Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture.

Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture. By Barry Hankins. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2002. 344 pp.

The past two decades have witnessed a number of monographs seeking to provide a dominant interpretation of the controversy that pitted moderates against fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). In Uneasy in Babylon, Barry Hankins asserts a new thesis, one grounded in differing views of culture rather than in inerrancy or institutional control. Through extensive interviews with key leaders of the fundamentalist movement in the SBC, Hankins concludes that, unlike their moderate brethren, fundamentalists feared that the forces of secularization were moving into the South. Thus, they adopted a culture war mentality from their northern evangelical allies. Consequently, fundamentalists seized control of the SBC in order to garner its resources in the war for American culture. Most of the chapters of the book are committed to delineating the views of various fundamentalist leaders on issues such as church-state relations, abortion, the role of women, and race to illustrate how their positions were crafted through the lens of cultural crisis.

Central to Hankins's thesis is the argument that several of the current SBC leaders spent significant time outside of the South where they were influenced by the broader evangelical movement as well as by the writings of Carl Henry and Francis Schaeffer. These formative experiences with "neo-evangelicals" convinced them that even Southern culture had become hostile to faith and motivated them to become "evangelical culture warriors." The implication of this argument is that moderates were more parochial, with limited academic experiences outside of the South, and were unfamiliar with neo-evangelical writings. Since both implications are, in many instances, false, the question remains: Why did some Baptists become conservative culture warriors while others did not?

Not surprisingly, Hankins gives a great deal of attention to church-state issues. Here Hankins allows Richard Land, whom he labels an "informed activist," and Al Mohler, whom he labels an "intellectual," to distinguish themselves from Christian Reconstructionists as well as the Christian Right and other "neo-establishment majoritarians" (125). Both claim commitment to the Baptist emphasis upon religious liberty and the institutional separation of church and state. Nevertheless, they believe the attempts by secularists to remove religion from the public square have been facilitated by the "strict separationist" position endorsed by moderates. They would argue instead for an accommodationist position allowing for government acknowledgement, endorsement, and support of religion on a nonpreferential basis as consistent with the Baptist tradition. More precisely, Land and Mohler believe moderates have placed too much emphasis upon the establishment clause of the First Amendment, while, in light of the cultural assault upon religion, violations of the free exercise clause should be of central concern to Baptists.

To be sure, Hankins's provides critiques of the fundamentalist positions and identifies inconsistencies in their thought. Yet, his chapters on religious liberty and abortion focus as much upon moderate leaders as they do SBC fundamentalists. One reads, for instance, that Paul Simmons, James E. Wood, Jr., and other "moderate elites" unwittingly co-opted a "Rawlsian liberalism" or modern political liberalism in defending a pro-choice position on religious liberty grounds. However, the argument that secular laws should not rest solely upon a religious basis is not something uniquely attributable to John Pawls, but can be found in writings in the Christian intellectual tradition. Hankins may very well be right, though, that moderates underestimated the importance of the abortion issue in the SBC controversy.

A recurring critique of moderate Southern Baptists levied by both Hankins and some of the fundamentalist leaders he interviewed is that moderates did not appreciate the difference between fundamentalists and the broader evangelical community. Hankins himself is reluctant to refer to SBC conservatives as "fundamentalists" because they are not separatists, but rather culture warriors. The limitations of this narrow definition of fundamentalism are revealed, however, by his subsequent conclusion that modern SBC leaders have positioned themselves outside mainstream evangelicalism due to their rigidity in opposing female pastoral leadership.

Furthermore, Hankins's cultural analysis suggests that SBC leaders are nearly indistinguishable from their neo-evangelical colleagues, despite their differences on women's issues. In the end, both found a natural alliance in the contest for American culture. In light of this assertion, one wonders if the neo-evangelicals would not have allied themselves with the fundamentalists had they been participants in the Southern Baptist controversy.

To Hankins's credit, he has opened a new venue in the debate over how best to understand the Southern Baptist controversy. While some may find his "culture war" analysis wanting, future historians will be forced to grapple with his provocative conclusions.--Reviewed by J. David Holcomb, assistant professor of history and political science, University of Mary HardinBaylor, Belton, Texas.