.

Noll, Mark A., and Ronald F. Thiemann, eds. Where Shall My Wond’ring Soul Being?: The Landscape of Evangelical Piety and Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Olsen, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Paker, D.A. “Status Inconsistency and Drinking Behavior,” Pacific Sociological Review 22, no. 1 (1979): 77-95.

154

Penning, James M. “Pat Robertson and the GOP: 1988 and Beyond,” The Rapture of Politics: The Christian Right as the United States Approaches the Year 2000, ed. Steve Bruce, Peter Kivisto and William H. Swatos, chapter 7. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Penning, James M., and Corwin E. Smidt. Evangelicalism: The Next Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “The Diminishing Divide: American Churches, American Politics.” http://people- press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=126, June 25, 1996.

______. “Bush’s Gains Broad-Based: Religion and the Presidential Vote.” http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103, December 6, 2004.

Pfeiffer, Eric. “Old Foes McCain, Falwell Commence Reconciliation,” Washington Times, 14 May 2006.

Pierard, Richard V. The Unequal Yoke: Evangelical Christianity and Political Conservatism. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1970.

______. “Evangelicals and the Political Gospel,” http://www.bostontheological.org/academic/papers/pierard.pdf, 2005.

Poloma, Margaret M. : Is There a New Pentecost? Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982.

Rawlyk, George A. The Canada Fire: Radical Evangelicalism in British North America: 1775- 1812. Buffalo: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994.

______., ed. Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience. Buffalo: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1997.

Reimer, Samuel. Evangelicals and the Continental Divide: The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States. Ithaca, NY: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 2003.

Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly. “’ Evangelicals.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week733/special.html, April 2004.

Robinson, Lynn, and Paul Goren. “Religious Conservative Elites as Source Cues,” Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 223-237.

Rosell, Garth M., ed. The Evangelical Landscape: Essays on the American Evangelical Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.

155

Rosenberg, Ellen M. The Southern Baptists: A Subculture in Transition. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1989.

Rozell, Mark J. “Growing Up Politically: The New Politics of the New Christian Right,” in Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 12. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

______. “The Christian Right: Evolution, Expansion, Contraction,” in A Public Faith: Evangelicals and Civic Engagement, ed. Michael Cromartie, chapter 2. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.

Safran, William, ed. The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion and Politics. Portland: Frank Case Publishers, 2003.

Salisbury, Robert H. “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (1969): 1-32.

Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappen: NJ: F.H. Revell Co., 1976.

Schaeffer, Francis A., and Charles E. Koop. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old Tappen, NJ: F.H. Revell Co., 1979.

Schaff, Phillip. The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1877.

Schultze, Quentin J., ed. American Evangelicals and the Mass Media: Perspectives on the Relationship Between American Evangelicals and the Mass Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books.

______. Christianity and the Mass Media in America: Toward a Democratic Accommodation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003.

Segers, Mary C., ed. Piety, Politics, and Pluralism: Religion, the Courts, and the 2000 Election. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.

Shipps, Kenneth. “Christianity Today,” in The Conservative Press in Twentieth- Century America, ed. Ronald Lora and William H. Longton, 171-180. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity. 20th Anniversary Revision. Nashville, TN: World Publishing, 1997.

156

______Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Simpson, John H. “Status Inconsistency and Moral Issues,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24, no. 2 (1985): 155-162.

Sixty Minutes. “Faith, Hope and Politics: Rise of the Righteous Army.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/05/60minutes/main598218.shtml, February 8, 2004.

Smelser, Neil J. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1962.

Smidt, Corwin E. ed., Contemporary Evangelical Political Involvement: An Analysis Assessment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989.

______. “Evangelicals and American Politics: 1976-1988,” in No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics, ed. Michael Cromartie, 85-117. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.

Smidt, Corwin E., ed. In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001a.

Smidt, Corwin E. “Religion and American Public Opinion,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001b.

Smidt, Corwin E., John C. Green, James L. Guth, and Layman A. Kellstedt. “Thunder on the Right? Religious Interest Group Mobilization in the 1996 Election,” in Interest Group Politics, 5th ed., ed. Allen Cigler and Burdett Loomis, chapter 8. Washington: CQ Press, 1998.

Smidt, Corwin E., Layman A. Kellstedt, John C. Green, and James Guth. “Religion and Politics in the United States,” in The Secular and the Sacred: Nation, Religion and Politics, ed. William Safran, chapter 3. Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.

Smidt, Corwin E., and James M. Penning, eds. Sojourners in the Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Smith, Christian. Christian America?: What Evangelicals Really Want. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.

Smith, Oran P. The Rise of Baptist Republicanism. New York: New York University Press, 1997.

157

Soper, J. Christopher. Evangelical Christianity in the United States and Great Britain: Religious Beliefs, Political Choices. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1994.

______. “Divided By a Common Religion: The Christian Right in England and the United States,” in Sojourners in Wilderness: The Christian Right in Comparative Perspective, ed. Corwin E. Smidt and James M. Penning, chapter 9. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.

Sparks, Randy J. On Jordan’s Stormy Banks: Evangelicalism in Mississippi, 1773-1876. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1994.

Speer, James Allen. “An Examination of the Influence of Baptist Belief on the Governing Style of President Jimmy Carter: 1977-1980.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1989.

Stackhouse, John G. Canadian evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century: An Introduction to Its Character. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Stone, Jon R. On the Boundaries of American Evangelicalism: The Postwar Evangelical Coalition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

Stout, Daniel A., and Judith M. Buddenbaum, eds. Religion and Mass Media: Audiences and Adaptations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Sweeney, Douglass A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

Sweet, Leonard I., ed. The Evangelical Tradition in America. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984.

Tidball, Derek J. Who are the Evangelicals?: Tracing the Roots of Today’s Movements. London, England: Marshall Pickering

“To Understand Humanism: A Special Report,” Christian Harvest Times, June 1980.

Truman, David B. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf, 1951.

Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, 11th ed. A Bowker Serials Bibliography. R. R. Bowker Co., 1965.

Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, 16th ed. A Bowker Serials Bibliography. R. R. Bowker Co., 1975.

158

Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, 21st ed. A Bowker Serials Bibliography. R. R. Bowker Co., 1985.

Utter, Glenn H., and John W. Story, eds. The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook. Denver: ABC-CLIO, 1995. Vaughn, Stephen. “The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 15, no. 10 (1995): 109- 128.

Vinz, Warren L. Pulpit Politics: Faces of American Protestant Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Wald, Kenneth D. “Religious Elites and Public Opinion: The Impact of the Bishops’ Peace Pastoral,” Review of Politics 54 (1992): 112-143.

______. Religion and Politics in the United States, 3rd ed. Washington: CQ Press, 1997.

Walker, Jack. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” American Political Science Review 77 (1983): 390-406.

Walz, Jeff. “Religion and the American Presidency,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 9. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Warren, Donald I. “Status Inconsistency and Flying Saucer Sightings,” Science 170 (1970): 599-603.

Warren, Max. What Is an Evangelical? An Enquiry. London: SCM Press, 1944.

Waters, Ken. “Vibrant, But Invisible: A Study of Contemporary Religious Periodicals,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, no. 2 (2001): 307-320.

Watt, David H. A Transforming Faith: Explorations of Twentieth-Century American Evangelicalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1991.

Webb, Jeffrey B. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Christianity. New York: Alpha Books, 2004.

Weiskopf, Michael. “Energized By Pulpit or Passion, the Public is Calling ‘Gospel Grapevine’ Displays Strength in Controversy Over Military Gay Ban,” Washington Post, 1 February 1993.

159

Welch, Michael R., David C. Leege, Kenneth D. Wald, and Layman A. Kellstedt. “Are the Sheep Hearing the Shepherds? Cue Perceptions, Congregational Responses, and Political Communication Processes,” in Rediscovering the Religious Factors in American Politics, ed. David C. Leege and Layman A. Kellstedt, 235-254. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1993.

Wells, David F., and John D. Woodbridge, eds. The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing. New York: Abingdon Press, 1975. Westmeier, Karl-Wihelm. Protestant Pentecostalism in Latin America: A Study in the Dynamics of Missions. Madison, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999.

Whitten, Mark W. The Myth of Christian America: What You Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 1999.

Wielhouwer, Peter, and Thomas Young. “Religion in American Elections and Campaigns,” in In God We Trust?: Religion and American Political Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt, chapter 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Wilcox, Clyde. God’s Warriors: The Christian Right in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University Press, 1992.

______. Onward Christian Soldiers?: The Religious Right in American Politics, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000.

Willis, Jim, and Wes Michaelson. “The Plan to Save America: A Disclosure of an Alarming Political Initiative by the Evangelical Far Right,” Sojourners IV, no. 4 (April 1976): 4-11.

Woodbridge, John D., Mark A. Noll, and Nathan O. Hatch. The Gospel in America: Themes in the Study of America’s Evangelicals. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

World Almanac and Book of Facts 2005. New York: World Almanac Books, 2005.

Wuthnow, Robert, ed. The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion. Washington: CQ Press.

Zald, Mayer N., and John D. McCarthy, eds. The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control and Tactics. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers,, 1979.

Zurcher, Louis A., R. George Kirkpatrick, Robert G. Cushing and Charles K. Bowman. “The Anti-Pornography Campaign: A Symbolic Crusade,” Social Problems 19, no. 2 (1971): 217-238.

160

Zurcher, Louis A., and R. George Kirkpatrick. Citizens for Decency: Anti- Pornography Crusades as Status Defense. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1976.

161

Appendix A

Graph A: Individual Instances of Political Content for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

350

300

250

200

150

100 Individual Instances of Political Content of Political Instances Individual

50

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

162

Graph B: Individual Instances of Political Content for Each Year in Christianity Today

200

150

100

Individual Instances of Political Content of Political Instances Individual 50

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

163

Graph C: Individual Instances of Political Content for Each Year in Moody Monthly

80

70

60

50

40

30

Individual Instances of Political Content of Political Instances Individual 20

10

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

164

Graph D: Individual Instances of Political Content for Each Year in Christian Life

60

50

40

30

20

10 Individual Instances of Political Content of Political Instances Individual

0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

165

Graph E: Individual Instances of Political Content for Each Year in Decision

14

12

10

8

6

4

Individual Instances of Political Content of Political Instances Individual 2

0

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

166

Graph F: Individual Instances of Political Cover Stories for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

15

12

9

6

3 Individual Instances of Political Cover Stories Cover Political of Instances Individual

0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

167

Graph G: Individual Instances of Political Non-Cover Political Feature Stories for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

80

70

60

50 ver Political Feature Stories ver

40

30

20

10 Individual Instances of Non-Co

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

168

Graph H: Individual Instances of Political Editorials Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

15

10

5 Individual Instances of Political Editorials Political of Instances Individual

0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

169

Graph I: Individual Instances of Political Non-Feature Stories Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

140

120

100

80

60

40 Individual Instances of Political Non-Feature Stories Non-Feature Political of Instances Individual 20

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

170

Graph J: Individual Instances of Political Advertisements for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40

30

20

10 Individual Instances of Political Advertisements Political of Instances Individual

0

60 61 62 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

171

Graph K: Individual Instances of Political Photographs or Cartoons Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

10

8

6

4

2

0 Individual Instances of Political Photographs or Cartoons Photographs Political of Instances Individual

61 62 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 Year of Publication

172

Graph L: Individual Instances of Brief Political Stories (Less Than 1/12th Page) Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40

30 Political Stories Political 20

10 Individual Instances of Brief (Less than 1/12th page) 1/12th than (Less Brief of Instances Individual 0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Year of Publication

173

Graph M: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering 1/12th of a Page to 1/4th of a Page Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

80

60

40 Count

20

0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

174

Graph N: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering Greater Than 1/4th of a Page to Up to 1/2 of a Page Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40 Count

30

20

10

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

175

Graph O: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering 1/2 of a Page to 1 Full Page Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40 Count

30

20

10

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

176

Graph P: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering Greater than 1 Full Page to 3 Full Pages Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40 Count

30

20

10

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

177

Graph Q: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering Greater than 3 Full Pages to 5 Full Pages Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

15

10 Count

5

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

178

Graph R: Number of Instances of Political Material in Content Covering Greater than 5 Pages Identified for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

8

7

6

5 Count 4

3

2

1

60 61 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

179

Graph S: Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in the Political System Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

120

100

80

60

40

20 for Readers to Participate in the Political System in the Political for Readers to Participate

Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls Explicit Containing of Content Instances Individual 0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

180

Graph T: Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in the Political system Each Year in Christianity Today Only

60

50

40

30

20

10 for Readers to Participate in the Political System in the Political for Readers to Participate

Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls Explicit Containing of Content Instances Individual 0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

181

Graph U: Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in the Political System Each Year in Christian Life Only

30

25

20

15

10

5 for Readers to Participate in the Political System in the Political for Readers to Participate

Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls Explicit Containing of Content Instances Individual 0

63 64 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

182

Graph V: Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in the Political System Each Year in Moody Monthly Only

15

10

5 for Readers to Participate in the Political System in the Political for Readers to Participate

Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls Explicit Containing of Content Instances Individual 0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

183

Graph W: Individual Instances of Content Containing Explicit Calls for Readers to Participate in the Political System Each Year in Decision Only

5

4

3

2 Readers to Participate in the Political System Political the in Participate to Readers

1 Individual Instances of Content Containing Explict for Calls Explict Containing of Content Instances Individual

64 66 68 69 70 75 76 77 80 year of publication

184

Graph X: Individual Instances of Content Containing Examples of Participation within the Political System Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

20

15

10

5 Participation Within the Political System the Political Within Participation

Individual Instances of Content Containing Examples of Examples Containing Content of Instances Individual 0

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 year of publication

185

Graph Y: Individual Instances of Content Containing Suggestions that the Church Should Stay Out of Politics for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

14

12

10

8

6

4 Church Should Stay Out of Politics Out of Stay Should Church

2 Indiviudal Instances of Content Suggesting that the that of Content Suggesting Instances Indiviudal 0

60 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 76 year of publication

186

Graph Z: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Partisan Bias for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

40

30

20 a Partisan Bias a Partisan

10

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

187

Graph A1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Christianity Today Only

25

20

15

10 Partisan Bias Partisan

5

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

188

Graph B1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Christian Life Only

10

8

6

4 Partisan Bias Partisan

2

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 76 78 79 80 81 year of publication

189

Graph C1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Moody Monthly Only

6

5

4

3 Partisan Bias Partisan

2

1 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

63 64 65 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 81 year of publication

190

Graph D1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain Partisan Bias for Each Year in Decision Only

3.0

2.5

2.0 Partisan Bias Partisan

1.5

1.0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

67 68 69 76 77 78 year of publication

191

Graph E1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a CLEAR & EXPLICIT Partisan Bias for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

20

15

10

5 a CLEAR & EXPLICIT Partisan Bias EXPLICIT Partisan & a CLEAR

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

61 62 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

192

Graph F1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain an Attempt at Partisan Neutrality for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

15

12

9

6

an Attempt at Partisan Neutrality Partisan at Attempt an 3

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 62 63 64 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 year of publication

193

Graph G1- Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Suggest that Liberal Protestants were Incorrect Politically as Well as Theologically for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

25

20

15 Incorrect 10

5 Suggestions that Liberal Protestants were Politically Protestants Liberal that Suggestions 0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 year of publication

194

Graph H1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Reference to a Specific Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

140

120

100

80

60

a Reference to an Individual Politician Individual an to Reference a 40

20 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

195

Graph I1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to be Favorable toward Individual Republican Politicians for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Moody Monthly, Christian Life and Decision)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Positive References to an Individual Republican Politican Republican an Individual to References Positive Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

196

Graph J1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain Negative References to Individual Republican Politicians for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

25

20

15

10

5

0 Negative References to Individual Republican Politicans Republican to Individual References Negative Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

62 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 year of publication

197

Graph K1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Neutral Reference to a Republican Politician for Each Year for Every Magazine (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 a Neutral Reference to an Individual Republican Politican Republican an Individual to Reference Neutral a Individiual Instances of Political Content Judges to Contain to Judges Content Political of Instances Individiual

60 62 63 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

198

Graph L1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Positive Reference to an Individual Democratic Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision).

50

40

30

20

10

0 a Positive Refernce to an Individual Democratic Politician Democratic Individual to an Refernce Positive a Indiviudal Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Indiviudal

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

199

Graph M1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Negative Reference to an Individual Democratic Politician for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

25

20

15

10

5

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual a Negative Refernece to an Individual Democratic Politican Democratic an Individual Refernece to a Negative

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

200

Graph N1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Neutral Reference to an Individual Democratic Politician for Every Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision).

25

20

15

10

5

0 a Neutral Reference to an Individual Democratic Politican Democratic an Individual to Reference Neutral a Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

201

Graph P1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Public Policy Issues for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

150

100

50 a Discussion of Public Policy Issues Each Year Each Issues Policy Public of Discussion a Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

202

Graph Q1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Moral Issues for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

120

100

80

60

40

20 a Discussion of Moral Issues Each Year of Moral Issues For a Discussion

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

203

Graph R1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Abortion for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

70

60

50

40

30

20 Discussion of Abortion for Each Year Each for Abortion of Discussion 10 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

204

Graph S1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Discussion of Public Policy Toward Pornography or Obscenity for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision).

15

10

5 Obscenity in Each Year Obscenity a Discussion of Public Policy Toward Pornography or Pornography Toward Policy Public of Discussion a 0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

205

Graph T1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Towards Prayer and Bible Reading in Public Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

25

20

15

10 Reading in Public Schools for Each Year for Each Schools Public in Reading

5 Indiviudal Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Indiviudal Discussion of Public Policy and Bible Towards of Public Policy Prayer Discussion

60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

206

Graph U1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of public Policy Concerning Illegal Drug and Alcohol Abuse for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

12

10

8

6

4 Alcohol Abuse for Each Year Each for Abuse Alcohol

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual

Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Illegal Drug and Illegal Concerning of Public Policy Discussion 0

63 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 year of publication

207

Graph V1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Teaching of the Theory of Evolution in Public Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

12

10

8

6

4

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Teaching the Teaching of Concerning of Public Policy Discussion

the Theory of Evolution in Public Schools for Each Year for Each Schools Public in Evolution of Theory the 0

60 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

208

Graph W1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Women's Liberation or the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

30

25

20

15

10

to the U.S. Constitution for Each Year Each for Constitution U.S. the to 5 Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Women's Concerning Policy Public of Discussion Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Liberation or the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Amendment Rights Equal Proposed or the Liberation

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

209

Graph X1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Homosexual Rights for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

30

25

20

15 for Each Year

10

5 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Homosexual Rights Homosexual Concerning Policy Public of Discussion

65 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

210

Graph Y1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Teaching of Sexual Education in Public Schools for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

8

7

6

5

4

Schools for Each Year Each for Schools 3

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 1 Discussion of the Teaching of Sexual Education in Public Education Sexual of Teaching the of Discussion

64 68 69 70 72 74 75 79 80 81 year of publication

211

Graph Z1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Gambling for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 1.0 Discussion of Public Policy Toward Gambling for Each Year Each for Gambling Toward Policy Public of Discussion

62 63 64 65 66 67 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 year of publication

212

Graph A2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Death Penalty for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

10

8

6

4 for Each Year

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Death Penalty Death the Concerning Policy Public of Discussion

63 64 65 67 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 81 year of publication

213

Graph B2: Individual Instances of Public Policy Discussions Involving Non-Moral Issues for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

120

100

80

60

40 Non-Moral Issues Each Year Issues for Non-Moral

20

0 Individual Instances of Public Policy Discussions Involving Discussions Policy Public of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

214

Graph C2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Poverty for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

25

20

15 Year

10

5 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Poverty for Each Poverty Concerning Policy Public of Discussion

60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

215

Graph D2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy concerning the Environment for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

14

12

10

8

6 for Each Year

4

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Environment the Concerning Policy Public of Discussion

67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

216

Graph E2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Favorable Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Environment for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

12

10

8

6

4 Environment for Each Year for Each Environment

2 Positive Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Concerning Policy Public of Discussion Positive Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0

67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

217

Graph F2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Negative Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Environment for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

3.0

2.5

2.0

Environment for Each Year for Each Environment 1.5 Negative Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Concerning Policy Public of Discussion Negative Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 1.0

72 73 74 75 78 80 year of publication

218

Graph G2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

40

30

20

10 African Americans for Each Year Each for Americans African Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual

Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for Rights Civil Concerning Policy Public of Discussion 0

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

219

Graph H2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Supportive Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

10

8

6

4

2 Rights for African Americans for Each Year Each for Americans African for Rights Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual

Supportive Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Concerning Policy Public of Discussion Supportive 0

60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

220

Graph I2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing an Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for African Americans with an Indeterminate Tone (Neither Clearly Supportive or Opposed) for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual

Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for Rights Civil Concerning Policy Public of Discussion 0 African Americans of an Indeterminate Tone for Each Year Each for Tone Indeterminate an of Americans African

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 79 year of publication

221

Graph J2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Negative Discussion of Public Policy Concerning Civil Rights for African Americans for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

12

10

8

6 for Each Year

4

2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Negative Discussion of Civil Rights for African Americans African for Rights of Civil Discussion Negative

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 76 78 79 year of publication

222

Graph K2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of the Negatives of Big Government or the Negatives of Social Welfare Programs for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

12

10

8

6

4 Welfare Programs for Each Year Each for Programs Welfare 2 Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0 Negative Message Concerning or Concerning Big Government Social Message Negative

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 year of publication

223

Graph L2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Reference to the Watergate Scandal for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

60

50

40

30

20

10 Reference to the Watergate for Scandal Each Year to the Watergate Reference Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Containing Content Political of Instances Individual 0

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 year of publication

224

Graph M2: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of Public Policy Concerning the Vietnam Conflict for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

25

20

15

10 Vietnam Conflict for Each Year for Each Conflict Vietnam 5

Individual Instances of Political Content Concerning the Concerning Content Political of Instances Individual 0

61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 year of publication

225

Graph N2: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain an Anti- Communistic Message for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

40

30

20

10 an Anti-Communistic Message for Each Year for Each Message Anti-Communistic an

0 Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain to Judged Content Political of Instances Individual

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 year of publication

226

APPENDIX B

Table A1: Individual Instances of Political Content Judged to Contain a Reference to an Individual Politician Classified by Tone and Partisanship for all Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision).

Tone Republican Republican Democrat Democrat Percentages Percentages Positive 559 63.67% 293 43.54% Negative 88 10.02% 187 27.79% Neutral 231 26.31% 193 28.68% Total 878 673

227

Table B1: Individual Instances of Content Containing References to Individual Politicians

POLITICIAN ARTICLE PERCENTAGE % % REFERENCING OF POSITIVE NEGATIVE REFERENCES Dwight 20 1% 90% 0% Eisenhower John Kennedy 91 5% 26% 49% Richard Nixon 305 17% 46% 18% Everett 29 1.5% 90% 10% Dirksen Lyndon 100 5.5% 46% 18% Johnson Barry 24 1% 71% 0% Goldwater Hubert 14 1% 21% 14% Humphrey George 20 1% 15% 20% McGovern Gerald Ford 104 5.5% 60% 5% Ronald 79 4.5% 73% 1% Reagan Jimmy Carter 244 13% 45% 25% John Conlan 32 2% 84% 0% Harold Hughes 28 1.5% 93% 0% Mark Hatfield 159 8.5% 77% 1% John Anderson 53 3% 70% 8% 31 1.5% 94% 0% Other 488 27% TOTAL 1821 99.5%1

1 Total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding.

228

Table C1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing References to Individual Evangelical Political Leaders for all Four Magazines Name Number of % of Total % of % of References Evangelist References References References Positive Negative Jerry Falwell 84 30% 64% 6% Pat Robertson 26 9% 54% 0% Anita Bryant 50 18% 84% 2% Jimmy 1 0% 0% 0% Swaggart James 10 4% 80% 10% Robison Phyliss 22 8% 91% 0% Schlafly Carl McIntire 33 12% 3% 58% Connie 9 3% 100% 0% Marshner Bill Bright 10 4% 60% 0% Billy James 16 6% 0% 56% Hargis Paul Weyrich 6 2% 67% 0% Others 14 5% 71% 14%

229

Table D1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing References to a Political Interest Group for all Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly and Decision)

Organization Number of % of Total % of % of Name References Political References References Organization Positive Negative References Moral Majority 44 16% 54.5% 9% Christian 16 6% 94% 0% Action Council Citizen 3 1% 100% 0% Decency Council ACLU 29 11% 7% 65.5% Americans 35 13% 20% 40% United Stop ERA 3 1% 66.5% 0% Religious 4 1.5% 100% 0% Roundtable Christian 11 4% 63.5% 18% Voice Third Century 5 2% 60% 0% Foundation Eagle Forum 3 1% 100% 0% Early Right to 25 9% 88% 4% Life Groups Early Pro- 13 5% 0% 92% Choice Groups Others 81 29.5% NA NA

230

Table E1: Individual Instances of Political Content Containing a Discussion of a Moral Issue for Each Year in All Four Magazines (Christianity Today, Christian Life, Moody Monthly & Decision)

Moral Issue Number of References % of Total Moral References Abortion 405 28% Pornography & Obscenity 152 11% Prayer & Bible Reading in 273 19% Public Schools Drug & Alcohol Abuse 75 5% Teaching Evolution in 92 6% Public Schools Women’s Liberation & the 106 7% Equal Rights Amendment Homosexual Rights 150 11% Sex Education Policy 24 2% Gambling 26 2% Capital Punishment 50 4% Other Moral Issues2 76 5% Total 1,429 100%

2 Items frequently classified as “Other Moral Issues” included: Sunday blue laws, public displays of the Ten Commandments and public displays of crèches or Easter decorations.

231

APPENDIX C

Member Denominations of the National Council of Churches

1. African Methodist Episcopal Church 2. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 3. The Alliance of Baptists in the U.S.A. 4. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. 5. The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdioceses of North America 6. Armenian Apostolic Church, Diocese of America 7. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada 8. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 9. Church of the Brethren 10. Coptic Orthodox Church 11. Episcopal Church 12. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 13. Friends United Meeting 14. General Assembly of the Korean Presbyterian Church in America 15. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America 16. Hungarian Reformed Church in America 17. International Council of Community Churches 18. Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India 19. in America (Northern Province) 20. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. 21. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America 22. The Orthodox Church in America 23. Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. 24. Polish National Catholic Church of America 25. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 26. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 27. Reformed Church in America 28. Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada 29. The Swedenborgian Church 30. Syrian (Syriac) Orthodox Church of Antioch 31. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. 32. United 33. The United Methodist Church

Member Denominations of the National Association of Evangelicals

1. Advent Christian General Conference 2. Assemblies of God 3. Baptist General Conference 4. The Brethren Church 5. Brethren in Christ Church 6. Christian Catholic Church

232

7. Christian Catholic Church (Evangelical Protestant) 8. The Christian and Missionary Alliance 9. Christian Church of North America 10. Christian Reformed Church in North America 11. Christian Union 12. Church of God 13. Church of God, Mountain Assembly, Inc. 14. Church of the Nazarene 15. Church of the United Brethren in Christ 16. Church of Christ in Christian Union 17. Congregational Holiness Church 18. Conservative Baptist Association of America 19. Conservative Congressional Christian Conference 20. Conservative Lutheran Association 21. Elim Fellowship 22. Evangelical Church of North America 23. Evangelical Congregational Church 24. Evangelical Free Church of America 25. Evangelical Friends International of North America 26. Evangelical Mennonite Church 27. Evangelical Methodist Church 28. Evangelical Presbyterian Church 29. Evangelistic Missionary Fellowship 30. Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches 31. Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas 32. Free Methodist Church of North America 33. General Association of General Baptists 34. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel 35. International Pentecostal Church of Christ 36. International Pentecostal Holiness Church 37. Mennonite Brethren Churches, USA 38. Midwest Congregational Christian Fellowship 39. Missionary Church, Inc. 40. Open Bible Standard Churches 41. Pentecostal Church of God 42. Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, Inc. 43. Presbyterian Church in America 44. Primitive Methodist Church USA 45. Reformed Episcopal Church 46. Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 47. Regional Synod of Mid-America (Reformed Church in America) 48. The Salvation Army, National Headquarters 49. The Wesleyan Church 50. Worldwide Church of God 51. Association of Evangelical Gospel Assemblies

233

Member Denominations of the American Council of Christian Churches 1. Bible Presbyterian Church 2. Evangelical Methodist Church 3. Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches 4. Free Presbyterian Church of North America 5. Fundamental Methodist Church 6. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches 7. Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America 8. Independent Churches Affiliated

234

APPENDIX D

Individual Denominations Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in Name America Headquarters Boston, Massachusetts URL www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/dioce Membership ses/al/ Number of Churches (5,775) members Theological Tradition 12 congregations Ecumenical Affiliation Eastern Orthodox tradition No ecumenical affiliation Advent Christian Church Orthodox conservative Charlotte, North Carolina www.adventchristian.org Albanian Orthodox Diocese of 25,277 members America No church figure Las Vegas, Nevada Adventist tradition www.goarch.org Member National Association of 2,278 members Evangelicals 2 congregations Evangelical-General Eastern Orthodox tradition No ecumenical affiliation African Methodist Episcopal Church Orthodox conservative Philadelphia, Pennsylvania www.amecnet.org Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist 1,857,186 (2,500,000) members Connection (Original Allegheny No church figure Conference) Methodist/Episcopal tradition Salem, Ohio Member National Council of www.c1web.com/local_info/churches Churches /aw.html Mainline Protestant- African 1,663 (1,803) members American 110 congregations Methodist/Holiness tradition African Methodist Episcopal Zion No ecumenical affiliation Church Evangelical- Holiness Charlotte, North Carolina www.amezionchurch.com The Alliance of Baptists in the U.S.A. 1,209,887 (1,430,795) members Washington, DC 3,226 congregations www.allianceofbaptists.org Methodist/Episcopal tradition 63,870 members Member National Council of 128 congregations Churches Baptist tradition Mainline Protestant- African Member National Council of American Churches

235

Mainline Protestant Independent Catholic tradition Catholic The American Association of Lutheran Churches American Evangelical Christian Minneapolis, Minnesota Churches www.taalc.com Indianapolis, Indiana 14,095 (18,252) members www.aeccministries.com 101 congregations 15,470 (18,412) members Lutheran tradition 180 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Independent Evangelical tradition Evangelical- general No ecumenical affiliation Evangelical- general The American Baptist Association Texarkana, Texas American Rescue Workers www.abaptist.org Williamsport, Pennsylvania (275,000) members www.arwus.com 1,760 congregations 3,000 members Baptist tradition 15 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Social Gospel & Service tradition Evangelical- Fundamentalist No ecumenical affiliation Undetermined status American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Valley Forge, Pennsylvania Archdiocese of North America www.abc-usa.org Englewood, New Jersey 1,484,291 members www.antiochian.org 5,836 congregations 380,000 members Baptist tradition 230 congregations Member National Council of Eastern Orthodox tradition Churches Member National Council of Mainline-Evangelical Mix Churches Orthodox conservative The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church Johnstown, Pennsylvania of the East, North American Diocese www.goarch.org Baghdad, Iraq 13,425 members www.cired.org/ace.html 80 congregations No membership figure Eastern Orthodox tradition No church figure Orthodox conservative Eastern Orthodox tradition No ecumenical affiliation American Catholic Church Orthodox conservative Hampton Bays, New York www.accus.us Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church 25,000 members (North American Old Catholic) No church figure Houston, Texas

236

www.apostoliccatholic.org Apostolic Faith Mission of Portland, 10,000 (25,000) members Oregon 10 congregations Portland, Oregon Eastern Orthodox tradition www.apostolicfaith.org No ecumenical affiliation 4,500 members Orthodox conservative 54 congregations Pentecostal tradition Apostolic Christian Church No ecumenical affiliation (Nazarene) Evangelical-Pentecostal Richmond, Virginia No URL Apostolic Lutheran Church of 3,723 members America 63 congregations Battle Ground, Washington Independent tradition www.apostolic-lutheran.org No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Undetermined status 58 congregations Lutheran tradition Apostolic Christian Churches of No ecumenical affiliation America Mainline-Protestant Peoria, Illinois www.apostolicchristian.org Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church 12,930 members of North America (American 86 congregations Orthodox Catholic Church Independent tradition Glendora, California No ecumenical affiliation www.forministry.com/91740AOCCA Undetermined status (2,400) members 21 congregations Apostolic Episcopal Church Eastern Orthodox tradition St. Jamaica, New York No ecumenical affiliation www.celticsynod.org/aec.htm Orthodox conservative 18,000 members 250 congregations Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church Independent tradition of God, Inc. No ecumenical affiliation , Alabama Mainline Protestant No URL No membership figure Apostolic Faith Mission Church of No church figure God Pentecostal tradition Cantonment, Florida No ecumenical affiliation No URL Evangelical- Pentecostal 8,256 (10,426) members 23 congregations Armenian Apostolic Church of Pentecostal tradition America No ecumenical affiliation New York, New York Evangelical-Pentecostal www.armprelacy.org 360,000 members

237

34 congregations Oriental Orthodox tradition The Association of Evangelical No ecumenical affiliation Gospel Assemblies Orthodox conservative Monroe, www.aega.org Armenian Apostolic Church, Diocese No membership figure of America No church figure New York, New York Independent Evangelical tradition www.armenianchurch.org Member National Association of 14,000 members Evangelicals 72 congregations Evangelical- general Oriental Orthodox tradition Member National Council of The Association of Free Lutheran Churches Congregations Orthodox conservative Minneapolis, Minnesota www.aflc.org Assemblies of God 27,040 (36,431) members Springfield, Missouri 252 congregations www.ag.org Lutheran tradition 1,585,428 (2,687,366) members No ecumenical affiliation 12,133 congregations Evangelical- general Pentecostal tradition Member National Association of Baptist Bible Fellowship International Evangelicals Springfield, Missouri Evangelical- Pentecostal www.bbfi.org 1,200,000 members Assemblies of God International 4,500 congregations Fellowship (Independent/Not Baptist tradition Affiliated) No ecumenical affiliation San Diego, California Evangelical- fundamentalist www.agifellowship.org No membership figure Baptist General Conference No church figure Arlington Heights, Illinois Pentecostal tradition www.bgcworld.org No ecumenical affiliation 145,148 members Evangelical- Pentecostal 902 congregations Baptist tradition Associated Reformed Presbyterian Member National Association of Church (General Synod) Evangelicals Greenville, South Carolina Evangelical- fundamentalist www.arpsynod.org 35,556 (40,905) members Baptist Missionary Association of 264 congregations America Presbyterian tradition Little Rock, Arkansas No ecumenical affiliation www.bmaam.com Evangelical- general 234,732 members

238

1,334 congregations Methodist, Holiness tradition Baptist tradition No ecumenical affiliation No ecumenical affiliation Evangelical- Holiness Evangelical- fundamentalist Bible Presbyterian Church Beachy Amish Mennonite Churches No national headquarters Partridge, Kansas www.bpc.org No URL No membership figure 9,205 members No church figure 153 congregations Presbyterian tradition Mennonite tradition Member American Council of No ecumenical affiliation Churches Mennonite conservative Evangelical- fundamentalist

Berean Fundamental Church Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Kearney, Nebraska Christ World Wide, Inc. www.bereanfellowship.org Columbia, South Carolina 8,000 members www.biblewaychurch.org 51 congregations No membership figure Independent tradition No church figure No ecumenical affiliation Pentecostal tradition Evangelical- fundamentalist No ecumenical affiliation Evangelical- Pentecostal The Bible Church of Christ, Inc. Bronx, New York Brethren in Christ Church www.thebiblechurchofchrist.org Grantham, Pennsylvania 4,150 (6,850) members www.bic-church.org 6 congregations 20,739 members Pentecostal tradition 232 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Brethren, River tradition Evangelical- Pentecostal No ecumenical affiliation Evangelical- general Bible Fellowship Church Whitehall, Pennsylvania Brethren Church (Ashland, Ohio) www.bfc.org Ashland, Ohio 7,308 members www.brethrenchurch.org 57 congregations 10,287 members Mennonite tradition 117 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Brethren (German Baptists) tradition Evangelical- fundamentalist Member National Association of Evangelicals Bible Holiness Church Evangelical- general Independence, Kansas No URL The Catholic Church No membership figure Vatican City No church figure www.vatican.va

239

66,407,105 members Indianapolis, Indiana 19,484 congregations www.disciples.org Roman Catholic tradition 504,118 (786,334) members No ecumenical affiliation 3,691 congregations Catholic Churches of Christ—Christian Churches tradition Christ Catholic Church Member National Council of Highlandville, Missouri Churches www.cccint.org Mainline Protestant 1,439 (1,464) members 6 congregations Christian Church of North America, Old Catholic tradition General Council No ecumenical affiliation Transfer, Pennsylvania Catholic www.ccna.org 7,200 members Christ Community Church 96 congregations (Evangelical-Protestant) Pentecostal tradition Zion, Illinois Member National Association of No URL Evangelicals 1,027 (1,690) members Evangelical- Pentecostal 3 congregations Independent tradition Christian Churches and Churches of No ecumenical affiliation Christ Evangelical- general Cincinnati, Ohio www.cwv.net/christ’n/ (1,071,616) members Elgin, Illinois 5,579 congregations www.christadelphia.org Churches of Christ—Christian No membership figure Churches tradition No church figure No ecumenical affiliation Independent tradition Mainline Protestant- African No ecumenical affiliation American Mainline Protestant The Christian Congregation, Inc. Christian Brethren (also known as LaFollette, Tennessee Plymouth Brethren) www.netministries.org/see/churches. Wheaton, Illinois exe/ch10619 www.brethren.org 119,391 members (85,050) members 1,439 congregations 1,165 congregations Independent tradition Independent tradition No ecumenical affiliation No ecumenical affiliation Undetermined status Evangelical- general Christian Methodist Episcopal Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Church in the United States and Canada Memphis, Tennessee

240

www.cmesonline.org Member National Council of 850,000 members Churches 3,300 congregations Evangelical- general Methodist tradition Member National Council of Church of Christ Churches Independence, Missouri Undetermined status http://church-of-christ.com No membership figure The Christian and Missionary No church figure Alliance Churches of Christ—Christian Colorado Springs, Colorado Churches tradition www.cmalliance.org No ecumenical affiliation 190,573 (389,232) members Evangelical- general 1,963 congregations Methodist-Holiness tradition The Church of Christ (Holiness) Member National Evangelical U.S.A. Association Jackson, Mississippi Evangelical- Holiness www.cochusa.com 10,321 members Christian Reformed Church in North 159 congregations America Holiness tradition Grand Rapids, Michigan No ecumenical affiliation www.crcna.org Evangelical- Holiness 137,375 (197,339) members 762 congregations Church of Christ, Scientist Reformed tradition Boston, Massachusetts Member National Association of www.spiriturality.com Evangelicals No membership figure Evangelical- general 2,000 congregations Independent tradition Christian Union No ecumenical affiliation Fort Wayne, Indiana Mainline Protestant www.christianunion.com 4,484 (6,153) members Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) 111 congregations Anderson, Indiana Independent tradition www.chog.org Member National Association of 247,007 members Evangelicals 2,290 congregations Evangelical- general Churches of God tradition No ecumenical affiliation Church of the Brethren Evangelical- general Elgin, Illinois www.brethren.org The 134,844 members Memphis, Tennessee 1,069 congregations www.netministries.org/see/churches/ Brethren (German Baptist) tradition ch00833

241

5,499,875 members Church of God General Conference 15,300 congregations (Oregon, Illinois and Morrow, Pentecostal tradition Georgia) No ecumenical affiliation Morrow, Georgia Evangelical- Pentecostal www.abc-coggc.org 3,860 (5,018) members Church of God in Christ, 89 congregations International Adventist tradition Brooklyn, New York No ecumenical affiliation www.cogic.org Evangelical- general No membership figure No church figure Church of God, Mountain Assembly, Pentecostal tradition Inc. No ecumenical affiliation Jellico, Tennessee Evangelical- Pentecostal www.cgmahdq.org 6,140 members Church of God in Christ, Mennonite 118 congregations Moundridge, Kansas Pentecostal tradition http://holdeman.cjb.net Member National Association of 12,984 members Evangelicals 115 congregations Evangelical- Pentecostal Mennonite tradition No ecumenical tradition Church of God of Mennonite conservative Cleveland, Tennessee www.cogop.org Church of God (Cleveland, 85,000 (110,000) members Tennessee) 1,841 congregations Cleveland, Tennessee Pentecostal tradition www.churchofgod.cc/default_nav40. No ecumenical affiliation asp Evangelical- Pentecostal 944,857 members 6,623 congregations Church of God (Seventh Day), Pentecostal tradition Denver, Colorado Member National Association of Denver, Colorado Evangelicals www.cog7.org Evangelical- Pentecostal 9,000 (11,000) members 200 congregations Church of God by Faith, Inc. Churches of God tradition Jacksonville, Florida No ecumenical affiliation www.cogbf.org Protestant 30,000 members 148 congregations The Church of Illumination Churches of God tradition Quakertown, Pennsylvania No ecumenical affiliation www.soul.org Undetermined status (1,200) members 4 congregations

242

Independent tradition 6,456 (8,492) members Protestant 77 congregations Lutheran tradition The Church of Jesus Christ No ecumenical affiliation (Bickertonites) Mainline Protestant Monongahela, Pennsylvania No URL Church of the Nazarene (2,707) members Kansas City, Missouri 63 congregations www.nazarene.org Latter Day Saints (Mormon) tradition 639,330 (643,649) members No ecumenical affiliation 4,983 congregations Mormon conservative Methodist/Holiness tradition Member National Association of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Evangelicals day Saints (Mormons) Evangelical- Holiness Salt Lake City, Utah www.lds.org Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of 4,855,255 (5,410,544) members the Apostolic Faith, Inc. 11,879 congregations New York, New York Latter Day Saints (Mormon) tradition www.apostolic-faith.org No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Mormon conservative 500 congregations Pentecostal tradition Church of the Living God (Motto: No ecumenical affiliation Christian Workers for Fellowship) Evangelical- Pentecostal Cincinnati, Ohio No URL Church of the United Brethren in 20,000 members Christ 120 congregations Huntington, Indiana Independent tradition www.ub.org No ecumenical affiliation 22,740 members Evangelical- African American 217 congregations United Brethren tradition Church of the Lutheran Brethren of Member National Association of America Evangelicals Fergus Falls, Minnesota Evangelical- general www.clba.org 8,194 (13,702) members Churches of Christ 108 congregations Nashville, Tennessee Lutheran tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation 1,500,000 members Evangelical- general 15,000 congregations Christian Churches, Churches of Church of the Lutheran Confession Christ tradition Eau Claire, No ecumenical tradition www.clcluthrean.org Evangelical- African American

243

1,200 congregations Churches of Christ in Christian Union Baptist tradition Circleville, Ohio Member National Association of No URL Evangelicals 10,473 members Evangelical- fundamentalist 233 congregations Churches of Christ- Christian Conservative Congregational Churches tradition Christian Conference Member National Association of St. Paul, Minnesota Evangelicals www.ccccusa.org Evangelical- general 40,041 members 259 congregations Churches of God, General Independent tradition Conference No ecumenical affiliation Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Evangelical- general www.cggc.org 32,654 members Conservative Lutheran Association 337 congregations Anaheim, California Churches of God tradition www.tlcanaheim.com/cla/ No ecumenical affiliation 852 (1,267) members Undetermined status 3 congregations Lutheran tradition Community of Christ Member National Association of Independence, Missouri Evangelicals www.cofchrist.org Evangelical- general 142,106 members 951 congregations Coptic Orthodox Church Latter-day Saints (Mormon) tradition Cedar Grove, New Jersey No ecumenical affiliation www.coptic.org Mormon conservative 250,000 (300,000) members 100 congregations Congregational Holiness Church Oriental Orthodox tradition Griffin, Georgia Member National Council of www.chchurch.com Churches 9,565 members Orthodox conservative 190 congregations Pentecostal tradition Cumberland Presbyterian Church Member National Association of Memphis, Tennessee Evangelicals www.cumberland.org Evangelical- Pentecostal 84,417 members 780 congregations Conservative Baptist Association of Presbyterian tradition America (CBAmerica) No ecumenical affiliation Littleton, Colorado Evangelical- general www.cbamerica.org 200,000 members

244

Cumberland Presbyterian Church in No ecumenical affiliation America Protestant Huntsville, Alabama www.cumberland.org/cpca The Evangelical Church 15,142 members Minneapolis, Minnesota 152 congregations [email protected] Presbyterian tradition 12,475 members No ecumenical affiliation 133 congregations Evangelical- African American Independent evangelical tradition No ecumenical tradition Elim Fellowship Evangelical- general Lima, New York www.elimfellowship.org The Evangelical Church Alliance No membership figure Bradley, Illinois 100 congregations www.ecainternational.org Pentecostal tradition No membership figure Member National Association of No church figure Evangelicals Independent tradition Evangelical- Pentecostal No ecumenical tradition Evangelical- general Episcopal Church New York, New York The Evangelical Congregational www.ecusa.anglican.org Church 1,897,004 (2,333,628) members Myerstown, Pennsylvania 7,344 congregations www.eccenter.com/church Anglican tradition 21,208 members Member National Council of 150 congregations Churches Independent tradition Mainline Protestant Member National Association of Evangelicals The Episcopal Orthodox Church Evangelical- general Lexington, North Carolina www.orthodoxanglican.net The Evangelical Covenant Church No membership figure Chicago, Illinois No Church figure www.cochurch.org Anglican tradition 103,549 members No ecumenical affiliation 718 congregations Undetermined status Independent tradition No ecumenical affiliation The Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Evangelical- general Church Toronto, The Evangelical Free Church of www.eelk.ee America 3,508 members Minneapolis, Minnesota 21 congregations www.efca.org Lutheran tradition 124,499 (242,619) members

245

1,224 congregations Member National Association of Independent tradition Evangelicals Member National Association of Evangelical- conservative Evangelicals Evangelical- general Evangelical Methodist Church Indianapolis, Indiana Evangelical Friends International— www.emchurch.org North American Region 8,615 members Canton, Ohio 123 congregations www.evangelical-friends.org Methodist, Holiness tradition 27,057 members Member National Association of 278 congregations Evangelicals & Friends (Quaker) tradition American Council of Christian Member National Association of Churches Evangelicals Evangelical- Holiness Friends conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church Evangelical Lutheran Church in Livonia, Michigan America www.epc.org Chicago, Illinois 64, 156 (69,351) members www.elca.org 190 congregations 3,757,723 (5,038,006) members Presbyterian tradition 10,721 congregations Member National Association of Lutheran tradition Evangelicals Member National Council of Evangelical- general Churches Mainline Protestant Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (Evangelical Mennonite Evangelical Lutheran Synod Brethren) Mankato, Minnesota Omaha, Nebraska www.evluthsyn.org Members.aol.com/febcoma/index.ht 16,849 (21,442) members ml 138 congregations 1,950 members Lutheran tradition 22 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Mennonite tradition Undetermined status Member National Association of Evangelicals Evangelical Mennonite Church Evangelical- conservative (Fellowship of Evangelical Churches) Fort Wayne, Indiana Fellowship of Evangelical Churches http://evangelical.ia.us.mennonite.ne No headquarters t No URL 5,278 (10,347) members 11,604 members 34 congregations 37 congregations Mennonite tradition Independent evangelical tradition No ecumenical affiliation

246

Undetermined status www.freepres.org 63,783 (80,207) members Fellowship of Fundamental Bible 179 congregations Churches Presbyterian tradition Penns Grove, New Jersey Member American Council of www.churches-ffbc.org Christian Churches 1,125 members Evangelical- fundamentalists 22 congregations Independent tradition Friends General Conference Member American Council of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Christian Churches www.fgquaker.org Evangelical- fundamentalist 34,000 members 650 congregations Fellowship of Grace Brethren Friends (Quaker) tradition Churches No ecumenical affiliation Winona Lake, Indiana Friends conservative www.fgbc.org 30,371 members Friends United Meeting 260 congregations Richmond, Indiana Brethren (German Baptist) tradition www.fum.org No ecumenical affiliation 37,595 (42,680) members Evangelical- general 427 congregations Friends (Quaker) tradition Free Christian Zion Church of Christ Member National Council of Nashville, Arkansas Churches No URL Friends conservative No membership figure No church figure Full Gospel Assemblies International Independent tradition Parkesburg, Pennsylvania No ecumenical affiliation No URL Evangelical- African American 3,075 members 41 congregations Free Methodist Church of North Pentecostal tradition America No ecumenical affiliation Indianapolis, Indiana Evangelical- Pentecostal www.freemethodistchurch.org 61,202 (69,342) members Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches 978 congregations and Ministers International Methodist tradition Irving, Texas Member National Association of www.fgfcmi.org Evangelicals 325,400 (326,900) members Evangelical- general 902 congregations Pentecostal tradition Free Presbyterian Church of North No ecumenical affiliation America Evangelical- Pentecostal No national headquarters

247

Fundamental Methodist Church, Inc. www.newchurch.org Springfield, Missouri 3,232 (6,444) members No URL 35 congregations 682 (787) members Churches of the New 12 congregations tradition Methodist tradition No ecumenical affiliation Member American Council of Protestant Christian Churches Evangelical- fundamentalist General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches General Assembly of the Korean Fresno, California Presbyterian Church in America www.mbconf.org/mbc/ Bellflower, California 50,915 (82,130) members No URL 368 congregations 38,000 (55,100) members Mennonite tradition No congregation figure No ecumenical affiliation Presbyterian tradition Evangelical- conservative Member National Council of Churches Grace Gospel Fellowship Protestant Grand Rapids, Michigan www.ggfusa.org General Association of General (60,000) members Baptists 128 congregations Poplar Bluff, Missouri Independent tradition www.generalbaptist.com No ecumenical affiliation 66,636 (85,346) members Evangelical- general 713 congregations Baptist tradition Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Member National Association of America Evangelicals New York, New York Evangelical- fundamentalist www.goarch.org (1,500,000) members General Association of Regular 510 congregations Baptist Churches Eastern Orthodox tradition Schaumburg, Illinois Member National Council of www.garbc.org Churches 129,407 members Orthodox conservative 1,415 congregations Baptist tradition The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Member American Council of and Apostolic Church in North Christian Churches America, Inc. Evangelical- fundamentalist Columbus, Ohio www.theocacna.org General Church of the New 4,138 members Jerusalem 17 congregations Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania Eastern Orthodox tradition

248

No ecumenical affiliation Attleboro, Massachusetts Orthodox conservative No membership figure No church figure Holy Ukrainian Autocephalic Baptist fundamentalist tradition Orthodox Church in Exile Member American Council of Babylon, New York Christian Churches No URL Evangelical- fundamentalist No membership figure No church figure IFCA International, Inc. Eastern Orthodox tradition Grandville, Michigan No ecumenical affiliation www.ifca.org Orthodox conservative 61,655 members 659 congregations House of God, Which is the Church Independent tradition of the Living God, the Pillar and No ecumenical affiliation Ground of Truth, Inc. Evangelical- fundamentalist Philadelphia, Pennsylvania No URL International Church of the No membership figure Foursquare Gospel No church figure Los Angeles, California Independent tradition www.foursquare.org No ecumenical affiliation 235,852 (305,852) members Undetermined status 1,847 congregations Pentecostal tradition Hungarian Reformed Church in Member National Evangelical America Association Poughkeepsie, New York Evangelical- Pentecostal No URL (6,000) members International Council of Community 27 congregations Churches Reformed tradition Frankfort, Illinois Member National Council of No URL Churches 115,812 members Protestant 192 congregations Independent tradition Hutterian Brethren Member National Council of Reardon, Washington Churches No URL Mainline Protestant 36,800 (43,000) members 444 congregations The International Pentecostal Mennonite tradition Church of Christ No ecumenical affiliation London, Ohio Mennonite conservative Members.aol.com/hqipcc/ 2,004 (4,961) members Independent Baptist Fellowship of 67 congregations North America Pentecostal tradition

249

Member National Evangelical The Lutheran Church—Missouri Association Synod Evangelical- Pentecostal St. Louis, Missouri www.lcms.org International Pentecostal Holiness 1,907,923 (2,512,714) members Church 6.142 congregations Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Lutheran tradition www.iphc.org Evangelical- general 213,348 members 1,905 congregations Pentecostal tradition Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Member National Evangelical Dioceses of America Association Bellerose, New York Evangelical- Pentecostal www.malankara.org/american/htm No membership figure Jehovah’s Witnesses No church figure Brooklyn, New York Thomist tradition www.watchtower.org Orthodox conservative 1,022,397 members 11,876 congregations Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India Independent tradition Merrick, New York No ecumenical affiliation www.marthomachurch.org Protestant (32,000) members 68 congregations The Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Thomist tradition Church in America National Council of Churches Golden Valley, Minnesota Orthodox conservative No URL 12,124 (13,584) members Mennonite Church 68 congregations Newton, Kansas Lutheran tradition www.mennonitechurchusa.org No ecumenical affiliation 112,688 members Protestant 964 congregations Mennonite tradition The Liberal Catholic Church— No ecumenical affiliation Province of the United States of Mennonite conservative America Ojai, California Mennonite Church, the General www.liberalcatholic.org Conference 6,500 members No URL 24 congregations No membership figure Independent Catholic tradition No church figure No ecumenical affiliation Mennonite tradition Catholic No ecumenical affiliation Undetermined status

250

The Metropolitan Church 65,392 members Association, Inc. 432 congregations Lake Geneva, Wisconsin Independent tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Evangelical- general No church figure Independent tradition National Association of Free Will Undetermined status Baptists Antioch, Tennessee Midwest Congregational Christian www.nafwb.org Fellowship 197,919 members Muncie, Indiana 2,470 congregations No URL Baptist tradition 1,367 (1,451) members No ecumenical affiliation 29 congregations Evangelical- fundamentalist Undetermined tradition Member National Association of National Baptist Convention of Evangelicals America, Inc. Undetermined status Dallas, Texas No URL The Missionary Church 3,500,000 members Ft. Wayne, Indiana No church figure www.mcusa.org Baptist tradition 35,287 members Member National Council of 386 congregations Churches Independent tradition Mainline Protestant Member National Evangelical Association National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Evangelical- general Inc. Nashville, Tennessee Moravian Church in America (Unitas No URL Fratrum) 5,000,000 members Bethlehem, Pennsylvania & Winston- 9,000 congregations Salem, North Carolina Baptist tradition www.moravian.org No ecumenical affiliation 19,806 (25,140) members Evangelical- African American 93 congregations Moravian tradition National Missionary Baptist Member National Council of Convention of America Churches Los Angeles, California Protestant www.nmbca.com (2,500,000) members National Association of No church figure Congregational Christian Churches Baptist tradition Oak Creek, Wisconsin Member National Council of www.naccc.org Churches

251

Protestant Baptist tradition No ecumenical affiliation National Organization of the New Undetermined status Apostolic Church of North America Chicago, Illinois North American Old Roman Catholic www.nak.org Church (Archdiocese of New York) 37,382 members Brooklyn, New York 348 congregations www.orccna.org Independent tradition 590 (615) members No ecumenical affiliation 8 congregations Mainline Protestant Independent tradition No ecumenical affiliation National Primitive Baptist Catholic Convention, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina Old German Baptist Brethren No URL Englewood, Ohio 600,000 members No URL 1,565 congregations 6,205 members Baptist tradition 55 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Brethren (German Baptist) tradition Evangelical- African American No ecumenical affiliation Conservative Protestant National Spiritualist Association of Churches Old Order Amish Church Lily Dale, New York Millersburg, Ohio www.nsac.org No URL 3,000 members 80,820 members No church figures 898 congregations Independent tradition Mennonite tradition No ecumenical affiliation No ecumenical affiliation Protestant Mennonite conservative

Netherlands Reformed Congregation Old Order (Wisler) Mennonite Grand Rapids, Michigan Church No URL Denver, Pennsylvania 4,517 (9,500) members No URL 27 congregations No membership figure Reformed tradition No church figure No ecumenical affiliation Mennonite tradition Mainline Protestant No ecumenical affiliation Mennonite conservative North American Baptist Conference Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois Open Bible Standard Churches No URL Des Moines, Iowa 47,692 members www.openbible.org 270 congregations 38,000 members

252

314 congregations Indianapolis, Indiana Pentecostal tradition www.pawinc.org Member National Evangelical 1,500,000 members Association 1,750 congregations Evangelical- Pentecostal Pentecostal tradition No ecumenical affiliation The (Original) Church of God, Inc. Evangelical- African American Wytheville, Virginia No URL Pentecostal Church of God No membership figure Joplin, Missouri No church figure www.pcg.org Pentecostal tradition 45,500 (104,000) members No ecumenical affiliation 1,197 congregations Evangelical- Pentecostal Pentecostal tradition Member National Association of The Orthodox Church in America Evangelicals Syosset, New York Evangelical- Pentecostal www.oca.org 900,000 members Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness 725 congregations Church Eastern Orthodox tradition La Grange, Georgia Member National Council of No URL Churches 223 members Orthodox conservative 27 congregations Pentecostal tradition The Orthodox Presbyterian Church No ecumenical affiliation Willow Grove, Pennsylvania Evangelical- Pentecostal www.opc.org 18,746 (26,448) members The Pentecostal Free Will Baptist 237 congregations Church, Inc. Presbyterian tradition Dunn, North Carolina No ecumenical affiliation www.pfwb.org Evangelical- general 28,000 members 150 congregations Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Pentecostal tradition Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. Member National Association of New York, New York Evangelicals www.orthodox.net Evangelical- Pentecostal 7,000 members 31 congregations Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Eastern Orthodox tradition Religious Society of Friends National Council of Churches Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Orthodox conservative www.pym.org 11,871 members Pentecostal Assemblies of the 105 congregations World, Inc. Friends (Quaker) tradition

253

No ecumenical affiliation 345 members Friends conservative 10 congregations Adventist tradition Pillar of Fire No ecumenical affiliation Zarephath, New Jersey Conservative Protestant www.pillar-of-fire.org No membership figure Primitive Baptists No church figure Thornton, Arkansas Pentecostal tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Evangelical- Pentecostal No church figure Baptist tradition Polish National Catholic Church of No ecumenical affiliation America Evangelical- fundamentalists Scranton, Pennsylvania www.pncc.org Primitive Methodist Church in the (60,000) members U.S.A. 145 congregations Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Independent Catholic tradition www.primitivemethodistchurch.org Member National Council of 4,211 (4,399) members Churches 79 congregations Catholic Methodist tradition Member National Association of Presbyterian Church in America Evangelicals Lawrenceville, Georgia Evangelical- fundamentalists www.pcanet.org 254,676 (310,750) members Progressive National Baptist 1,499 congregations Convention, Inc. Presbyterian tradition Washington, D.C. Member National Association of No URL Evangelicals 2,500,000 members Evangelical- general 2,000 congregations Baptist tradition Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) No ecumenical affiliation Louisville, Kentucky Mainline Protestant www.pcusa.org 2,451,969 (3,407,329) members Protestant Reformed Churches in 11,097 congregations America Presbyterian tradition South Holland, Illinois Member National Council of www.prac.org Churches 3,976 (6,915) members Mainline Protestant 27 congregations Reformed tradition Primitive Advent Christian Church No ecumenical affiliation Sissonville, West Virginia Mainline Protestant No URL

254

Reformed Catholic Church No ecumenical affiliation ? Mennonite conservative www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4 136/ Reformed Methodist Union 25,000 members Episcopal Church 100 congregations Charleston, South Carolina Independent Catholic tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Catholic No church figure Methodist/Episcopal tradition Reformed Church in America No ecumenical affiliation New York, New York Mainline Protestant www.rca.org 171,361 (281,475) members Reformed Presbyterian Church of 901 congregations North America (Church of the Reformed tradition Covenanters) Member National Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Churches www.reformedpresbyterian.org Mainline Protestant 4,363 (6,105) members 86 congregations Reformed Church in the United Presbyterian tradition States Member National Association of Elk Grove City, California Evangelicals www.rcus.org Evangelical- general 3,258 (4,369) members 48 congregations Reformed Zion Union Apostolic Reformed tradition Church No ecumenical affiliation Dundas, Virginia Mainline Protestant No URL No membership figure Reformed Episcopal Church No church figure Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Methodist tradition www.recus.org No ecumenical affiliation 8,006 (10,665) members Protestant 137 congregations Anglican tradition Religious Society of Friends Member National Association of (Conservative) Evangelicals No National Headquarters Undetermined status No URL (104,000) members Reformed Mennonite Church 1,200 congregations Lancaster, Pennsylvania Friends (Quaker) tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation 295 members Friends conservative 10 congregations Mennonite tradition

255

Religious Society of Friends Member National Association of (Unaffiliated Meetings) Evangelicals Ridgeville, Indiana Evangelical- general www.quaker.org No membership figure The Schwenkfelder Church No church figure Pennsburg, Pennsylvania Friends (Quaker) tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation 2,524 members Friends conservative 5 congregations Independent tradition Romanian Orthodox Church in No ecumenical affiliation America Protestant Skokie, Illinois www.romarch.org Separate Baptists in Christ No membership figure Columbus, Indiana No church figure www.separatebaptist.org Eastern Orthodox tradition 8,000 members No ecumenical affiliation 100 congregations Orthodox conservative Baptist tradition No ecumenical affiliation The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate Protestant of America Jackson, Michigan Serbian Orthodox Church in the www.roea.org U.S.A. and Canada 1,000 (1,500) members Libertyville, Illinois 22 congregations Oea.Serbian-church.net/ Eastern Orthodox tradition (67,000) members No ecumenical affiliation 68 congregations Orthodox conservative Eastern Orthodox tradition Member National Council of The Russian Orthodox Church Churches Outside of Orthodox conservative New York, New York No URL Seventh-day Adventist Church No membership figure Silver Spring, 177 congregations www.adventist.org Eastern Orthodox tradition 918,882 members No ecumenical affiliation 4,619 congregations Orthodox conservative Adventist tradition No ecumenical affiliation The Salvation Army Protestant Alexandria, Virginia No URL Seventh Day Baptist General 120,209 (454,982) members Conference, USA and Canada 1,369 congregations Janesville, Wisconsin Social Gospel & Service tradition www.seventhdaybaptist.org

256

4,800 members Teaneck, New Jersey 80 congregations www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org Baptist tradition 32,500 members No ecumenical affiliation 25 congregations Evangelical- general Oriental Orthodox tradition Member National Council of Southern Baptist Convention Churches Nashville, Tennessee Orthodox conservative www.sbc.net 16,247,736 members Syro-Russian Orthodox Catholic 42,775 congregations Church Baptist tradition Duluth, Minnesota No ecumenical affiliation www.rbsocc.org Evangelical- fundamentalist 25,000 (26,000) members 125 congregations Southern Methodist Church Eastern Orthodox tradition Orangeburg, South Carolina No ecumenical affiliation www.southernmethodist.org Orthodox conservative 6,493 members 108 congregations Triumph the Church and Kingdom of Methodist tradition God in Christ Inc. (International) No ecumenical affiliation Atlanta, Georgia Evangelical- fundamentalist www.forministry.com/usscpfbhcttcak/ No membership figure Sovereign Grace Believers No church figure St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin Independent tradition www.searchingtogether.org No ecumenical affiliation 4,000 members 350 congregations True Orthodox Church of Greece Baptist tradition (Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian), No ecumenical affiliation American Exarchate Protestant Etna, California No URL The Swedenborgian Church 1,095 members Newtonville, Massachusetts 9 congregations www.swedenborg.org Eastern Orthodox tradition 1,532 (2,000) members No ecumenical affiliation 44 congregations Orthodox conservative Churches of the New Jerusalem tradition Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Member National Council of U.S.A. Churches South Bound Brook, New Jersey Mainline Protestant www.uocofusa.org 8,000 (13,000) members Syrian (Syriac) Orthodox Church of 115 congregations Antioch Eastern Orthodox tradition

257

Member National Council of No membership figure Churches 135 congregations Orthodox conservative Independent tradition No ecumenical affiliation Unitarian Universalist Association of Protestant Congregations Boston, Massachusetts United Methodist Church www.uua.org Veedersburg, Indiana (214,738) members www.umc.org 1,010 congregations 8,251,042 members Independent tradition 35,102 congregations No ecumenical affiliation Methodist tradition Unitarian Protestants Member National Council of Churches United Christian Church Mixed Cleona, Pennsylvania No URL United Pentecostal Church, 334 members International 10 congregations Hazelwood, Missouri United Brethren tradition www.upci.org No ecumenical affiliation No membership figure Evangelical- general 4,100 congregations Pentecostal tradition United Church of Christ No ecumenical affiliation Cleveland, Ohio Evangelical- Pentecostal www.ucc.org 1,330,985 members The United Pentecostal Churches of 5,850 congregations Christ Reformed tradition Cleveland, Ohio Member National Council of www.pccclevelend.com Churches 7,059 members Mainline Protestant- African 62 congregations American Pentecostal tradition No ecumenical affiliation United Holy Church of America, Inc. Evangelical-Pentecostal- African Greensboro, North Carolina American http://home.aol.com/newpent/ No membership figure United Zion Church No church figure Lititz, Pennsylvania Pentecostal tradition No URL No ecumenical affiliation 883 members Evangelical- Pentecostal 13 congregations Brethren, River tradition United House of Prayer No ecumenical tradition Washington, D.C. Evangelical- general No URL

258

Unity of the Brethren Evangelical- Holiness College Station, Texas www.unityofthebrethren.org Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran 2,548 (3,218) members Synod 27 congregations Milwaukee, Wisconsin Moravian tradition www.wels.net No ecumenical affiliation 315,312 (403,345) members Evangelical-general 1,250 congregations Lutheran tradition Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan No ecumenical affiliation Community Churches Evangelical-general West Hollywood, California www.ufmcchq.com Worldwide Church of God (44,000) members Pasadena, California 300 congregations www.wcg.org Independent tradition No membership figure No ecumenical affiliation No church figure Protestant Independent Fundamentalist tradition Volunteers of America Evangelical-fundamentalist Alexandria, Virginia www.voa.org No membership figure No church figure Social Gospel & Service tradition No ecumenical affiliation Protestant

The Wesleyan Church Indianapolis, Indiana www.wesleyan.org 113,570 (123,160) members 1,628 congregations Methodist, Holiness tradition Member National Association of Evangelicals Evangelical- Holiness

Wesleyan Holiness Association of Churches Fountain City, Indiana No URL No membership figure No church figure Methodist, Holiness tradition No ecumenical affiliation

259

APPENDIX E

Largest Denominations by Official Membership

1. The Catholic Church- 66,407,105 members 2. Southern Baptist Convention- 16,247,736 members 3. United Methodist Church- 8,251,042 members 4. The Church of God in Christ- 5,499,875 members 5. National Baptist Convention U.S.A., Inc.- 5,000,000 members 6. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- 4,855,255 members 7. Evangelical Lutheran Church- 3,757,723 members 8. National Baptist Convention of America- 3,500,000 members 9. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.- 2,500,000 members 10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)- 2,451,969 members 11. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod- 1,907,923 12. The Episcopal Church- 1,897,004 13. African Methodist Episcopal Church- 1,857,186 14. Assemblies of God- 1,585,428 15. Churches of Christ- 1,500,000 16. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc.- 1,500,000 17. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.- 1,484,291 18. United Church of Christ- 1,330,985 19. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church- 1,209,887 20. Baptist Bible Fellowship International- 1,200,000 21. Jehovah’s Witness- 1,022,397 22. Church of God (Cleveland, TN)- 944,857 23. Seventh-Day Adventist Church- 918,882 24. Orthodox Church in America- 900,000 25. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church- 850,000 26. Church of the Nazarene- 639,330

260

APPENDIX F

POLITICAL CONTENT ANALYSIS CODING SHEET

Journal Name: CT Charisma CL Decision Moody PT Eternity Month: ______Year of Publication: 19_____ Journal Volume: ______Journal Issue: ______Page Number(s): ______Material Type: Article Photograph Article w/Photographs

Article/Photograph Title: ______Prominence of Article/Photograph: Cover Story Non-Cover Feature Non-Feature Color Photo(s) #______B&W Photo(s) # _____ Length/Size of Article/Photograph: ______

DOES THE ARTICLE/PHOTOGRAPH CONTAIN? Material concerning political participation: No Yes How? ______Material concerning political partisanship: No Yes How? ______Material concerning individual politicians: No Yes Positive Negative Indeterminate Who & How? ______Material concerning evangelical political leaders: No Yes Positive Negative Indeterminate Who & How? ______Material concerning evangelical political organizations: No Yes Positive Negative Indeterminate Which & How? ______Material concerning political-moral issues: No Yes

261

How? ______

Additional Comments/Notes: ______

Date Coded: ______

Codebook (Politicalization of Evangelical Press Study)

CASE Unique case number for each article with political content

MON_YR Month and year of publication (mmm yy)

YEAR Year of publication (yy)

TITLE Publication in which material appeared: 1 = Christianity Today 2 = Moody Monthly 3 = Christian Life 4 = Charisma 5 = Decision

TYPE Designates the style of material: 1 = Cover story 2 = Non-cover feature story 3 = Editorial 4 = Non-feature material

262

5 = Advertisement 6 = Photograph/Cartoon

LENGTH Designates the approximate length or size of the material/article: 1 = less than ¼ page 2 = ¼ page to ½ page 3 = greater than ½ page to 1 full page 4 = greater than 1 full page to 3 pages 5 = greater than 3 pages to 5 pages 6 = greater than 5 pages

INVOLVE Designates if material included cues for readers to participate in politics: 0 = No 1 = Yes

EXAMPLE Designates if INVOLVE was derived from the presentation of an example of participation rather than an explicit endorsement: 0 = No 1 = Yes

CHURCH Designates if material suggested that the church should stay out of politics: 0 = No 1 = Yes

PARTISAN Designates if material contained a partisan bias: 0 = No 1 = Yes

BIAS Designates if material contained a clear and explicit partisan bias: 0 = No 1 = Yes

LIBERAL Designates if material suggested that liberal Protestants were incorrect politically: 0 = No 1 = Yes

POLITIAN Designates if material included references to individual politicians: 0 = No 1 = Yes

PT_POL1 through PT_POL9 Variables identify the partisanship and tone of the politicians mentioned in material:

263

0 = None 1 = Positive Republican 2 = Indeterminate Republican 3 = Negative Republican 4 = Positive Democrat 5 = Indeterminate Democrat 6 = Negative Democrat 7 = Positive Other 8 = Indeterminate Other 9 = Negative Other

WHO_POL1 through WHO_POL9 Variables identify if the politician mentioned is one of the individuals listed below: 0 = None 1 = Eisenhower 2 = JFK 3= Nixon 4 = Dirksen 5 = LBJ 6 = Goldwater 7 = Humphrey 8 = McGovern 9 = Ford 10 = Reagan 11 = Carter 12 = Conlan 13 = Hughes 14 = Hatfield 15 = Anderson 16 = Helms 17 = Other

GRAHAM Designates if material makes a Rev. Graham-Nixon connection: 0 = No 1 = Yes

LEADERS Designates if prominent evangelical political leaders are mentioned: 0 = No 1 = Yes

WHO_EVG1 through WHO_EVG5 Each variable identifies which evangelical political leaders were mentioned and the tone of the reference: 0 = None 1 = Positive Jerry Falwell

264

2 = Indeterminate Jerry Falwell 3 = Negative Jerry Falwell 4 = Positive Pat Robertson 5 = Indeterminate Pat Robertson 6 = Negative Pat Robertson 7 = Positive Anita Bryant 8 = Indeterminate Anita Bryant 9 = Negative Anita Bryant 10 = Positive 11 = Indeterminate Jimmy Swaggart 12 = Negative Jimmy Swaggart 13 = Positive James Robison 14 = Indeterminate James Robison 15 = Negative James Robison 16 = Positive Phyllis Schlafly 17 = Indeterminate Phyllis Schlafly 18 = Negative Phyllis Schlafly 19 = Positive Carl McIntire 20 = Indeterminate Carl McIntire 21 = Negative Carl McIntire 22 = Positive Connie Marshner 23 = Indeterminate Connie Marshner 24 = Negative Connie Marshner 25 = Positive Bill Bright 26 = Indeterminate Bill Bright 27 = Negative Bill Bright 28 = Positive Billy James Hargis 29 = Indeterminate Billy James Hargis 30 = Negative Billy James Hargis 31 = Positive Paul Weyrich 32 = Indeterminate Paul Weyrich 33 = Negative Paul Weyrich 34 = Positive Others 35 = Indeterminate Others 36 = Negative Others

GROUP Designates if a political interest group was mentioned in the material: 0 = No 1 = Yes

WHO_IG1 through WHO_IG7 Designates if a prominent political interest group is mentioned and the tone of the material: 0 = none 1 = Positive Moral Majority

265

2 = Indeterminate Moral Majority 3 = Negative Moral Majority 4 = Positive Christian Action Council 5 = Indeterminate Christian Action Council 6 = Negative Christian Action Council 7 = Positive Citizen Decency Council 8 = Indeterminate Citizen Decency Council 9 = Negative Citizen Decency Council 10 = Positive ACLU 11 = Indeterminate ACLU 12 = Negative ACLU 13 = Positive Americans United 14 = Indeterminate Americans United 15 = Negative Americans United 16 = Positive Stop ERA 17 = Indeterminate Stop ERA 18 = Negative Stop ERA 19 = Positive Religious Roundtable 20 = Indeterminate Religious Roundtable 21 = Negative Religious Roundtable 22 = Positive Christian Voice 23 = Indeterminate Christian Voice 24 = Negative Christian Voice 25 = Positive Third Century Foundation 26 = Indeterminate Third Century Foundation 27 = Negative Third Century Foundation 28 = Positive Eagle Forum 29 = Indeterminate Eagle Forum 30 = Negative Eagle Forum 31 = Positive Early Right to Life Groups 32 = Indeterminate Early Right to Life Groups 33 = Negative Early Right to Life Groups 34 = Positive Pro-Choice Groups 35 = Indeterminate Pro-Choice Groups 36 = Negative Pro-Choice Groups 37 = Other

ISSUE Designates if public policy issues were discussed. 0 = No 1 = Yes

MORAL1 through MORAL7 Designates if moral public policy issues were discussed and what type: 0 = None 1 = Abortion 2 = Obscenity

266

3 = Prayer in schools 4 = Drugs/alcohol 5 = Evolution 6 = ERA/women’s liberation 7 = Homosexual rights 8 = Sex education 9 = Gambling 10 = Other

OISSUE1 through OISSUE7 Designates if other types of public policy issues were discussed and what type: 0 = None 1 = Poverty 2 = Pro-environment 3 = Anti-environment 4 = Energy crisis 5 = War & peace 6 = Inflation 7 = Taxes 8 = Church tax exemptions 9 = Religious school funding 10 = Civil Rights positive 11 = Civil Rights indeterminate 12 = Civil Rights negative 13 = Anti-big government/ social welfare 14 = Watergate 15 = Other political scandals (non-Watergate) 17 = FCC regulations 16 = Other political issues

FOREIGN Designates if American foreign policy issues were discussed and what type: 0 = None 1 = Anti-Communistic 2 = Vietnam 3 = Arab Israeli 4 = Other

267