Book Review - Hippes of the Religious Right by Preston Shires

Review by Don Hanway

Hippes of the Religious Right
Preston Shires
Baylor University Press

It is a curious connection that Preston Shires has made: a link between the counter-cultural energy and idealism of alienated young people in the 1960s, and the energy and determination to change the world that is characteristic of the current political movement we call the Religious Right in America. The New Evangelicals that Shires describes were alienated by modernism and scientism, and were counter-cultural in their emphasis on personal salvation; but the movement has evolved into a new activism, which Shires sees as linked in spirit to the activism of the ’60s rebels, who were not satisfied just to get high and drop out, but moved to protest the Vietnam War and the regnant culture of their era.

Is Shires on to something? Or is he pushing a personal agenda as an apologist for the New Evangelicals in America? It seems to me that he has at least elevated for discussion an important insight: that the rebellion of young adults in the ’60s against materialism, social convention and hypocrisy was at heart a spiritual movement—a protest against idolatry, technocracy and the disconnect between organized religion and everyday life.

The question is: Are the New Evangelicals, people like Francis Schaeffer and Bill Bright, the heirs of the hippies in their opposition to Christian liberals today; or are other factors at work, unaccounted for by Shires’ thesis?

Whether or not Shires has correctly drawn out the implications of his insight is certainly open to debate. For example, he faults Christian liberals for shrinking the Gospel to comfort food, while neglecting to note that the conservatism of today, championed by the politically engaged New Evangelicals, is fully as wedded to the culture of materialism, success and militarism, if not more so. It is quite possible to commend the hippies for their unease with the status quo of their day, without concluding that a more literal reading of the Bible was the only viable alternative. There is more than one form of radical spirituality, and in terms of the values the hippies extolled (peace, love, acceptance of the one who is different), it seems that right-wing Christianity today has betrayed the movement at least as much as have the liberal churches.

If the test of religious authenticity for the hippies, as Shires describes it, was the promotion of values such as freedom, consistency (versus hypocrisy), and a holistic view of life (versus compartmentalization of life and the enforcement of arbitrary boundaries), it is hard to see right-wing Christianity today as the champion of peace, love and acceptance of diversity. Instead, right-wing Christianity seems to be linked to judgmentalism (under the rubric of “family values”), militarism (in support of Israel and Biblical prophecy), and homophobia (as “biblical morality”).

On the positive side, the New Evangelicalism, as set forth by Francis Schaeffer and others, allowed for a recovery of the supernatural (as against scientism, which appeared to elbow God aside) and the recasting of Christian faith as intellectually respectable. It would be interesting to see what Shires would make of the review by Jane Smiley in the Oct. 15, 2007 issue of The Nation of Frank Schaeffer’s recent book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back. Frank is the son of Francis Schaeffer, and evidently not as dazzled by the old man as is Shires. It was Frank, interestingly enough, by his own testimony who persuaded Francis to seize upon abortion as a central and winning cause for the Religious Right, making believers very soon out of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, who recognized the possibilities.

Shires is quite impressed by the faith talk of the New Evangelicals - their openness to miracles and signs, their sense of the supernatural guiding their human endeavors and superseding the laws of nature. What really impresses Shires, though, is the success of the ventures launched on the basis of this kind of faith: the Billy Graham crusades, Campus Crusade for Christ, etc. To his credit, Shires does note the “gospel of prosperity” that has crept in with many evangelical leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker. He then turns around, though, and says that Robertson, at least (p. 83), could “detach himself from worldly things.” The mantra of the 1960s might be said to be: “If it feels good, do it.” The mantra of the New Evangelicals, then, might be: “If God is blessing you, why resist?” Shires sees Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, as “countercultural” (p. 86) - a conclusion which is by no means self-evident to me, no matter how much Bright attributes his success to being guided by the supernatural.

Another point made by Shires that can be debated is his contention that New Evangelicals are activists, in common with ’60s activists, both energized by idealism and spiritual concerns. While there is admittedly a political activism at work today in the Evangelical churches, it nevertheless remains generally true that, except for Saddleback Church in California and some others who are involved in global missions of mercy, not just saving souls, it is the liberal churches who are doing most of the social activism in America today; making converts is still the principal preoccupation of many, if not most, Evangelicals. Shires relegates to the Epilogue of his book a half-hearted accommodation to the Evangelical left (social activists such as Jim Wallis), who are trying to call the New Evangelicals back to a greater balance between Word and deed. I am inclined to challenge Shires with this question: Was it really liberalism that ’60s youth were protesting, or the materialism of their elders? And if the latter, are the right-wing churches of today any less materialistic than the liberal churches?

A review of the street ministries that were the precursors of the New Evangelical drive to unite sacred and secular is an interesting part of the book, though it fails to consider how what was at one time countercultural has become institutionalized in the Evangelical churches (e.g., the use of modern music, aided by the use of the latest technology).

Shires characterizes the countercultural youth of the ’60s as motivated (p. 120) by respect for intellectual discourse, golden-rule ethics, rebellious activism, expressive individualism, and antitechnocratic spirituality—all of which suggest that college campuses would be a natural extension of hippie concerns. Shires fails to notice, however, that today’s Evangelicals have other roots besides the idealism of the hippies:

They are against scientism, but in many cases also anti-Enlightenment (equating that with secularity, rather than linked to rationalism and Christian humanism); they are often pro-war, on selective biblical grounds, a position that would not be respected by the hippies.

Shires notes that the Christian Right became anti-gay (p. 186), a position taken, like being anti-abortion, because it played well—but clearly a departure from the openness of countercultural youth of the ’60s. In short, the author’s argument for the supposed influence of countercultural ideals from the ’60s on the development of the Religious Right has some gaping holes and fails to convince.

Shires has bought into the stock, evangelical criticisms of the liberal churches (cf. p. 129 and ff.), for example, that liberals are enamored of scientism (versus having respect for the scientific enterprise) and disconnected from “biblical truth” (p. 133). He seems to approve a simple-minded view of biblical authority, viz, scriptural inerrancy, as the test for connection or disconnection with biblical truth. He also seems to have bought into the idea that America has been and should be a Christian nation, as opposed to a nation composed of and accepting of religious diversity.

Hippies of the Religious Right is a blend of history and fiction. While it does trace the rise of the Religious Right with some interesting attention to early developments, it does not successfully make the case that the countercultural ideals of ’60s youth have become embodied in the outlook or values of the Religious Right in America today. It is colored by a respect for Evangelical success that takes little note of the failures of right-wing Christianity today, and therefore must be approached with skepticism by anyone who wants an unbiased view of the motivations of the Religious Right. Nevertheless, Shires has raised a question of some historical interest, namely, in what way were the protests of the 1960s a spiritual outcry by young people with a spiritual hunger, seeking a Gospel that is truly Good News for all, and a cause worthy of their devotion. It is by no means clear that right-wing Christianity today is the answer they sought.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Propeller  •   Reddit  •   Magnoliacom  •   Newsvine  •   Furl  •   Facebook  •   Google  •   Yahoo  •   Technorati  •   Icerocket