The 60's! Social and Spiritual Transformation! Which Came First?

[DavidM]

In the sequel to "A Severe Mercy" in the book, "Under the Mercy"  Sheldon Vanauken writes about the transformation of the Christian Church during the 1960's. A Virginian who was lead to Christ by C.S. Lewis, Sheldon attended the Episcopal Church. Sheldon was a real Christian! This caused a problem at his Church. He details the struggles of his Church when he begins to bring an African American with him to the meetings. It is so upsetting to the congregation that his clergy ask him to leave."You are causing division." This was very typical of the south during that era. This same scenario was taking place all over the country! My question is where did the desire to break down racial barriers come from? Who really was the Salt of the Earth at that time? Liberals? or Conservatives? Was it a social transformation (Which I believe it was) that effected the church? or a spiritual transformation that effected society? If it was liberals, why? Why weren't Baptist demanding these kinds of changes when they are clearly what the Bible teaches?   

[Oscar]

Dave,

You said:

My question is where did the desire to break down racial barriers come from? Who really was the Salt of the Earth at that time? Liberals? or Conservatives?

Well Dave, it was the Liberals.  With a few exceptions, such as Billy Graham, the conservatives of the day were more interested in what they were used to. 

The Liberals of that time energized the conscience of America by referring to Biblical values.  Just read MLK's speeches. 

But remember Dave, those guys were Liberals.  But that was back in the days when Liberals believed in truth,  Christian (or at least traditional) morality, and freedom.  One heard protests against genuine greed and exploitation of the poor and the weak.  But Liberals of the 50's and 60's did not rail against Capitalism.  They understood that only Capitalism even has a hope of producing enough wealth to fund the kind of programs they wanted to see.

There were folks who did hate Capitalism in those days.  They were called Communists.

The folks that call themselves Liberals thoday are not what they say they are.  They came to prominence after the 1968 Democratic convention riots in Chicago and the melt-down of the Democratic Party's leadership due to the Vietnam war.  What they really are is Leftist Radicals.   You know who I mean, folks like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Michael Wide Load Moore.

So, yes, the Civil Rights movement was led by Liberals.  But they don't call them Liberals any more.  They call them Reagan Republicans.

Tom Maddux
Famous Social Critic

[Joe Sperling]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

---famous "liberal" of the early '60's


"Ask what your country can do for you".

--Liberals of today

[DavidM]

Tom and Joe, I can agree with some of what you are saying. But why are you saying it?  I wasn't talking about the current democratic party and Michael Moore! I was talking about the Social and Spiritual Transformation of the 60's! Guys I really hope you can look at the way you tend to deviate from the topic and improve your communication skills. I really think it would help the atmosphere around here.

[DavidM]

The Liberals of that time energized the conscience of America by referring to Biblical values.  Just read MLK's speeches

  I agree! MLK was saying things like walk the talk! But Tom at the time MLK was viewed as a "Leftist Radical" "A Communist" meanwhile people like, George H.W. Bush, (A Reagan/Liberal?) were campaining against the "Civil Rights Act" My point is this, the "Salt of the Earth" and the "Light of the World" sure was missing something during the first 190 years of our country's history. It wasn't until the youth movement of the 60's did the majority of the Christian Churches in America begin taking a stand on segregation.


http://www.famoustexans.com/georgebush.htm


  Today its a much different story with Republicans and MLK (Woops this should be moved to a different thread!) But today Republicans give a lot of verbal recognition to MLK!

[Joe Sperling]

I was talking about the Social and Spiritual Transformation of the 60's! Guys I really hope you can look at the way you tend to deviate from the topic and improve your communication skills. I really think it would help the atmosphere around here

David---

In many ways I think you need to improve your own communication skills. You have a habit of throwing out a question--like you did below, asking who was responsible for social change---Conservatives or liberals during the 60's? Tom then responds with the correct(at least most people would say they thought it was "liberals") answer--it was liberals-- BUT--who were the "liberals" of that time? They were quite different than the liberals of today.

There was both a "social" and a "spiritual" transformation for sure----but the label "conservative" and "liberal" had quite different meanings at that time---so to use those words defined in todays context is misleading. A liberal of that time would be considered a conservative today--so your very question is coming from your own premise or definition of conservatism or liberalism. Then, it seems if anyone takes a different view on your "premise" they are "deviating from the topic".  Perhaps--and I say this tongue in cheek you should start a thread called "David Mauldin Thread--please only answer questions in the style that I would answer them"--kind of like they do when they have "Write like Ernest Hemingway" competitions---that way you would be sure that everyone agrees with you on Dylan, or Health Care, or Social Change and doesn't deviate from the Mauldin style!   Many of your questions have a tendency to sound like that old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question---whether you answer "yes" or "no" it doesn't matter. The one asking the question has all the power, and any response given is incrimminating.

Example of the type of question I'm referring to: "Do you think that since the time that a Republican President ended slavery, that the rights of Americans have improved?"  If you are a present day Democrat you would not concentrate on the second half of the question, you would want to make sure the first part was clearly defined!! You would want to make sure everyone realized that it was a Repubican of the 1860's who ended slavery, not the same party as today!! The question is clearly a question being asked to make a biased statement with the question!!


So, if I were to say that the Republican President was responsible for ending slavery I would be making a true statement---based on an 1860's context!!  Lincoln was a Republican. You can be sure if I made that statement every Democrat out there would be sure to remind me that the Republican Party of 1860 is a lot different than the Republican Party of today   I don't think that would be a "deviation" from the  subject---it would be pointing out a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when making a blanket statement, or making a question not clearly presented in factual context.
--Joe

[DavidM]

Joe, you got it right when you said, BUT WHO WERE THE LIBERALS AT THE TIME?  Where Tom went off is when he brought in the a whole different generation.

  Its like this, I bring up Bob Dylan in a positive manner, right away Tom comes in with 'see Dylan's a hypocrite!" response!  Wha? I was talking about the artist. Its like you guys have this chip on your shoulder. You can't just have a simple converstation. I'll give you another example. I have acctually started threads with the same topic on another board. Yet the repsponses I get there (on the other side of the table) have been more about discussion then argument.

[DavidM]

If I were to say that the Republican party was responsible for ending slavery I would be making a true statement---based on an 1860's context!!  Lincoln was a Republican. You can be sure if I made that statement every Democrat out there would be sure to remind me that the Republican Party of 1860 is a lot different than the Republican Party of today    I don't think that would be a "deviation" from the  subject---it would be pointing out a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when making a blanket statement, or making a question not clearly presented in factual context.
--Joe

   If you were to say, "Who is responsable for the ending of slavery?" "Is it Liberals or Conservatives?" and I responded by saying "It was the "Liberals" but they aren't the radical liberals of today!



  I would be assuming that you were trying to compare "liberals" of today with those in 1860. But maybe I jumped to conclusions?  Maybe I didn't understand that you were making a statement about the lack of spiritual/social conviction amongst the Southern Baptist at that time? Maybe your real point has to do with the fact that religious institutions, that claim moral superiority, find themselves being instructed to by those they refer to as "The World!"  Kinda like Abraham being rebuked by Pharo for being a liar!

[Joe Sperling]

David---

So your real question had to do with the Southern Baptists then?

Maybe your real point has to do with the fact that religious institutions, that claim moral superiority, find themselves being instructed to by those they refer to as "The World!"  Kinda like Abraham being rebuked by Pharo for being a liar!

So, your question was asked with the intent that you would get the answer in italics above from your post? If you ask a question wanting a specific answer it's called "questioning and answering" in the legal arena----it is asking a question while really making a biased statement. If a question is asked in that manner, then any response but the one you are looking for is wrong.  See my new thread "Walking and Lunch---a philosophical inquiry" for an example of this.

[DavidM]

      My question is where did the desire to break down racial barriers come from? Who really was the Salt of the Earth at that time? Liberals? or Conservatives? Was it a social transformation (Which I believe it was) that effected the church? or a spiritual transformation that effected society? If it was liberals, why? Why weren't Baptist demanding these kinds of changes when they are clearly what the Bible teaches?   

  Yep thats the question!

                 Why weren't the Baptist demanding the end of segregation? Rasicm?

  Tom's response! LIBERALS! O.K. I agree. But he adds, these are Reagan republican's. O.K. let's talk about that on another thread, my point is addressing the spiritual/social climate in the church at that time.

btw-no one is addressing this! I see it as very damming to the professors of Christ! These Christians needed council from "liberals!"


    I really can't see how I am asserting anything else. I don't see how your thread "walk and Lunch" is encouraging communication? I see it as an attempt to intimidate and get rid of me.

[Joe Sperling]

David---

I'm not trying to get rid of you. I removed the Joke Thread. Often when people
ask a "question" it really has a statement in it, and it is part of an agenda. I was incorrect in
my earlier post---the correct term in the Court room is "ASKED AND ANSWERED"---you'll hear
an attorney object and use this term when it is obvious that the other attorney is asking a "question"
of a witness that already HAS the answer he is looking for hidden in the question. It is a way
of asking a question while REALLY presenting as "fact" a statement to the jury hidden in that very question.

For example look at these two questions:

1. Who do you think was the best rock band ever?

2. Who do you think was the best rock band ever, and why do you say the Beatles fit the bill?

Often your questions resemble #2 in that they have the answer you want already in the
question itself. The question already implies the Beatles are the best group ever and is asking people
to give reasons why. If someone argues that they are not the best group ever they have "deviated" from
the original question--because all you are looking for is reasons that back up your contention. This is not really
a question at all--it is a statement of opinion veiled in a question. 

Example:  Was it a social transformation (Which I believe it was) that effected the church? or a spiritual transformation that effected society? If it was liberals, why? Why weren't Baptist demanding these kinds of changes when they are clearly what the Bible teaches?

You are already answering your question while asking it. If someone asks "by liberals do you mean the liberals back then, or the kind of liberals we have now?" you answer "Please don't deviate from the original question". You haven't gotten the answer you want, or someone has asked a counter-question, and this doesn't fit the bill--it has to fit the pre-concieved answer you want. And this is really an "agenda" and not and "inquiry".

[DavidM]

O.K. I humbly apologize to Tom and Joe for telling them to work on their communication skills.



Insert Quote
Yes, David. The Baptists at that time were racists.  Read all about it in Yancy's books such as What's So Amazing about Grace and Soul Survivor.

   Dave thanks for the advise! I am surprised someone has addressed this issue! I was unaware that had been. has the Southern Baptist convention ever officially apologized for its behavior?

So what is my point?  People who were identified as "liberals" by this I do not mean "Reagan Republicans" I mean Allen Ginsberg, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, etc... brought about a change in society, in education, in the arts, in politics, in the Christian Church! This says a lot! It undermines a tremendous amount of the claims Christians assert about their role in the world! By this I mean, being the "Light of the World" or the "Salt of the Earth"

Hey! they did in 1995!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136

[Joe Sperling]

David----

No need for apology. I'll make one last comment and then shut up.

You said:
So what is my point?  People who were identified as "liberals" by this I do not mean "Reagan Republicans" I mean Allen Ginsberg, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, etc... brought about a change in society, in education, in the arts, in politics, in the Christian Church! This says a lot! It undermines a tremendous amount of the claims Christians assert about their role in the world! By this I mean, being the "Light of the World" or the "Salt of the Earth"[/b]

There is a big difference between "Christians" and the "Southern Baptist Church"(which is the main culprit in your full post below). At the same time that the Southern Baptists (and the south in general) were holding onto racist views, many other "Christians" were staunch believers in racial equality and were striving for it in the United States and throughout the world. Martin Luther King Jr. himself was a minister and his belief in God and the Bible led to his strong convictions that change had to come. I don't think Christians make any wild assertions about being responsible for sweeping social change. We're here more to fish in the pond than to clean up the pond. But the effects of Christianity upon society have indeed been great---the work of the Salvation Army and many other Christian groups who "remember the poor" have quietly led to the United States being the most giving nation on earth.

So when you say "What is my point?" the only thing I'm getting from you is this:  Liberals have done more to change the world than Christians ever have. Is this your point? If that is your point, it is open to debate---but it will be hard not to deviate from your original question to discuss it--and it could easily evolve into an "us vs. them" argument, since the bulk of people who visit the board are Christians!

[DavidM]

   I guess I got into this because of a comment on the Dylan thread. I wanted to point out that people like Dylan were doing what Christians should have been doing, ie... standing up for civil rights etc... So let's just leave it be!