by Paul Braterman
Tim LaHaye’s career shows a direct line of descent within creationist thinking, from Reagan-era anti-Communism, through a more diffuse blanket opposition to humanist thinking, to American exceptionalism and the impulses that would later express themselves in 21st-century Christian Nationalism.
LaHaye gives us a bridge between traditional morality, anti-Communism and Reaganism, and present-day Christian Conservatism, with humanism having taken the place of Communism. His claim that evil humanists had successfully conspired to take over the American power structure is echoed in today’s denunciation of the “deep state,” the end-of-the world thinking of his highly successful Left Behind novels underlies much of the religion-linked opposition to action on climate change, and his rejection as satanic of every idea that he regards as unbiblical now surfaces as anti-wokeism, along with opposition to examining America’s racist past and to the teaching of evolution.
Add to this his lamenting a morally superior past, his claim that American exceptionalism is biblical, along with capitalism, and his appeal to moral patriotic Americans (he repeatedly links those adjectives in his writing) to take back the country from the forces of evil, and we have a direct link to the doctrines of evangelical Trumpism. His claims that the US constitution is Bible-based, that the US “was founded on a basic consensus of Christian principles – more so than any nation in history,” and that the division of powers was inspired by a biblical awareness of the fallen nature of man, fall short of more recent assertions that the constitution itself was divinely inspired, but nonetheless point the way to the explicit Christian Nationalism now about to assume power.
LaHaye graduated in 1950 from Bob Jones University, then as now strictly six-day creationist and socially conservative, and later became pastor of Scott Memorial Baptist Church (a.k.a. Shadow Mountain), in the suburbs of San Diego. Here he served for 25 years, developing the church into a megachurch, while embarking with his wife on a broadcasting career, offering family advice from their socially conservative Christian perspective. In the 1960s he committed himself to anti-communism, joining the John Birch Society. He was also powerfully influenced, as were many other creationists in his generation, by the philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who regarded faith as absolute, Genesis 1 – 11 as foundational to our knowledge of space and time, and all secular thinking that ignored this foundation as misguided.
LaHaye’s denunciation of communism merged with opposition to humanism and what he saw as moral decay, and in alliance with Ronald Reagan, then candidate for the California governorship, he helped launch the California League Enlisting Action Now (CLEAN), opposing pornography and sex education. His 1966 book, The Spirit-Controlled Temperament, advocating a Christian approach to family life, was a bestseller. When, in 1962, the US Supreme Court pronounced prayer in the publicly funded school system unconstitutional, LaHaye was a pioneer in setting up a separate Christian school system.
In 1970, he helped establish Christian Heritage College (now San Diego Christian College) adjacent to Scott Memorial Baptist Church, with Henry Morris, the most significant figure in 20th century Young Earth creationism, as Academic Vice President. Morris’ Institute for Creation Research was intimately connected with the College. The College’s Doctrinal Statement is Six Day creationist, and asserts the imminent return of Christ.
The introduction that LaHaye wrote for Morris’ 1974 The Troubled Waters of Evolution said nothing about creationist scientific claims directly, but described evolution as “the platform from which socialism, communism, humanism, determinism, and one-worldism have been launched,” thus laying out the agenda for the book I am reviewing here.
The Battle for the Mind was published in August 1980 at the height of Reagan’s US Presidential campaign. It already contains, fully developed, the doctrines of Christian Conservatism. It takes the doctrine of guilt by association, which McCarthy applied to Communism and extends it to association with humanism. Humanism, in turn, is defined so broadly that LaHaye can apply the term to any doctrine that is not to his liking. Creationist science is the best science, and humanists only reject it, along with belief in God, to justify their own lack of morality. Here LaHaye shows an obsession with abortion and homosexuality, and defends capitalism on (unstated) biblical and moral grounds. He then justifies American exceptionalism by claiming that the separation of powers is inspired by a specifically Christian vision of humanity as fallen, so that institutions and rulers are not to be trusted. This in turn shows that the US was built “on biblical principles and a clear recognition of God.” Thus defending US national interests is doing God’s work. He claims that the US should have won in Korea and Vietnam, but was prevented by the influence of humanists. Disarmament is immoral because it weakens America. It is the duty of the religious to mobilize in order to capture the levers of political power, and in particular the judiciary. Evolution is part of man’s wisdom, as opposed to God’s, directly contradicts the Bible, and destroys the basis for morality. Those who accept it, even if they profess Christianity, are not really religious in their thinking, because they have been influenced by humanist ideas. It is therefore the duty of moral Americans to oppose them, and they must organize accordingly, in order to gain control of the centers of political power, as well as the judiciary and the school boards.
Significantly in this context, the book itself included an offer of transparencies for teachers.
According to LaHaye:
- The history of humanism can be illustrated by a bookshelf that runs from Aristotle through Paine and Hegel (!) to Bertrand Russell. There is also a favorable mention of Morris’ suggestion that it can be traced back to Nimrod at Babylon.
- Humanism is the world’s greatest evil. “Humanists have totally rejected God, creation, morality, the fallen state of man, and the free-enterprise system [note the unexplained coupling of this last to religion]. As such they are the mortal enemy of all pro-moral Americans, and the most serious threat to our nation in its entire history. Unless both Christians and non-Christian lovers of virtue stand together as upright citizens, humanists will turn this great land into another Sodom and Gomorrah.”
- True wisdom comes from God and can be found in the Bible. Philosophy is foredoomed if it depends on unaided human thought, rather than revelation. This revelation teaches that man was created by a direct act of God, and (a recurrent theme in the creationist literature, across generations) it is easy to accept this because of the scientific evidence for separate creation. The biblical precepts of morality are absolute, and are expressed in the last six Commandments, as well as in the much higher moral code of Christianity.
- Whatever does not rely on God’s word, but on human judgement, is humanism. Humanist governments have imposed humanist education on the taxpaying public, with no regard to their wishes. (Notice here the opposition to government, the questioning of the content of the standard scientific curriculum, and the echo of the populist claim, going back to William Jennings Bryan, that the people, not the educators, should determine what is taught.)
- “The Puritan work ethic, free enterprise, private ownership of land, and capitalism” emanate (in some unstated way) from biblical teaching. The past greatness of America’s educational system derived from the emphasis on literacy (in order to read the Bible), and the need for an educated clergy. But under the influence of the federal government, it has now embraced humanist principles rather than community moral standards.
- A humanist does not think like a pro-moral American, and humanism “has ingeniously conceived the plan to introduce an inordinate number of humanists into government, where they continually pass laws that favor the advancement of humanism and chaos, at the expense of the biblical basis for moral society that produced the liberty, peace, and safety we once enjoyed.” (Here LaHaye is explicitly harking back 30 years. 30 years from 1980; this takes us back before the Civil Rights movement and the rise of modern feminism. Note the reiterated linking between biblical literalism, morality, and American identity, and the nostalgia that runs much of the book for imagined past greatness, foreshadowing “Great Again”. Note also the conspiracy theory language, along with the repeated calls for pro-moral Americans to organize politically.)
- Evolution is scientifically unsound, but humanists accept it in order to do away with God, hence their advocacy of sexual activity and promiscuity. Their rejection of a personal God who is interested in the affairs of man is itself an “unscientific religious belief,” especially as the evidence for the existence of God is so convincing.
- The feminist movement is led by humanists. Humanism makes human happiness central, and thus leads to selfishness.
- The humanistic ideas of psychology lead to permissive child raising, as opposed to the biblical practice of applying correction (he means spanking).
- Leniency to criminals is another humanist error, based on the mistaken belief that humans are basically good.
- Evils advocated by politicians under humanist influence include “abortion-on-demand, legalization of homosexual rights, government deficit spending, the size of big government, elimination of capital punishment, national disarmament, increased taxes, women in combat, passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, unnecessary bussing, ad infinitum.”
After a fairly accurate description of humanism in terms of self-reliance, individual choice, rejection of the supernatural, and denial of an afterlife, LaHaye summarizes humanism as “pro-One-World – America second” and aiming for
a one-world, socialist state, where Plato’s dream of “three classes of people” would be fulfilled: the elite ruling class, the omnipresent military, and the masses, where there is no difference between sexes: men and women do the same work, and children are wards of the state. Naturally, the humanists will be the elite ruling class.
In a direct echo of what McCarthy said about communists in the State Department, he says that a group of 600 people with influence, including Congressmen and particularly State Department employees since 1940, have been humanists, which explains “our present status of military inferiority to Russia.” 275,000 Humanists control American social organizations such as the ACLU, the National Organization of Women, and the unions. They control TV, radio, newspapers, Hollywood movies, magazines, and porno magazines. They also control (remember that he was writing in 1980, not long after Roe v. Wade) the Supreme Court, state governments, government bureaucrats, public education, colleges and universities, textbooks, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations.
LaHaye warns us against things are many of us would regard as achievements, because of Humanist involvement. Among these are the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Organization of Women, as well as UNESCO, UNICEF, and the UN World Health Organization, which government diplomats often quote “on such issues as population control, birth control, abortion, and so forth.” Through these, “they have used the vast fortune paid by the United States for support of the UN to advance the cause of world humanism.” He also warns us against organizations that were formed or assisted by members of the American Ethical Union, which was indeed historically influential in the formation of Humanist organizations. He quotes with approval a 1931 Congressional committee report which stated
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the Communist movement in the United States, and… it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in the advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government.
He also cites a California state legislative committee that investigated the ACLU in 1943 and 1948 and described it as “a Communist front or ‘transmission belt’ organization.” Other activities to which he takes exception include opposition to prayer and Bible reading in public schools, and efforts to remove the then-recently added words “under God” from the pledge of allegiance.
Fortunately, there are some pro-moral politicians, who are
“in harmony on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, murder [its mention here is code for support of the death penalty], integrity, and the responsibility of government to protect the family, not destroy it.”
This brings us to the core of LaHaye’s thesis. The godly must use their voting power to elect those pursuing LaHaye’s idea of a moral agenda. Ministers should persuade church members to run for office. Local political activity would lead on to increasing name recognition, and eligibility for higher positions.
LaHaye repeatedly attacks the teaching of evolution, as a result of which “approximately 50 million school-age children… are growing up in a moral vacuum, misled by educators to think of themselves as amoral primates.” For this reason, he advocates Christian control of school boards.
The campaign issues that he lists include making sure that no tax money is used to fund abortion, which he repeatedly refers to as murder. There should be stronger laws against homosexuality, and elimination of pornography and prostitution. He is opposed to infanticide and euthanasia, since “only God can exercise the right to decide who has the right to live.” (This despite his support of the death penalty.) Lawmakers should defend parents’ rights (unspecified). There should be no legalization of drugs. And finally, “Any and all forms of religious humanism should be vigorously opposed, particularly in government and education.” (Remember that he regards evolution, and all questioning of biblical literalism, as humanist doctrine, and labels humanism a religion.)
A high percentage of judges are making humanistic decisions. This should affect how we vote for those who appoint judges. He approves the appointments that Reagan made as governor of California, and laments that his successor, Gov Jerry Brown, appointed an acknowledged homosexual judge. This for LaHaye is pollution.
LaHaye concludes with a chapter on “What you can do”. Pray, especially for those elected to high office, show compassion for the victims of humanism, such as unwed mothers, divorced partners [he only occasionally mentions divorce, as a symptom of humanist moral degeneracy, without actually saying it’s wrong], and children being raised by one parent. Support Concerned Women for America [NB: for, not of; the organization was founded by his wife], who provide anti-abortion counselling. Conduct voter registration drives. Help the campaigns of pro-moral candidates. Judge candidates by their positions on moral issues, rather than their religious positions (a veiled attack on Jimmy Carter?) “Any elected official who has voted for abortion-on-demand, for ERA [the Equal Rights Amendment], for leniency on pornography, for decriminalizing prostitution, and for children’s rights at the expense of parents rights [he mentions this several times but is not specific] is dangerous at best or amoral at worst.”
In A Minimum Morals Test for all politicians, he suggests candidates be asked 21 questions, beginning with
Do you agree that this country was founded on a belief in God and the moral principles of the Bible? Do you concur that it has been departing from these principles and needs to return to them?
This is the language and agenda of Culture Wars politics, although that particular expression did not gain much currency in US until invoked by Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. The effect, then as now, is to shift the political agenda to the private domain, centering on matters of personal attitudes and identity, and safely steering it away from troubling questions about wealth and power.
There are questions on abortion, the legalization of drugs such as the marijuana, prostitution, laws that would allow known homosexuals to teach school, and the right of parents to send children to private school, protecting the tax-exempt status of churches and of church-related schools, and, tellingly, whether candidates favor busing to desegregate schools (correct answer no), and “capital punishment for capital offences” (correct answer yes). Finally, placing his politicization of religion beyond all doubt,
Do you favor a reduction in taxes to allow families more spendable income?he
Do you favor a reduction in government?
Here we have the same themes, and at times almost the same language, as Ronald Reagan’s campaign. At a 1980 Religious Roundtable National Affairs Briefing1Reagan Bush Committee, “Address by the Honorable Ronald Reagan, the Round- table National Affairs Briefing, Dallas, Texas,” August 22, 1980, as reported by Carl Weinberg, Red Dynamite,p 234, Reagan lamented moral decline, and accused schools of trying to educate without ethics, with results including rising “crime rates, drug abuse, child abuse, and human suffering.” When questioned by a reporter about evolution, he replied “I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, a scientific theory only. . . I think recent discoveries down through the years pointed to great flaws in it,” and gave his view that creationist theory should be taught alongside evolution in schools, a comment reported with approval by the Institute for Creation Research magazine, Acts & Facts. His 1983 “Evil Empire” speech, noted for its attack on the moral position of the Soviet Union, began with a lament on America’s moral decline, and condemnation of abortion and teenage access to contraception.
To bring us to the Christian Nationalism of the 21st-century, all we need is a pseudohistory, to parallel creationist pseudoscience. This we have with the work of the highly imaginative author David Barton. Barton’s only qualification is a 1976 BA in Religious Education from Oral Roberts University, which tells us that it seeks “To develop Holy Spirit-empowered leaders through whole-person education to impact the world” and this Barton certainly has done. His 2012 book, The Jefferson Lies, which maintains that Jefferson and nearly all the founding fathers were believing Christians, had the rare distinction of being officially disowned by its publisher, Thomas Nelson, despite having reached the New York Times Best Sellers List, because of its manifold inaccuracies. It was, however, reissued as a paperback in 2016 by WND, a far-right news and opinion site and publisher better known for promoting various conspiracy theories. Barton is the founder of an organization ironically entitled Wallbuilders, whose main ambition seems to be undermining the wall of separation in the US between Church and State. His prominent followers include Mike Huckabee (now ambassador-designate to Israel), Michele Bachmann, and Mike Johnson, at the time of writing Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Huckabee, while Governor of Arkansas, said that he was not convinced by evolution, and that the theory of creation should be taught alongside. In 2017, he denied that Israel is “occupying” the West Bank, on the grounds that the Bible gives it title to what he describes as “Judaea and Samaria.” Bachmann, like Tim LaHaye, was powerfully influenced by Francis Schaeffer. She also rejects evolution, and thinks that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. We have described Johnson’s views here before. He considers Young Earth creationism the only valid kind of Christianity, believes that the US constitution was divinely inspired, and sees himself as a watchman on the wall (a deliberate echo of the name of Barton’s organization?)
Russell Vought, one of the architects of Project 2025, obtained his first degree from Wheaton College, whose Statement of Faith, to which faculty must recommit annually, specifies “that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.” He does not to my knowledge repeat Barton’s specific claims, but nonetheless argues that Christianity is part of the nature of American nationhood. In an unintentionally self-revealing article titled Is There Anything Actually Wrong With ‘Christian Nationalism?’ , written in response to criticisms, he answers his own question. He begins by justifying the concept of a nation by quoting words attributed to Moses in Deuteronomy, over 2000 years before the modern concept of a nation even existed. He goes on to impose an equally tortured and anachronistic interpretation on Psalms 2:1-2, saying that these verses “recognize the healthiness of a people, including public officials, consciously and publicly positioning themselves for the Lord or under God.” He perversely interprets George Washington’s words, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself as ordained,” as invoking Heaven rather than morality as fundamental to society, cherrypicks a statement from a 19th-century Supreme Court judge who described Christianity as necessary to support a civil society, asserts that such views were common at the time, and concludes that it is appropriate to regard America as a Christian nation. In conclusion, he contrasts this attitude with those of its critics, who “have their own agenda: progressive, secular globalism.”
Not surprisingly perhaps, the structure of the argument is identical of the arguments used by creationists from Henry Morris’ The Genesis Flood onwards. An uncritical acceptance of Scripture with no attention to historical context, unstated reinterpretation of that Scripture to further an agenda, selecting and misconstruing quotations, claiming a monopoly of Christian thought for his own wealth-friendly version, and finally and most dangerously, grouping together wildly disparate opinions, to make it seem as if our choice is restricted to two alternative worldviews, only one of which is sanctioned by God.
In conclusion, let me quote his final two sentences in response to critics:
It’s their right, under our system, to have that view and to participate themselves. But let’s not pretend—and I say this with great respect to pastors and writers like Tim Keller [who maintained that evangelical Christianity should not commit to a political party] — that their agenda is about anything other than power.
Vought is direct-designate of the US Government’s Office of Management and Business, where he is expected, according to the Washington Post, to help enable Trump, when President, “to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations,” and to impose his views by staffing the civil service with loyalists.
Power indeed.
I thank Glenn Branch and William Trollinger for helpful discussions.
Footnotes
- 1Reagan Bush Committee, “Address by the Honorable Ronald Reagan, the Round- table National Affairs Briefing, Dallas, Texas,” August 22, 1980, as reported by Carl Weinberg, Red Dynamite,p 234