GETTING OUT GOD'S VOTE:
PAT ROBERTSON AND THE EVANGELICALS
by Frederick Edwords and Stephen McCabe
(As published in the May/June 1987 issue of The Humanist, with
additional bibliographic material provided at the end.)
Being the year prior to an election year when the religious
right seems to be gathering its strength to make a decisive push
for the Republican party and, ultimately, the White House, the
Meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals this past
March was especially significant. Representing 46,000 churches
from more than 70 Protestant denominations and fellowships and
serving a constituency estimated as high as 15 million, the NAE's
convention can serve as a barometer for determining the direction
the religious right will chart between now and November of 1988.
As such, there was much in this recent gathering to raise concern
among those sensitive to church-state separation and a host of
other dearly held freedoms.
One senses that the NAE itself is uncomfortable with its
inability to demonstrate the autonomy from the religious right
that it claims. Throughout the conference, the organization's
hierarchy emphasized that the NAE and its affiliate, the National
Association of Religious Broadcasters, were not simply a
political action committee or a wing of the Republican party.
"The NAE stands in a distinctive position between the mainline
denominations and the religious right," according to the official
convention press release. Forest D. Montgomery, the NAE's legal
counsel to the office of public affairs reiterated his own
uneasiness with what he sees as the widespread misconception that
the NAE is "in the pocket" of the Republican party. In a very
telling comment, Montgomery admitted that what was truly relevant
was not how many members of the NAE are registered Republicans,
but that most of them will actually vote Republican.
Montgomery and the NAE's attempted disclaimers aside, it is
difficult to see concrete examples of the political plurality the
NAE is so eager to defend. It was certainly absent from the
invited speakers at the convention. The three most prominent
political figures addressing the convention were all Republicans,
and two of these are firmly established as opponents of church-
state separation. Both of the latterÄÄAttorney General Edwin
Meese and the Rev. Pat RobertsonÄÄlaid out, in no uncertain
terms, their arguments for politicizing the evangelical movement.
And both of their presentations were met with standing ovations.
Edwin Meese's speech, "The American ExperimentÄÄWhat Did Our
Founding Fathers Intend?" was delivered to a packed house.
Before he took the podium, an organ pumped bass tones through the
room and the odor of chrysanthemums wafted up from the dais. Our
nation's highest judicial officer--the man charged with upholding
the integrity of the Constitution--speaking in this churchlike
atmosphere, seemed to demonstrate nothing but contempt for the
First Amendment. Meese blamed "militant secularists" for driving
a wedge between church and state and thereby infringing on the
rights of Americans to exercise freely their religious beliefs.
He asserted that "religious morality and precepts are essential
to an orderly society." He offered a detailed biography of John
Witherspoon, an overlooked Colonial Calvinist minister who, Meese
argued, saw the value in a closer connection between church and
state. Meese then summed up his own views on freedom of religion
in one statement: "We are not a disbelieving nation."
Pat Robertson was scheduled to deliver a luncheon address on
"The Role of Jesus Christ in Modern Society." But the magnitude
of events the previous afternoon in Mobile, Alabama, with Judge
Brevard Hand ousting forty-six textbooks from the state's public
schools on the pretext that they taught "the religion of secular
humanism," led Robertson to turn his attention entirely to this
What was curious about Robertson's shift of topics was the
timing of events. How coincidental was it that Robertson had a
copy of the 172-page ruling by Judge Hand at the podium, when
that document was not made available to the public until that
very morning? And how was Robertson able to quote extensively
from it, suggesting that he had had time to read it thoroughly?
Even before this, Ishmael Jaffree, the attorney who earlier in
the case sought to intervene on behalf of humanism, had received
by mistake Judge Hand's autographed copy intended for President
Reagan! It therefore is not unreasonable to suggest that some
planning went into the timing of this ruling. Was this timing
designed to aid Pat Robertson politically?
A PODIUM AS PULPIT
Robertson opened with an attack on The Humanist for
declaring "war on the influence of the Christian religion in the
educational process of America." He followed with an overview of
American public education. Fueled by Brevard Hand's fresh fodder,
Robertson was quick to lay the blame for the present rate of
illiteracy, incompetence, and apathy among American public school
students on a number of the religious right's timeworn whipping
boys: "leftist-leaning teacher's unions," "secular humanist
teacher's colleges," a failure to allow "scientific" creationism
equal time in public school science classrooms, the absence of
prayer in the public schools, textbooks that "are not
transmitting our religious and family values," and a failure to
revert to basic values in education.
But, if all had run amok in American public schools, the
recent victory in Alabama at least provided him with a measure of
We had hoped for three years we could get the American Civil
Liberties Union in such a posture where they would now be
defending the State and asking for oppressive regulations
against Christian students, with taxpayer money. And their
posture in this is, "We want to defend the teaching of
atheism in the schools of Alabama whether the Christians
like it or not." And that was not freedom, that was not
civil liberties, that was civil oppression, and we had them
now in a posture which is morally indefensible.
Judge Hand's decision provided more than just an opportunity
for gloating, however. Robertson used it as a springboard for a
wider investigation into the role of religion in American life.
If one found cause for alarm in Robertson's treatment of public
education, it gave way to near incredulity with his goals of
advancing Christian belief through allying church and state.
Everything we have in this country that is good springs from
one fundamental assertion: that there is a God in heaven and
that we are his creatures, and that we have rights that
cannot be taken away from us by Government because
government didn't give them to us in the first place. We
are free men and free women because our freedom comes from
Such a statement is crucial for understanding the deeper
implications of Robertson's political theory. For those who can
see the parallel, Robertson's position on the divine origin of
human rights bears a striking resemblance to that of the most
theocratic elements within the religious right. He extended this
view to the public schools:
It isn't whether children pray or not pray--the problem is,
are they being inculcated in morality and religious values
throughout all of their education or are they being given a
totally secular education based on atheism and humanism, at
Here he seems to reject the possibility of the schools being
religiously neutral. But if Robertson holds that the schools
cannot be neutral, then he must see the current conflict only in
terms of which religious group seizes control. That Robertson
intends to have his religion be the winner in that struggle was
revealed in his final rallying cry:
And if we truly will join together, and if we will work
together, and will work in the courts, and work in the
political arena, and work in the public airwaves, and work
in the churches by way of education and by way of prayer and
by way of action, then I sense, as part of the great
religious revival that is coming to the United States of
America, that in the not-too-distant future we can say to
our children and our grandchildren, "We give you one nation
The audience rose to its feet in loud and sustained applause. If
there was any lingering suspicion that the NAE might lie in "a
distinctive position between the mainline denominations and the
religious right," it was effectively dashed at this moment. Here
one of the foremost figures in the race for the Republican
presidential nomination was receiving a standing ovation for
utterances that more than bordered on an advocacy of theocracy.
Due to a good bit of publicity generated by Prometheus
Books, publishers of Salvation for Sale, an expose of Robertson
by his former "700 Club" producer, Gerry Straub, Robertson's
religious beliefs were at the top of many questioner's lists at a
press conference held later that afternoon.
Representatives from several local television stations asked
Robertson about statements Straub had made at a press conference
the previous evening concerning Robertson's belief that a nuclear
war with the Soviet Union was inevitable and would usher in the
second coming of Christ. Robertson denied ever having made such
a statement and contended that he had said just the opposite
recently on the "700 Club." If this is so, or if it indicates a
change in his theology, this could be significant in unexpected
political ways, as we shall see later in this article.
At the press conference, Robertson also mentioned his recent
victory in the Michigan caucuses and intimated that, with the
petition support he had, he might be able to officially announce
his presidential candidacy as early as June.
WORD VERSUS DEED
Overall, it is important to ask why Pat Robertson chose to
make an important political statement at the convention of an
organization that, at least on the surface, seems intent on
striking a neutral pose and distancing itself from Robertson's
brand of religio-political barnstorming. One clue rests with the
vast majority of the conventioneers themselves. It appears that
the hierarchy isn't speaking for the rank and file. There was no
hint that the evangelicals in attendance were shrinking away from
politicizing their beliefs. Also, Robertson seems all too
willing to use NAE's reputation and credibility, as one of the
oldest and most highly regarded religious associations, to give
his own political aspirations greater respectability. Finally,
the official NAE policy of denouncing the mingling of religion
and politics appears to be little more than a giving of lip-
service to the ideal of church-state separation. Certainly,
Robertson's heading directly to New Hampshire after leaving the
NAE convention speaks louder than any NAE disclaimers. Either
official NAE policy doesn't reflect the convictions of the
rank-and-file, or the NAE has chosen to embark on the same self-
contradictory path it took in the 1980 and 1984 presidential
But the schizophrenia afflicting the hierarchy manifests
itself in subtle ways within the membership. There were almost no
women listed among the speakers or in the hierarchy. There were
conspicuously few blacks at the convention. And there was an air
of diffidence towards matters of racial equality that came to a
head in the last minute insertion of the Rev. F. P. Moller into
the workshop originally devoted to "Religion, Politics, and the
Moller was given the spot by Ben Armstrong, who remarked,
"If there ever has been a country that has been maligned and
misunderstood, it's South Africa." Moller, a leading white South
African evangelical, chairman of the Fellowship of Pentecostal
Churches in South Africa and president of the Apostolic Faith
Mission of South Africa, denounced leading anti-apartheid clerics
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Rev. Allan Boesak as being
"so-called Christians and theologians [who are] actually in the
camp" of Communists. He concluded his talk by predicting that
South Africa will win the eventual showdown "between the forces
of darkness and the forces of light." Just as Robertson's
concluding remarks had drawn a standing ovation, Moller's remarks
elicited frequent "amens" and loud applause from those attending.
A similar disparity between official NAE policy and
evangelical thought appeared in a convention debate. The topic,
"Resolved: The wall of separation between church and state is in
jeopardy," seemed like one that would stir the consciences of all
concerned evangelicals. But, ironically, the evangelicals in
attendance did not seem especially impressed by John Buchanan,
the debater taking the affirmative position. Buchanan, chairman
of the board of People for the American Way, is a Southern
Baptist Minister and his delivery was vintage pulpit oratory for
the cause of church-state separation. His message that true
Christianity espouses a tolerance for religious plurality and
diversity and is averse to being mixed with the secular
institutions of society met with head shaking, general
skepticism, and disapproval from the audience. He was appealing
to the spirit of religious independence, historically an
important feature both of evangelicalism and his own Baptist
tradition. His opponent, Forest D. Montgomery, on the other
hand, was met with applause and approval when he advocated a
reinterpretation of the First Amendment to allow such things as
school prayer, creation science, and tuition tax credits for
parochial schools. Clearly, rank-and-file evangelicals are more
and more shedding the religious independence doctrine.
Overall, what is one to make of events at this convention?
And what is the relationship between these events and other
recent occurrences, such as Judge Hand's textbook decision in
Alabama, the earlier textbook decision in Tennessee, Pat
Robertson's bid for the presidency, and the growing religious
right influence within the Southern Baptist convention? All
these separate events begin to make more sense in the light of
the historical roots and ideological underpinnings of the
religious right. Once one understands these things, the
utterances of important media figures like Pat Robertson take on
a much deeper meaning, as we shall now discover.
THE ORIGIN OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
The genesis of the current trend in politicized
conservative religion can be traced back to 1959 when an unknown
Reformed Presbyterian theologian, Rousas J. Rushdoony, laid the
foundations for what he called Christian Reconstruction in his
book By What Standard. Rushdoony was and is a self-acknowledged
theocrat in the Calvinist tradition. The heroes of this tradition
are John Calvin, John Knox, Oliver Cromwell, and the leaders of
the Puritan theocracy of colonial Massachusetts. Also included
are significant Calvinists of the American Revolution, such as
the John Witherspoon, who Edwin Meese eulogized in his NAE
Rushdoony's first major contribution to the emergence of the
Religious Right was the assistance he provided to Henry Morris
and John Whitcomb. These two authors had a book manuscript that
had been rejected by a number of fundamentalist publishing houses
because of the hard line it took against evolution. Rushdoony
convinced Morris and Whitcomb to submit their manuscript to a new
Calvinist publishing house, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company. The manuscript was accepted and in 1961 was published.
The book was The Genesis Flood and its surprising high sales
launched the new pseudoscience of "scientific creationism."
As the years passed, Rushdoony was joined in his Christian
Reconstruction movement by Gary North and a number of other
persuasive writers and preachers. Although viewed as radical
outcasts even by conservatives, the effective polemic of the
members of this theocratic think-tank began to influence the
thought of leading fundamentalist apologists like Francis
Schaeffer. Schaeffer rarely gave credit to his Christian
Reconstructionist sources, but he copied many of their ideas,
including Rushdoony's notion, first put into print in 1965, that
the cause of society's ills was due to a humanist conspiracy.
This idea was further popularized by lawyer John W. Whitehead and
Congressman John Conlan who were, themselves, directly influenced
Following this lead, fundamentalist Baptists like Jerry
Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and others continued the anti-humanist
harangue. They were joined by charismatics like Pat Robertson,
and the New Christian Right was born. Then in August of 1980, a
group called the Religious Roundtable sponsored a National
Affairs Briefing Conference in Dallas designed to politicize
modern American fundamentalism. Fifteen thousand people attended
and heard a new agenda. Among them were over 2,000 pastors who
were encouraged to take the political message back to their
congregations and register fundamentalist voters. And it was
clear who these voters were to support, because Ronald Reagan was
the only presidential candidate to address the conference.
Although the news media understood the political importance
of the event, they failed to see that it represented a dramatic
switch from revivalism to political action by fundamentalists who
had been politically dormant since prohibition and the Scopes
Trial. As a result, they never thought to ask what new ideology
had entered the scene to make such a profound shift possible.
Back stage at the conference, Gary North spoke with Robert
Billings, an intimate of Jerry Falwell who would later be
appointed by the Reagan Administration to a high position in the
Department of Education. According to North's report of the
conversation, the two were lamenting the fact that Rushdoony was
not a speaker and Billings said, "If it weren't for his books,
none of us would be here." North replied, "Nobody in the
audience understands that." Billings answered, "True, but we
Because of this, Christian Reconstructionist Ray R. Sutton
was able to write in 1982--
Ironically, the contemporary Moral Majority Baptists are
different [from Baptists of the past]. Why? They live on
the borrowed capital of the Calvinistic Reformed/Presby-
terian/Episcopalian heritage in America. Furthermore, many
of the leaders of this movement have Calvinists around them.
Jerry Falwell, for example, has a Calvinistic faculty member
at his college who has been quite influential. Also, many
of these Baptists have been reading the writings of R.J.
Rushdoony and acting without understanding the theological
dynamic behind them. In fact, some of these Baptist leaders
will not quote the Reformed "brain pool" for this reason.
And what exactly are the latter-day Calvinistic ideas
espoused by the Christian Reconstructionists? Let's let the
Reconstructionists speak for themselves.
Is the [Calvinist] and Reformed faith opposed to human
rights? Yes, very much so. It is not human rights but
Divine law which is the foundation of liberty and the
safeguard against tyranny. It is not something proceeding
from man (rights), but something proceeding from God
(revealed law) which is to order Christian society. . . .
the notion of human rights was introduced by Satan in the
Garden of Eden, and the notion that men have inherent rights
is simply a way of affirming original sin.
James B. Jordan
Note the similarity between this quote and what Pat Robertson
said about rights in his speech at the NAE convention. And note
the similarity between what follows and Robertson's implied
rejection of a religiously neutral public education.
As a tactic for a short-run defense of the independent
Christian school movement, the appeal to religious liberty
is legitimate. Everyone who is attempting to impose a
world-and-life view on a majority (or on a ruling minority)
always uses some version of the liberty doctrine to buy
himself and his movement some time, some organizational
freedom, and some power. . . . So let us be blunt about it:
we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain
independence for Christian schools until we train up a
generation of people who know that there is no religious
neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no
neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in
constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious
order which finally denies the religious liberty of the
enemies of God.
In order to understand the power of these ideas, it is
necessary to grasp the theology behind them. Christian
Reconstructionists adhere to what they term "dominion theology."
It calls on them to dominate society, to take control and
institute God's covenant as the basis of law and government. A
critical ingredient of dominion theology is postmillennialism,
the idea that the second coming of Christ will be after the
millennium, after a thousand years of Christian utopia. This
means that Christians must set up God's kingdom first by claiming
dominion over the world and reconstructing society to make the
world ready for Christ's return.
In contrast to this, the opposite doctrine, premillen-
nialism, is the belief that the second coming of Christ will
precede the millennium. Christ will come first and it is he, not
mortals, who will establish the thousand year utopian reign.
This idea was popularly expressed in Hal Lindsey's 1970 doomsday
best seller, The Late, Great Planet Earth.
The differing social consequences of these opposing ideas
were well expressed by Rushdoony in a 1972 speech at his
Chalcedon Foundation entitled "A Blocked or Open Future?"
As one very, very prominent pre-millennial preacher in Los
Angeles has repeatedly said, "You don't polish brass on a
sinking ship." The world is a sinking ship, so waste no
time on reform, on doing anything to improve the world, or
to bring about God's law order therein. No matter how fine
a man says that, when any man believes it, he drops his
Rushdoony lamented that this sort of thinking was a major feature
of conservative Christianity and thus a major factor in holding
back its power to press for radical social change.
Consider the difference it would make to the United States
if instead of forty million or so pre-millennials, we had
forty million post-millennials. Instead of having forty
million people who expect that the world is going to end
very soon and that they are going to be raptured out of
tribulation, consider the difference it would make if those
forty million instead felt that they had a duty under God to
conquer in Christ's name.
And it is precisely this change in thinking, from premillen-
nialism to postmillennialism, under the influence of Christian
Reconstructionism, that has made possible the religious right and
the political mobilization of millions of otherwise fatalistic
Suddenly, Pat Robertson's denial of the charge that he
believes a nuclear war will usher in the second coming of Christ
makes sense. He was telling the truth. His vision of the future
is now much closer to that of the Reconstructionists' postmillen-
nialism. Consider these remarks Robertson made in a speech in
December of 1984.
What's coming next? . . . I want you to imagine a society
where the church members have taken dominion over the forces
of the world . . . no drug addiction . . . pornographers no
longer have any access to the public whatsoever . . . the
people of God inherit the earth . . . You say, that's a
description of the Millennium when Jesus comes back . . .
[but] these things can take place now in this time . . .
and they are going to because I am persuaded that we are
standing on the brink of the greatest spiritual revival the
world has ever known!
Robertson isn't passively waiting for Jesus to come in a mushroom
cloud. He is prepared to take dominion now and bring about his
ideal Christian world politically.
Over the years, the Christian Reconstructionist influence
on conservative Christians has increased. With the consequent
influx of Calvinistic ideas into the Southern Baptist Convention,
Southern Baptists have been influenced to shed their once sacred
individualism, move into political action, and turn their
seminaries from academically free institutions of higher learning
into trade schools for evangelists and conservative social
Those outside the Baptist orbit have been taken in as well.
The Coalition on Revival, founded a few years ago, represents a
unification of Reconstructionists with charismatics, other
evangelicals, black revivalists, creationists, and
fundamentalists behind a theocratic political agenda. The goal
of the coalition is to hammer out a unified social policy for all
conservative Christians that, once formulated, is to be actively
promoted from the pulpits of various denominations, through
legislation, and by other means. The planning and codifying of
this effort has been done through the calling of three
"Continental Congresses on the Christian World View."
On July 4, 1986, while the rest of the nation was
celebrating the rededication of the Statue of Liberty, the
"Continental Congress on the Christian World View III" was being
held in Washington D.C. This was the climax of the effort. The
Congress featured 64 major conservative Christian speakers, among
them Rousas J. Rushdoony and Gary North.
This was no mere social get-together for friendly faith
partners. They publicly signed and issued A Manifesto for the
Christian Church which would later be backed up by 17 "worldview
document position papers" that elaborate on the Manifesto by
covering subjects as diverse as law, government, economics,
business, education, arts, medicine, science, moral issues, and
Christian colleges and seminaries. All these documents are still
in draft form and will be officially ratified this coming May.
A sample from the position paper on law is illustrative.
. . . the Bible is therefore a guidebook both for man's
spiritual/religious life and for society's legal life;
and that it is therefore to be followed by civil law as it
sets standards for societal conduct.
PUTTING IT TOGETHER
In the light of the above, the court textbook decisions in
Tennessee and Alabama start to make more sense. What was
suspected all along is true. Christian theocrats are trying to
use the U.S. Constitution as a vehicle for taking over the public
schools and every other major aspect of political life. Gary
North suggested this approach in 1982 when he said that
Reconstructionists should appeal to religious liberty in their
bid for power. "Men without guns use ju-jitsu or karate. We use
Judge Hand's Alabama efforts seem to take a page from
North's notebook. As Ishmael Jaffree contends,
Judge Hand had already ruled twice that secular humanism was
a religion before he forced this expensive textbook trial
designed to vindicate his decisions. Contrary to normal
practice, Hand organized the strategy of the case, assigned
plaintiff and defendant roles, tried the case, and then
ordered the unwilling defendant to pay all court costs. In
addition, an assistant of Pat Robertson's sat each day at
the counsel table despite his having no official standing in
the case. The issues boil down to a remarkable case of
judicial activism on behalf of book censorship.
Clearly, the latter-day Calvinist influence on American
fundamentalists, evangelicals, and others has changed the
politics of a nation. We are already in the third presidential
campaign in a row that bears unmistakable witness to the power of
politicized conservative religion. We are at this point because
we failed to read the Reconstructionists' own honest words about
their aims. In Germany they failed to read, and believe, the
plan set forth in Mein Kampf. Our only hope is that the majority
of Americans will, through the Reverend Pat Robertson's brazen
presidential bid, see the obvious implications of the religious
right agenda and therefore decide that this country doesn't need
SOURCES FOR THE ARTICLE IN THE HUMANIST
ON PAT ROBERTSON AND THE EVANGELICALS
The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, The Rebirth of America, 1986.
Bala Cynwyd, PA. (Note especially articles starting on pp. 35
and 133 by John W. Whitehead and on p. 121 by D. James Kennedy.
Used as background material.)
Coalition on Revival, A Manifesto for the Christian Church:
Declaration and Covenant, July 4, 1986, Mountain View, CA.
Coalition on Revival, The Christian World View of Law, 1986,
Mountain View, CA (position paper).
Plus material from various promotional flyers and
newsletters regarding the Continental Congress on the
Christian World View III.
The Coalition on Revival, Inc.
89 Pioneer Way
Mountain View, CA 94041
James B. Jordon (editor), Symposium on: The Failure of the
American Baptist Culture, Number 1 of Christianity &
Civilization (a book series), Spring 1982, Geneva Divinity
School: Tyler, TX.
Quotes were taken from page xi of the "Editor's
Introduction," pp. 24, 25, and 35 from "The Intellectual
Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right," by Gary North,
and page 171 of "The Baptist Failure" by Ray R. Sutton.
Background information was gathered from all three articles,
plus others in the book.
Numbers 2 and 3 in this Christianity & Civilization series
provided background information, but are presently on loan,
along with other Reconstructionist materials, to Richard Yao
of Fundamentalists Anonymous in New York City. As a result,
full references are not provided here for those numbers.
Number 1 is currently out of print and the copy we used was
loaned to us from Timothy Grogan in Cleveland, Ohio, an ex-
fundamentalist who had personal knowledge of Christian
Reconstructionism and provided much personal communication.
Useful personal communication was also provided by Richard
Yao, mentioned above.
Gary North, Chilton, Sutton, and Dominion Theology, Feb. 1987,
Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, TX (essay).
This was our source of Pat Robertson's 1984 quote. The
source cited in the document was:
Jimmy Swaggart, "The Coming Kingdom," The Evangelist, Sept.
1986, pp. 4-5 (which was, itself, citing Pat Robertson's
speech on Robert Tilton's Satellite Network Seminar on
December 9-12, 1984).
Rousas John Rushdoony, A Blocked or Open Future?, speech given at
the 1972 Chalcedon Guild Dinner, Chalcedon: Vallecito, CA.
Additional background information gathered from various
periodicals and position papers of the Chalcedon Foundation,
Geneva Divinity School, and Institute for Christian
Economics, all of which are organizations in the Christian
Reconstruction movement. Addresses below:
P.O. Box 158
Vallecito, CA 95251
Geneva Divinity School
708 Hamvassy Drive
P.O. Box 131300
Tyler, TX 75713
Institute for Christian Economics
P.O. Box 8000
Tyler, TX 75711
Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, revised ed. 1982,
Crossway Books: Westchester, IL. (He cites Reconstructionist
David H. Chilton from The Journal of Christian Reconstruction,
John W. Whitehead, and Calvinist John Knox, among others.)
John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, PA.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES USED
1. Ishmael Jaffree, (Mobile, Alabama) personal communication.
2. Audio tapes of Pat Robertson's speech and press conference at
the conference of the National Association of Evangelicals, held
in Buffalo, NY, March 3-5, 1987.
3. Personal notes taken at above conference by Stephen McCabe.
4. Articles published in The Buffalo News during the convention,
particularly "S. Africa Cleric Ties Strife to Marxists" by David
Briggs, on pp. A-1 and A-6, March 5, 1987.
5. Undated Xerox of a Newsweek article of a few years back on
Rousas Rushdoony entitled, "War is Declared on Public Education."
Supplied to us by Fundamentalists Anonymous in New York City.
6. Quotes with sources provided verbally over the phone by James
Luce from the files of Fundamentalists Anonymous (See below).
"My dream would be the State's nightmare." P. 179 of "The
Escalating Confrontation with Bureaucracy," published in
Christianity and Civilization Number III. Gary North.
"We must begin to prepare Christians to begin to take reigns
(sic) of power, at every level, in every institution, across
the face of the earth . . . " Gary North Page 424 in
"Levers, Fulcrums, and Hornets" op. cit.
"We stand, then, for the visible manifestation of the
complete control of the Lord Jesus Christ over the whole of
life, right here and now. ... we disdain to conceal our
views and aims. We openly declare that our own ends can be
attained only by the Christianization of all existing social
conditions." Francis Nigel Lee A Christian Manifesto of
1984 Page 11.
Rushdoony speaking to the LA times: "All these new
groups . . . the Religious Right . . . are very receptive to
Russell Chandler of LA Times (Religion Editor): "Would
the Chalcedon Foundation be pleased to see America become a
Rushdoony: If that means a "group of people running
the country in God's name, no. But God, governing the lives
of people . . . that's exactly what we are working for."
Richard Yao of Fundamentalists Anonymous also reported that
Dominion Press Book Club (Jerry Falwell and D. James
Kennedy) are endorsing books by Rushdoony and North. This
is very recent.
For more information, write to:
P.O. Box 20324, Greeley Square Station
New York, NY 10001-9992
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ACQUIRED RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE
Rodney Clapp, "Democracy as Heresy," Christianity Today, February
20, 1987, pp. 17-23. (An excellent overview and critique of the
Christian Reconstruction movement from an evangelical
Charles A. Clough, "Biblical Presuppositions and Historical
Geology: A Case Study" in The Journal of Christian
Reconstruction, Vol. I, No. 1, Summer 1974, edited by Gary North,
Chalcedon Foundation. (This issue features as its first item a
"Symposium: Six Day Creation" which features articles by leading
creationists Stuart E. Nevins [a pseudonym for Steve Austin],
Walter E. Lammerts, and Bolton Davidheiser. Clough's article
effectively argues that the Morris/Whitcomb book, The Genesis
Flood, is completely in line with Reconstructionist thinking.)
(C) Copyright 1987 by the American Humanist Association
So long as profit is not your motive and you always include this
copyright notice, please feel free to reproduce and distribute
this material in electronic form as widely as you please.
Nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications have additional
permission to publish this in print form. All other permission
must be sought from the American Humanist Association, which
can be contacted at the following address:
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 1188
AMHERST NY 14226-7188
Phone: (800) 743-6646