tv Lectures in History 20th Century Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism CSPAN February 3, 2018 8:00pm-9:10pm EST
you're watching american history tv all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to >> next on lectures in history, university of north carolina at chapel hill molly worthen teaches a class about the history and the intellectual underpinnings of protestant fundamentalism in 20th century of america. she begins with the 1925 scopes monkey trial which taught evolution versus creationism in public schools and gained national attention. she also delves into the origins and growth of pentecostalism which strives for a connection with the divine and includes speaking in tongues. her class is a little over an hour. prof. worthen: let us begin. my name is molly worthen. we are at the university of
north carolina at chapel hill and today's lecture is on the history of american fundamentalism and pentecostalism. i will try to answer three big questions today. number one, what is protestant fundamentalism? what does the term mean? second, how did fundamentalists relate to mainstream culture? and third, why has fundamentalism been so much more influential in the united states then in any other society in the western world? curious, is fundamentalism, fundamentalists --are these terms that you here today? do you -- that you hear today? do you know people that use this label?
i can see some knotting. any -- some nodding. any examples? term that you here more often in the context of islam. what about here, among american christian groups? >> i am from up north. and many of the christians down here we call fundamentalist christians. often as a per jordan of. ive.ften as a perjorat prof. worthen: that lines up with my own experience. i have met some proud, independent baptist that claim the term fundamentalist but generally, it seems to be used as an insult. it is not a label that most christians would want applied to themselves. i think that the history of that
connotation, a kind of negative sense in which we hear the word today, it really became crystallized in one particular historical episode and that is the infamous, or famous, depending on your view, scopes trial. there we go. of 1925. the monkey trial that dominated in theer headlines summer of 1925. now, the scopes trial has a certain status in popular culture. you are probably at least vaguely aware of what it involved but let me tell you the basic facts of the trial. the state of tennessee passed a law for bidding the teaching -- for bidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in tennessee public high school. the aclu, the american civil liberties union, wanted to
challenge the constitutionality of this law. and so they put together and financed a case. they recruited a tennessee high school teacher, a substitute science teacher, a young guy named john scopes who agreed to purposefully incriminate himself by making a point of teaching the chapter from their textbook on the theory of evolution and then urging his own students to testify against him. to rat him out. to get him in trouble so he would be charged with this crime and it would go to trial. that is exactly what happened. this turned out to be an amazing publicity opportunity for the little town of dayton, tennessee. 200 reporters descended on the town in july, 1925. a few thousand spectators from various parts of the south and further afield. if you had walked down the street of dayton in july you
would have seen trained chimpanzees playing on the courthouse lawn. billboards featuring a picture of hm drinking the local -- a of the local variety of soda pop. the trial itself was pretty sensational. because both sides, the defense and the prosecution, managed to recruit a star for their side. team wasosecution's william jennings bryan, the great commoner, the populist democrat who had run for president three times. he had been woodrow wilson's secretary of state and was known as the great defender of traditional protestantism. and a great lawyer joined the defense team as well. probably the most famous left-wing lawyer of the time.
and famously agnostic on the matter of religion. and that was clarence dar row. he was known for his bold politics. here he is in his characteristically flush making his opening arguments. williamsd b jennings bryant. is an example of a table set up with anti- evolutionary tracts. both the is an example of a tabe sides saw this as an opportunity. now, the a.c.l. you wanted to challenge the law on the grounds of academic freedom. that was the tact that they wanted to take. veered in a darrow different direction. he decided to put traditional
religion on trial. and he sides saw this as an opportunity. summoned to the stand for cross examination, william jennings bryant himself which was very unorthodox. for one of the attorneys for the prosecution to be summoned for press -- cross examination. darrow wanted to make a great fool of this great statesman. he asked william jennings bryant questions about -- how could joshua possibly have compelled the sunshine to stand still? exactn you tell us the date of the flood? dishes back and remains firm in defending his views though in many cases he did not really have a clear and sharp answer to rebut darrow. i will say that bryant refused
to defend the young earth creationism. that each day of creation described in genesis literally means 24 hours. he said it could mean a longer period of time. but,means in general, he defende conservative, traditional reading of scripture. and he kind of came off as an old man who has been out of his depth. the judge ended up throwing out the testimony and in fact most of the testimony for the defense ofirrelevant to the question this high school teacher had broken the law. it was pretty clear that he had. in the end, the jury found scopes guilty and he was orderel teacher had broken the law. it was pretty clear that he had. to pay a fine. although the commission was later thrown out on a technicality. courthouse, the crowd was definitely on br
yant's side. and the defenders of winution really seemed to over the mainstream press in the big cities. a journalist for the baltimore mencken, wasmed hl dispatched to cover the trial and he wrote some incredibly mencken, was searing and knocking reports about the people that he met there. i just want to read an excerpt of one of his reports. the net effect of clarence darrow's closing arguments yesterday seemed to be the same bawled it up a rain spout in the interior of afghanistan. the morons in the audience when it was so for -- when it was
over simply hissed. strength had been among the folk of remote hills and forlorn and lonely forms. -- firms. they rejoiced like pilgrims sporting in the river of jordan. holy cow! matter what you might think of hl mencken's ideology, key had a certain genius for comic condescension. and reports like this had powerful effects. this trial came to be widely seen as a cultural deceit -- cultural the feed for fundamentalism. as the moments that made famous the caricature of the fundamentalist as the uneducated redneck. and the scopes trial has become betweenn of the clash
fundamentalism and modernism. so telling it is that 1925 was also the year of the creation in canada of the united church of canada. remember, i told you about that great moment of protestant unity in canada when the baptists, -- not the baptists, the presbyterians, the congregationalists, and the methodist joined together to make one big denomination. and it was this lovely historical coincidence that it happened at the very same time that american protestantism was so clearly polarizing and breaking apart. very handy. to give you to memorize for the final. and it showed you that the virgin set of paths that american and canadian that canadian--
and american protestantism was heading down. who are these fundamentalists? who are we really talking about when we use this label? first, we have to be clear about what fundamentalism means. because this word is used to pretty carelessly i think in today's culture and media. inthis class, we will use it a very historically precise way. fundamentalists, i am giving you a definition now, fundamentalist are conservative protestants who militantly opposed, militantly opposed, the militant is important, new ideas about the bible, science, and society. often, although not always,
broke away to found their own , and religiousls organizations. that reallytestants a posed in an aggressive way the new changes and in many cases they broke away and found their own groups. now, we can talk about an organized fundamentalist 1900 twofrom roughly say 1930 -- to say 1931 the conservatives were fighting brutally to retain control of the old, established, northern denominations that we call mainline. , you are reading a famous sermon about -- by a liberal baptist preacher. i think that gives you some
sense of the conflict. here he is. he appeared on the cover of "time" magazine. it gives you a sense of the cultural status of liberal princes of the pulpit back them. the first presbyterian church in manhattan is where he originally gave this sermon. "shall the fundamentalist win." i think you will see that his sermon was not a fight over doctrine, at least not explicitly. you may talk with your classmates about whether actually that is what was going on underneath it. on the surface, his approach was very different from clarence darrow's. essentially, he says if a person is a true liberal, they should have no problem with other christians believing that say god created the universe in six
days even if they themselves do not happen to believe that. he says the problem with these fundamentalists is not their theology, they can believe what they like, the problem is their beliefs about church. the fact that they think belongs like him do not in any truly christian church. this sermon was a sensation. the rockefeller foundation for 30 years. and the foundation funded the nationwide distribution of this sermon as a pamphlet. so it had much of wider reach by direct mail than just the people who happened to hear it preached. but i have been reading his autobiography and it is really interesting. he gave this sermon and he called it a failure even though it was really widely read. to him, it failed in his main
hope which was to stop the fighting and restore harmony. maybe that is a bit naïve, really, thinking about it. but it is true that after about 1930, the fundamentalist movement as an organized movement disintegrates. basically lostes their bid to control the mainline churches which is why we so often saying now that the the liberal mainline is how people typically refer to those denominations. fundamentalism did not go away though. at this point, we can describe fundamentalism as maybe not an organized movement but as a set of networks. a subculture. fundamentalists built their own world of bible colleges,
denominations, prophecy conferences, anti-communism crusades, lady ministries. a really powerful network of religious and political groups that for quite a long time, i mean maybe up until the 1960's and 1970's, was not really on the mainstream media's radar. it seems like after the scopes trial, fundamentalist had crawled into a hole somewhere and never appeared from the perspective of the average reporter at the new york times are something like that. in fact, fundamentalism was growing into a powerful subculture. one more point about terms. years, the first half of the 20th century, the terms fundamentalist and evangelical
were more or less interchangeable. people would use them both to talk about the same individuals, to talk about themselves. but, in the 1940's, that starts to change. comese term evangelical instead to mean a conservative protestant who is still doctrinally awfully fundamentalist but is not so militant about it. i am talking about people like billy graham. an evangelical with someone that wanted to engage mainstream culture, maybe collaborate a bit more with other christians, rather than separating from the world in an extreme way or picking a lot of fights over doctrine. that is what evangelical comes to mean and it is still how it is used today. this then is a big arc of the
fundamentalist movement in our story. i want to turn out briefly to the matter of theology. and say a little bit more about what fundamentalists believed and what they believed today. fundamentalism looked slightly churchnt in different traditions. a baptist fundamentalist would believe slightly different things, worship differently than a mennonite fundament list but they are called fundamentalist because they did tend to share a set of fundamentals. we can make some broad comments about that. pietisticd to have a concern for personal holiness. for good behavior. many of them came in some way out of the puritan tradition. puritanined that combination of interest in rigorous doctrine, systematic
the allergy with pietism. that personal feeling of the spirit. lots and lots of fundamentalists, though by no means all of them, were also premillennialists in their view of the end times. that means they thought that jesus was going to return, probably pretty return, in the flesh. to inaugurate the prophecies predicted in the book of revelation and eventually after the battle of armageddon and all of that jazz, the kingdom of the saints. down to a more basic level of fundamentals. there would be some disagreements among fundamentalists on things like the end times. i struggled for a long time to come up with a good acronym to help students remember the fundamentals until just a couple of years ago when i put this out
as a challenge to some of your predecessors in this class and one lovely student, a woman rosser whoda graduated last spring came up with marvin. the fundamentals. this comes from a list drawn up by some conservative 1910 couldns in wanted to figure out what are the most important things that we cannot compromise on. miracles. the miracles were reported in the bible really did happen. a for a tone it. a believe in the traditional doctrine of christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross. that is jesus was not just a nice guy. he was not just a handy moral example for us. he really did take our place on the cross and die for our sins. r for resurrection.
he was actually, bodily resurrected. v, christ was born of a virgin. i four inerrancy. the doctrine of biblical inerrancy meaning the bible is totally without error no matter what scientists and historians may say. want to push back a bit against the scopes trial caricature. of fundamentalists as country bumpkins by talking about i them the could call thinking man's fundamentalists. at princeton the illogical seminary. princeton, in the late 19th century was one of the intellectual powerhouses behind the conservative response to modernist the allergy. benjamint to focus on
warfield who was a scholar at princeton. you are reading an excerpt from one of his sermons this week. he was born in 1851. he was the son of a well-to-do cattle breeder in kentucky. aristocraticpretty stock. his great-grandfather was a u.s. senator, one of his uncles was a the civile general in war. and his family was presbyterian. and warfield really threw himself into serving his family's faith. he went to princeton as a student and he returned to the ininary about a decade later 1887 to teach their and to spend his life fighting against modernism. by defending this doctrine known
as biblical inerrancy. and we need to spend a little time with the idea of inerrancy. this idea that everything in the bible is true, no matter what scholars might say, that scripture has no error in it. the basic idea is very old. christians have always been defend the bible as a perfect source of truth. but, inerrancy, as war failed -- as warfield understood it and as fundamentalists and evangelicals has come to understand that a more recent history. and we need to unpack this a bit to really understand what is going on. to tell the story of the doctrine of inerrancy, i need to backtrack from where we are in this course back to the early, mid-17th century. here with me. in these years, a couple of
generations after the start of the protestant reformation, a group of protestant the load gins founda more recent history. and we need to unpack this a bit to really themselves -- theologians found themselves surrounded on the intellectual battlefield. and i am talking primarily about thinkers in the reformed tradition. followed johnat calvin and those guys. on the one hand, they had to deal with the scientists and the philosophers of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment who are using new scientific methods to raise awkward questions about the bible's accounts of the miraculous and the supernatural doctrines. and on the other hand, they had to face the great theologians of the catholic counterreformation. thinkers whotic
were annoyingly adept at logically, systematically picking apart protestant arguments about authority. these protestant thinkers were caught in the middle and they tryinged by essentially to turn their enemies' weapons back upon them by creating a highly rationalistic, highly logical method of defending the authority of scripture. these protestant thinkers took as their starting point the philosophical principle that god is perfect and unchanging. and christians debate about whether that principle is actually explicit in scripture. it is not clear that it is. but these conservatives said that if that is true, it follows
logically that god's revelation is perfect and unchanging as well. just in matters -- not just in matters of salvation but in every historical matter from the scope of the flood to the most granular details of ancient israel's politics. so, what this means is that religious truths and scientific truths are the same. the bible is equally reliable on both matters. benjamin warfield's mentor at a theologian named charles hodge had a great way of putting this. he said the bible is a storehouse of facts. bigk about that fact -- about that phrase. a storehouse of facts. and a theologian's job is to arrange and harmonize those must just as a scientist arrange the laws of nature by
classifying data from the natural world. he is really saying that a theologian is a kind of scientist. and this i think really drives home the point that the princeton thinkers followed that model of common sense realism that i told you about a couple of weeks ago and how they thought about science. science is about using your god-given common sense to make sense of the data in god's creation. very different view from the idea of science that we start to see emerge with charles darwin and the thinkers that come after him who develop more sophisticated methods for dealing with uncertainty in their scientific endeavors. now, warfield and his colleagues were not dummies. these guys were sophisticated thinkers who kept abreast of the latest scholarship coming out of european universities and they were well aware of the discrepancies in the bible.
the parts that seem to not quite line up and seem to contradict one another. but they argued that the appearance of these problems in scripture was simply the result , humanmortal imperfect misunderstandings. it is not a reflection of god's error. now, warfield, unlike his colleagues, was even open to --e version of the us stick theistic evolution. evolution driven by god. when you think about his biography that makes sense. member his dad was a cattle breeder so he spent a lot of time in kentucky working on the family ranch and he had observed firsthand how breathing works. how inherited traits can change over time. he died a few years before the scopes trial but i am pretty sure he would have been very
uncomfortable with the all or about evolution that took place there. however, warfield and his colleagues at princeton were really worried about the presuppositions, the assumptions work.ath this modernist and that is really what he is getting at in the sermon you are reading this week. he and his colleagues believed that any scholar in any field has got to start with the assumption that the bible is free from all error. they said -- by definition, god's revelation is perfect. this is not something you should try to prove. you have to just accept this assumption. and they worried that liberal
maybers who said -- ok, you can grant that perhaps the miracles in the gospels did not happen, maybe christ did not really raise anyone from the dead but you can still believe that christ is your savior. you can still have the core of the christian faith. warfield and his buddies said -- no way. not at all. it is a slippery slope. and if you give up these so-called details, eventually you give up the reliability of the whole bible. they were prepared to fight. hard for these details. they did not see them as details at all. there are a few reasons why warfield's approach became so dominant in the united states. the first is that america had always had many more churches of warfield's tradition. the reformed protestant tradition.
then you would have found in the united kingdom or canada. and reformed protestants historically have really been into fighting over doctrine, really systematic thinkers. remember i told you how john and howas so systematic he reasoned out predestination. same with the puritans. these guys were often itching for intellectual fights. they were very sensitive to any intellectual challenge. that is different from other protestants who tended to put more emphasis on personal spiritual experience or church tradition or using the bible more as a guide for daily living rather than as a kind of textbook. the second major reason for the popularity of this rationalistic , thisf inerrancy fundamentalist attitude towards compromise was revivals.
revivals became more popular in america than anywhere else in the western world. a kind ofncouraged black and white view of christianity. uncertainty ist bad. must either reject the science entirely and then you know you are saved or you can embrace it and be among the damped. and -- among the damned. and if you are not sure, then you're not really saved. a historian, george morrison, said this is among the reasons why fundamentalism became so prominent in america. warfield would not have entirely approved of how the fundamentalist movement picked up the cause of inerrancy and
ran with it. i think what we see is that when sophisticated scholarship filters down from the cloud land of the illogical -- theological treatises into church newspapers and broadcast, it does not retain its complexity and nuances. the is what happened with doctrine of inerrancy. it became a sort of banner to rally around. to proclaim believe in inerrancy was to proclaim -- i reject all of these awful things about modernity. i reject women wearing shorter skirts. i reject we're talking, weird smelling immigrants coming into our cities. i reject prideful arrogant scholars who are tearing down our holy books. i want to assert the authority of the bible over america. that is what inerrancy came to stand for, i think.
we gain some perspective on this when we think a little bit about canada. canada had a small fundamentalist movement of its own. especially baptist who -- especially baptists who paid a lot of attention to what the baptists south of the border were up to. wereally, fundamentalists not as influential in canadian protestantism. i want to focus on one non-fundamentalist evangelical because i think his story tells us a lot more about what makes canadian evangelicalism different. and that is this guy. nathaniel. he was a contemporary of warfield's. he showed up in your textbook a couple of weeks ago i believe. minister andodist educator. he was born in 1839 in lower canada, what is now what that.
he was the great-grandson of loyalists who fled from vermont during the revolution. his parents were devout methodist and he had his own conversion experience when he was a student at victoria college in ontario. on, the tory a asked him to come back and teach. asked him toia come back and teach. not the allergy but natural science. he had studied that philosophy that was so influential at princeton. commonsense realism. and in a broad sense he drew from that worldview the same sort of conclusions that warfield did. he thought -- ok, evolution is simply a theory, just a theory. it does not mean my standards of -- it does not meet my standards
of proof so i do not have to take a position on it. the bigapproach to picture of culture and education was very different. very non-fundamentalist. a way to to find accommodate christian theology to new scientific discoveries. and he thought that church run colleges,protestant could continue to teach the humanities, theology. they would shake students' souls. he thought it would be fine for secular faculty to take over the sciences and professional education. when it came to scripture, he combined commonsense realism how methodist ideas about christians should read the bible.
the view that john wesley had was that understanding god's scriptureres bringing into conversations with church and personalason, religious experiences. that is known as the wesleyan quadrilateral. scripture, reason, experience, and tradition. it had the potential to be a more moderate guide for thinking about these things. ,e was also part of a british north american intellectual world that remained more connected with some other countries -- with united kingdom, the homeland of darwin. this is really important. canadian christian intellectuals had more personal relationships in britain and more frequently studied there.
they had more institutional links with british denominations. so, even though geographically speaking, they are just as far from what was happening at the universities of the united kingdom and germany then american protestant -- then american protestants were, canadians felt much closer. the experience like -- of charles darwin's experience felt like a foreign invasion than a gradual development of their own culture. this is another reason why canadian protestantism did not fracture to the same degree and fundamentalists did not gain the same kind of authority. warfield shared some of the same training and had the
same fundamental goals, really. defendth wanted to christianity in the modern world but they approached that goal very differently. and in canada, it was the moderates, the more compromise minded christians willing to rethink their ideas about scripture perhaps to accommodate new science. it was these guys who retained control over mainstream evangelicalism while in america, the more aggressive stance that we see in warfield came to be more influential. now, i have been describing fundamentalism has this really intellectual thing so far. really obsessed with dogma. and scientific knowledge. and in some ways, it was that,
but there is a no other movement in concert -- there is another movement in conservative product is does a that overlapped somewhat with fundamentalism but is really its own thing and that is the holiness movement. -- here are a couple of images of the holiness camps back in the day and today. my talk ofy recall holiness christians dimly from the early parts of the semester. emerged --llies beliefs emerged mainly in methodist circles among christians who got really interested in the holy spirit's work in a christian after conversion. what they called the second blessing.
this feeling -- this filling of the totalpower and suppression of sin by the holy spirit. argued thathad since scripture demands that law, thelfill god's state of what he called christian perfection must be attainable even if it takes up our whole lives. you remember that from what you read about wesley. holiness christians really focused on this and they took wesley's idea and they kind of ran with it and they said -- sin must not be inevitable them. it must be possible to totally suppress it in the course of this second blessing. to really hold this experience of the second lessing as being as significant as a christian's conversion because it could bring to you what they called entire
sanctification. gods grace can free one, not just of a perversion of original committ the tendency to individual sins. they had a much higher view of what the holy spirit could do. kind ofness movement is a bridge to the last big group i want to talk about and that is the pentecostals. at i think it can the easy this point to lose track of where we are in the family tree of protestantism. let us refresh our memories. maybe you are maintaining a growing family tree in your notebook. that would be a great thing to do. let us go back and start with the church of england. church of england. england, the church of has a lot of influences. it has the reformed influence. it has some lutheranism. and it retains a lot of
catholicism. here, we have to think about wesley's background. let us remember the pietists and the moravians. remember how important the moravians were to wesley. so, the methodists came out of the church of england. wesley was himself a church of england minister. movement comes out of methodism, for the most part. there are some other varieties of holiness christianity, but for the most part, methodist. and this is where we are now. now, we are talking about pentecostals. who are the radical left wing of holiness protestantism. this is what it looks like.
it least in a general way. revival firstal came to the attention of the mainstream press in 1906. when newspaper is started religious event known as the isuza street revival. here is an image of the mission in los angeles. the los angeles times reporting of tongues.abble that a new sect of fanatics was breaking loose. a gurgle of words. what is this reporter -- this be willed it reporter, talking about? beencostal leaders had traveling the country for a few years at this point when an
african-american hotel waiter, a guy named william seymour, picked up this message of the radical power of the holy spirit to work in you and through you. he had gotten this from a revivalist he heard teaching in houston and he traveled to los angeles and brought it with him. now, he probably would not have been most people's pick for likely evangelist to ignite a worldwide revival although that is what he would come to do. he was a son of former slaves. he was born in louisiana in pretty impoverished circumstances. he was raised as a roman catholic. as a young man, he had fallen in with the holiness movement and he felt called to preach. many early pentecostal evangelist, it was a near death
experience that did it. he almost died of smallpox and lost an eye. he believed god getting 10 back from the brink and wanted him to do this work. he is second from the right on the front row. wereis where his revivals based initially. he came to los angeles with no money or followers but he started holy prayer meetings at the house he was staying and he was soon drawing huge audiences to the front porch. to move to they had this abandoned warehouse. and every day for weeks, there meetings happening off and on at this mission house. people came to sing, your sermons and testimonies from those who said a had been baptized in the spirit. that is the phrase. it wouldu had gone -- not look like any revival you
have ever seen. people were losing control of their bodies. gyrating. dancing. falling to the floor. slaying in the spirit. claiming to heal people of all kinds of illnesses. states of paralysis and other extreme physical ailments. and you would have heard them speaking in tongues. weird babble of tongues. some early witnesses said they heard people actually speaking in foreign languages that they had never studied. --. would be called although reports of this were very rare and never confirmed by scholars. you would havee heard what the lujan'-- what theologians called the
does notus sound that resemble human speech. not a recognizable language. witnessed people speaking in tongues? yes. what was the context? >> [indiscernible] were theyhen: speaking really loudly and emotionally or was it a quieter kind of speech? >> i think they were quietly praying. prof. worthen: kind of a range. sometimes a more private experience or a message for the congregation. has anyone else witnessed this or participated in at? -- in it? pastor spoke in tongues.
but he said that only he had the power to do so. so he would do this as part of his sermon? that is really interesting. as a kind of way to assert an extra kind of authority of the holy spirit working through him. evidence ofis as the indwelling of the holy spirit in them. that is an echo of the second chapter of acts in which the holy spirit descended on christ's apostles like a mighty wind. on the feast of pentecost because it is 50 days after the jewish holiday of passover. and according to scripture, this apostles with the the gift of speaking in foreign languages so they could go to the ends of the earth and
convert more people to christ's message. was aretty much this thing that christians thought of as limited to the new testament. there were exceptions. there had been some reports of speaking in talks before this ministry. brigham young, the great mormon leader, claimed to have spoken in tongues. it might have happened during the second great awakening. hard to say. but it took on a new significance now. the beginning of the 20th century. pentecostals believed that the spiritual gifts mentioned in the tonguesament, not just but the gift of healing for example as well, had been restored to earth because christ was about to return. they had a real sense of the imminence of the end times. god's one last appeal to humans to convert before the terrible events of
prophecy began to unfold. , i have aal coincided slide but the date of the newspaper front-page was april 18, 1906 which was the date of the great san francisco earthquake. the totally devastating earthquake. that for believers really drove home the point that god wanted this revival to be taken very seriously. these early revivals too -- you may have noticed it in the picture, they were racially integrated. in their leadership and the people that came to worship. this was loss -- angeles at the turn of the century. looming. full of -- booming. you had blacks, whites, latinos,
and asians worshiping together vast majority the of religious events were segregated. you had women disproportionately represented. forward, coming testifying, preaching and participating in these healing services. breaking all kinds of social taboos. now, tell me, how do you think other christians reacted to reports of these revivals? what would be your guests when they read these news -- what ss when theyr gue read these newspaper reports? was'm sure they thought it not the original teaching of the church. absolutely.n: that was a dominant reaction.
of the socialg taboos, these christians were defying god's rules in how humans should associate. and all of this new testament, miraculous stuff, they thought was not believable. this could not be. this is not something that respectable christians did. it had to be the work of orrlotte fans -- charlatans the devil. pentecostalism for much of its history was totally scandalous even to fundamentalist. even a most fundamentalists. do not forget to diagram pentecostals and fundamentalist. there would be some overlap because the pentecostals were doctrinally conservative. they were founding their own churches. -- a lot of self-doubt self-described fundamentalist wanted nothing to do with this pentecostal, holy roller kind of stuff. revival hadtecostal
spread to every inhabited continent. it remains today the biggest and most vibrant strain of protestant christianity in the world. early hopespite the for unity, you quality, by 1920, pentecostals had started breaking into different sects that disagreed with dr. and and they began to conform with racial segregation and rolling back opportunities for women. however, now i want to tell you about an amazing pentecostal woman. one of the most famous christian evangelists of the early 20th century in the decades after this stuff was a woman named amy semple mcpherson who was born in ontario. she was originally canadian. she made most of her career in
california. she had been converted at a revival as a young girl. she married young. she really tried to play the housewife.utiful she accompanied her husband who was a missionary, to china. he became ill and died very soon after they arrived. and she was increasingly feeling that god was speaking to her to preach. so she came back to north america and god remarried -- and remarried. on the top left is her first husband. she was remarried and began to tour north america preaching at revivals. arriving in her gospel car which likemblazoned with slogans -- jesus is coming soon. get ready. her second husband was not crazy about this. he did not want to play second
fiddle to her. he wrote letters demanding she take care of the house and act like other women. pretty soon, he got fed up and got a divorce. determined that when her car got stuck in the mud, she got out and wrapped the closing from her suitcase around the wheels to determined that wn her car got stuck in the mud, she gain traction as they continued crisscrossing canada and the united states. she was a little bit like lorenzo or george whitfield who had -- because she had a genius to win an audience. there is a story that i love about her. she was preaching in a small town in ontario early in her career. she had been preaching for a couple of nights in knowing what showing up. she was really discouraged. she went out to the town square and put a chair in the middle of the square and then she stood
silently in prayer. makes you feel kind of awkward doing that, right? it made onlookers feel kind of awkward also. they began to gather around her. after watching her, someone reaches out and touches her arm and she sprang to life and she said -- come with me, people and she leads them back to church and they came. and she preached and it was the start of a great revival. she has a sense of how people would respond. to have them overcome their skepticism. she had two children at this point. she brought her whole family and her mother came along and they settled in los angeles where she
decided to make her career. this was after she went up in an airplane advertising her revival in san diego. she was on the cutting edge of technology and things that would wow people. she built a huge evangelist temple which opened in 1923. this was one of the first mega-churches. it could seat 5300 people. of aeld three services day, seven days a week. on sunday afternoons, there would be a line stretching for two blocks for -- of people anxious to get in for the service. she had a huge radio ministry. into itshurch resolved own protestant denomination. the church of the international -- the international church of the foursquare gospel. foursquare is a reference to the
fourfold ministry of christ as savior, baptizer, healer, and coming king meaning the second coming. now, mcpherson is full of contradiction. in her the l -- theologies, she was pretty fundamentalist and she was all about condemning mainstream sinful culture. she condemned the editor, movies, but she borrowed a lot of hollywood techniques and she would walk on stage carrying a bouquet of roses to great applause. and she was most famous for what she called her illustrated sermons which were like broadway productions. angelestnside the temple. this is one of her illustrated temples. there were costumes.
she and her colleagues would act out bible stories. animals.e often live once she drove a motorcycle on stage. her critics dismissed it as religious waterville but it was buteligious of vaudeville it was incredibly successful. there was room for healing. she held healing services frequently. it is interesting. there were reports of her own comments on this and they made it clear that she was pretty nervous about doing this. especially when she had a big audience in a los angeles stadium. she was worried that a person what not get up from their wheelchair. but often enough to sustain her credibility as a vehicle for the holy spirit, people did have there was a museum she kept at
her church of the canes and crutches and wheelchairs that people had left behind. it is hard to know what to make of this. from the perspective of a professional secular historian, i think it is important to take it seriously. something real happens in this space and that encounter between the person and the people she is .ealing it makes awareness of the respective ability problem they had. she had this powerful vision of the holy spirit, but wanted to keep it rained in. as she tried to maximize her mainstream appeal, someone got carried away. when someone was speaking in tongues, she would have them removed. she wanted to appeal to a wider range of people.
she was full of contradictions. preached to mixed audiences but also endorsed the kkk. so it is hard to know exactly what to make of her. here was one of her outfits. she dressed as sort of a lawrence nightingale figure. it was a particular expression of femininity. here was her mansion. we could call her fundamentalist, you could call
her feminist. it was hard to which her into boxes like modernist or anti-modernist, because she crosses all of these lines. she is interesting because she reflects a broader pattern we have been studying. here was a woman claiming through divine inspiration a source of authority that lets her do an end run around the men in the edf as well as in the church. a masterful self promoter who was rewarded by america's religious marketplace, like all of the evangelical entrepreneurs we have met. she shows us the way in which fundamentalists and pentecostals could say they were rejecting modern learning and wortley sin, but they were not recorded off from mainstream culture. they were embedded in that culture.
insider ory were at an outsider, she was a bit of both. of thisummarize all with three big points about fundamentalists and pentecostals. first, between 1880 and 1920, fundamentalists started to draw on that framework of common sense realism and biblical knowledge to form a movement. many broke away and founded their own churches and subcultures with this militant posture of resistance. second, the movement was stronger. the polarization was more severe in america than in canada. because of the strength of reformed churches, because of
, and the relative cultural isolation from europe. and last, we can understand the holiness and pentecostal were reactions against modernity. that pushed aside the authority in favor of direct personal contact with the divine. and proof of that contact in the form of tongues, healing, and other miracles. but we should also see these as thoroughly modern movements. and that it in mainstream very savvy about using it.
fundamentalists and pentecostals were both insiders and outsiders. wildernessing in the as well as savvy hollywood entrepreneurs. that paradox is part of the lasting success of this movement. that is it for today. [applause] >> join us every saturday evening at 8 p.m. as we join college classrooms to hear lectures on topics ranging from the american revolution to 9/11. lectures in history are also available as podcasts. visit our website c-span.org/history, or download them from itunes.
sunday night, former speechwriter for former president george w. bush and atlantic columnist david with isbook "trumpocracy" interviewed by book critic carlos. it comes from the same root as democracy and autocracy is a book about the study of power. this is the study of donald trump's power, how did he get it, how does he maintained? it is a system of enabling. it exists between trump and congress, between trump and the media that enables him and that involves his republican donors. and that, between him core group of voters within the republican party, who enabled him to win the nomination.
night at 9sunday p.m. eastern on c-span twos book tv. >> we are home to the university of arkansas. join us as we visit the center for arkansas aural and visual history and their effort to preserve our history. >> i traveled on the train. on thethree packets train, and to divide our close, my mother would get on the train and go to union station. i really liked to ride the trolley downtown and go to the stores downtown. my love of the mountains started at that age. six or seven years of age. that is when i was first introduced to the university. >>