Second, how did fundamentalists relate to mainstream culture . And third, why has fundamentalism been so much more influential in the United States than in any other society in the western world. Im curious fundamentalism, fundamentalists, are these terms that you hear today . Do you know people who call themselves fundamentalists and use this label . I see some nodding. Any examples . Yes. Trying to describe alternate groups that can do terrorist attacks. Its a term that you hear more often in islam. What about here with American Christian groups . From up north, many people we would call fundamentalist christians. I dont think its often at least in my experience, its not often used by the fundamentalists themselves. Youve heard it more of a pejorative term. Thats interesting. That lines up with my own experience. There are exceptions. I have certainly met some proud independent baptists who claim that term fundamentalist, but generally it seemed to be used as an insult. Its not a label that most christians would want applied to themselves. And i think the history of that connotation, that kind of negative sense in which we hear the word today really became crystallized in one particular historical episode and thats the infamous or famous depending on your view, scopes trial. There we go. Of 1925. The monkey trial that dominated newspaper headlines in the summer of 1925. Now the scopes trial has a certain status in popular culture. Youre probably at least vaguely aware of what it involved. But let me tell you the basic facts of this trial. The state of tennessee passed a law forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution in tennessee public high schools. Now, 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, 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. So thats exactly what happened. And this turned out to be just an amazing publicity opportunity for the little town of dayton, tennessee. 200 reporters descended on the town in july of 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 a chimp drinking the local variety of soda pop. So local merchants were trying to capitalize on this moment in the sun. And the trial itself was pretty sensational. Both sides managed to recruit a star for their side. On the Prosecutions Team was William Jennings brian, the great commoner, the populist democrat who had run for president three times. He had been Woodrow Wilsons secretary of defense. He was noun as a great defender. And the most famous left wing lawyer of the time and famously agnostic on the matter of religion, and thats Clarence Darrow who was known for his bold politics. Here he is in his flourish, making his opening arguments. Heres darrow and brian on the upper right here and heres sort of a sample of the street scene. This is a table set up with antievolution tracts and books. Both sides of this debate seeing this as an opportunity. Now, the aclu wanted to challenge the law on the grounds of academic freedom. That is the attack they wanted to take. But darrow veered in a different direction. He decided to put traditional religion on trial. And so he summoned to the stand for cross examination brian himself. This was very unorthodox for one of the attorneys to be summoned for crossexamination. And darrow wanted to showcase the conflict between science and religion. And so he asked brian questions like how could joshua possibly have compelled the sun to stand still or can you tell us the exact date of the flood . And brian did his best to remain defending his views. In many cases he didnt really have a clear and sharp answer to rebut darrow. I will say that brian refused to defend young earth creationism. He would not defend the view that each day of creation described in genesis literally means 24 hours. He said, it could mean a longer period of time. But in general, he defended the conservative traditional reading of script temperatuure and kind off as an old man who was out of his depth. The judge ended up throwing out this testimony and in fact most of the testimony for the defense as irrelevant to the question of whether or not this High School Teacher had broken the law. It was clear that he had. And so in the end, the jury found scopes guilty and he was ordered to pay a fine. Although the conviction was later thrown out on a technicality. Inside the courthouse, the crowd was on brians side, on the side of the prosecution, cheering for brian. But darrow and the defenders of evolution really seemed to win over the Mainstream Press in the big cities. A journalist for the Baltimore Sun was dispatched to cover this trial and he wrote some just incredibly searing, mocking reports of the people he met there and i just want to read us an excerpt of one of his reports. The net effect of Clarence Darrows great speech yesterday seems to be preciously the same as if he had bawled it up a rain spout in the interior of afghanistan, the morons in the audience when it was over simply hissed it. Brian had these hillbillies locked up in his pen and he knows it. Since his earliest days indeed his chief strength has been among the folk of the remote hills and the fore lorn and lonely farms. His nonsense is their ideal of sense when he deluges him with his theo logic bilge. No matter what you might think of his ideology, he had a certain genius for comicc dissension. This trial came to be widely seen as a cultural defeat for fundamentalism. As the moment that made famous the caricature of the fundamentalist as the uneducated red neck. And the scopes trial has become this icon of the clash between fundamentalism and modernism. And i think it is so telling that 1925 was also the year of the creation in canada of the United Church of canada. I told you about that great moment of protestant unity in canada when the presbyterians and the methodists joined together to make one denomination and that happened at the very same time that american proper American Protestantism was breaking apart. And it shows us this set of path that canadian and American Protestantism were heading down. What are the historical reasons for this very different character of American Protestant product and what who are these fundamentalists . Who are we really talking about when we use this label . First we got to be clear about what fundamentalism means. Because this word is used pretty carelessly in todays culture in media. In this class, we will use it in a very historically precise way. Fundamentalists im giving you a definition now, fundamentalists are conservative protestants who militantly opposed new ideas about the bible, science and society. And often, although not always, broke away to found their own churches, schools and religious organizations. These are militant protestants who really oppose in an aggressive way these new changes and in many cases they broke away to found their own groups. We can talk about an organized fundamentalist movement from roughly 1900 to, say, 1930. When these conservatives were fighting just brutally to retain control of those old, established northern denominations, we call the main line. Now this week youre reading a famous sermon by a liberal baptist preacher and i think that gives you some sense of the conflict. Heres fosnick. He appeared on the cover of time magazine. And this is where he originally gave this sermon, shall the fundamentalists win, in 1922. When you read it, i think youll see that his sermon was not a fight over doctrine. You might need to talk with your classmates about whether actually that is whats going on beneath it. I think at least on the surface fosnicks approach was very different from darrows. Essentially he says if a person is a true liberal, then they should have no problem with other christians believing, say, that god created the university in six days, even if they themselves dont happen to believe that. Fosnick 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 liberals like fosnick dont belong in any truly christian church. Now this sermon was a sensation. His brother, fosnicks brother, ran the Rockefeller Foundation for 30 years. And the foundation funded the nationwide distribution of this sermon as a pamphlet. It had much wider reach by direct mail than just the people who happened to hear it preached. But ive been reading fosnicks autobiography and its interesting. He refers to this sermon and he calls 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 thats a bit naive. But it is true after about 1930, the fundamentalist movement as on organized movement descend grats. They lost their bid to control those main line churches which is why we so often say now the liberal main line. Thats how people refer to those denominations. Fundamentalism didnt go away. At this point we can describe as fundamentalism as maybe not an organized movement, but as a set of networks, a subculture. Fundamentalists built their own world of bible colleges, denominations, prophesy conferences, anticommunist crusades, radio ministries, a really powerful network of religious and political groups that for quite a long time, maybe up until the 60s and 70s, was not really on the mainstream medias radar. It seemed like after the scopes trial, fundamentalists had crawled into holes somewhere and never appeared from the perspective of the average reporter at the New York Times or Something Like that. In fact, fundamentalism was growing into this powerful subculture. One more point about terms. In these years, the first half of the 20th century, the terms fundamentalism 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 1940s that starts to change. And the term evangelical comes instead to mean a conservative protestant who is still doctrinely awfully fundamentalist but is not so militant about it. Im talking about people like billy graham. An evangelical was someone who 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 lots of fights over doctrine. Thats what evangelical comes to mean and its still how its used today, i believe. This then is the big arc of the fundamentalist movement in our story. I want to turn now briefly to the matter of theology. Say a little bit more about what fundamentalists believed and believe today. Now, fundamentalism looked slightly different in Different Church traditions. So a baptist fundamentalist would believe slightly different things, worship differently than a mennonite fundamentalist. But theyre called fundamentalists because they did tend to share a set of fundamentals. We can make some broad comments about that. They tended to have a pietistic concern for holiness. Many of them came in some way out of the puritin tradition. Kyk disagreement among fundamentals on things like the end times. I struggled to come up with a good acronym until a few years ago when i put this out as a challenge to some of your predecessors in this class and one lovely student who graduated last spring came up with marvin. The fundamentals, this comes from a list drawn up by conservative presbyterians in 1910 who wanted to figure out, what are the most things that we cannot compromise on. M for miracles. Belief that the miracles reported in the bible really did happen. A for atonement. That is a belief in the traditional doctrine of christs 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 and in for inner ran si meaning the bible is totally without error, no matter what scientists and historians may say. Now i want to push back a bit against the scopes trial caricature of fundamentalists as country bumpkins by talking about the thinking mens fundamentalists at princeton theological seminary. Princeton in the late 19th century was one of the intellectual powerhouses behind the conservative response to modernist theology. And i want to focus on benjamin b. Warfield who was a scholar at princeton. Youre 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. He came from arrest tistocatic. His family was presbyterian and warfield really threw himself into serving his family faith. He went to princeton as a student and he returned to the seminary about a decade later in 1887 to teach there and to spend his life fighting against modernism by defending this doctrine known as biblical inerancy. This idea that everything in the bible is true no matter what scholars might say, that spr scripture has no error in it, and christians have depended the bible as a perfect source of true. But inerrancy has a more recent history. We need to unpack this a bit to understand whats going on. So to tell the story of the doctrine of inerrancy i need to backtrack back to the early, mid 17th century. Bear with me. In these years a couple generations after the start of the protestant reformation, a group of protestant theologians found themselves surrounded on the battlefield. On the one hand, they had to deal with the scientists and philosophiers of the scientific revolution and the enlightenment who were using new scientific methods to raise awkward questions about the bibles accounts of the miraculous and supernatural doctrines and on the other hand they had to face the gre the great theologins, these scholastic thinkers who were picking apart protestant arguments about authority. So these protestant thinkers were caught in the middle and they responded by essentially trying 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 god is perfect and unchanging. But these conservatives said that if thats true, then it follows logically that gods revelation is perfect and unchanging as well. Not just in matters in salvation, but in every scientific and historical matter, from the scope of the flood to the most granular details of ancient israels politics. So what this means is that religious truth and scientific truth are the same. The bible is equally reliable on both matters. Benjamin warfields mentor at princeton, Charles Hodge said the bible is a storehouse of facts. Think about that phrase. A storehouse of facts. And a theologians job is to arrange and harmonize these facts just as a scientist arranges and classifies data from a natural world. Hes saying that theyre a kind of scientist. These princeton thinkers followed that model of commonsense realism that i told you about a couple of weeks ago and how they thought about science. Science is about using your godgiven commonsense to make sense of the data in gods creation. Very different view from the idea of science that we start to see emerge with Charles Darwin and the thinkers who come after him who develop for sophisticated methods for dealing with uncertainty in their scientific endeavors. 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, seem to kind of contradict each other. But they argued that the appearance of these problems in scripture was simply the result of our mortal imperfect, human misunderstandings. Its not a reflection of gods error. Now, warfield, unlike some of these colleagues, was even open to some version of theistic evolution, that is evolution driven by god. If you think about his biography, this makes sense. Remember, his dad was a Cattle Breeder. He spent a lot of time in kentucky working on the family ranch and he had observed, firsthand, how breeding works. How inherited traits can change over time. He died a few years before the scopes trial. But im pretty sure he would have been very uncomfortable with the all or nothing debate about evolution that took place there. However, war field and his colleagues at princeton were really worried about the presuppositions, the assumptions beneath this modernist scientific work and biblical scholarship and thats really what hes getting at in the sermon youre reading this week. He and his colleagues believed that any scholar in any field has to start with the assumption that the bible is free from all error. They said by definition, gods revelation is perfect. This is not something you should try to prove. You have to just accept this assumption. And they worried that liberal scholars who said, okay, maybe you can grant that perhaps the miracles and the gospels didnt happen, maybe christ didnt raise anyone from the dead, but you can still believe christ is your savior. You can have the corcoran faith. Warfield and his buddies say no way. If you give the socalled details, eventually you give up the reliability of the whole bible. So they were prepared to fight very hard for these details. They didnt see them as details at all. There are a few reasons why warfields approach became so dominant in the United States. The first is that america had always had many more churches of warfields tradition, the reformed protestant tradition than you would have found in the United Kingdom or canada. And reform protestants have been really into fighting over doctrine, really systemic thinkers. Youll remember how i told you john calvin was systematic in how he reasoned out predestination, same with the puritans. These guys were itching for fights. And thats different from other proper protestants who put it on personal experience, Church Tradition or using the bible for as a guide for daily living rather than some kind of textbook. The second major reason for the popularity of this very rationalistic view of inerrancy is revivals. Revivals encouraged a kind of black and white view of christianity, an attitude that uncertainty is bad. That you must either reject new science entirely and then you know youre saved or you can embrace it and be among the damned. If youre not sure, well, thats a sign that youre not really saved. A historian named george marsdon has suggested that these are some of the reasons that fundamentalism became so predominant in america. Warfield would not have entirely approved of how the fundamentalist movement picked up the cause of inerrancy and ran with it. When sophisticated scholarship filters down from the cloud land of treatises into Church Newspapers and radio broadcasts, it doesnt retain its complexity or nuance generally and thats what happened with the doctrine of inerrancy. It became a banner to rally around, to proclaim belief in inerrancy was to claim i reject modernity, i reject these weirdtalking immigrants who are coming into our cities, i reject these prideful arrogant scholars who are tearing down our holy books. I want to assert the authority of bible over america. Thats what inerrancy came to stand for. We gain perspective on this a little bit when we think about canada. Canada had a small fundamentalist movement of its own, especially baptist who paid a lot of attention of what the baptists south of the border were up to. But they were not as influential in canada protestantism. I want to focus briefly on one nonfundamentalist evangelical because i think his story tells us a lot more about what makes canada evangelicalism different and thats this guy, nathaniel burwash. He showed up in your textbook a couple of weeks, i believe. He was a methodist minister and educator. He was born in 1839 in lower canada. He was the great grandson of loyalists who fled from vermont during the revolution. His parents were devote methodists and burwash had his own conversion experience when he was a student at Victoria College in ontario. And later on victoria asked burwash to come back and teach not theology, they want him to teach natural science. Now, he had studied he studied science, but he also studied that philosophy that was so influential at princeton, commonsense realism. And in a broad sense, burwash drew from that world view the same sort of conclusions that warfield did. He thought, okay, evolution is simply a theory, just a theory. Its not really it doesnt meet my standards of scientific proof. I dont have to take a strong position on it. But his approach to kind of the big picture of culture and education was very different, very nonfundamentalist. He wanted to find a way to accommodate christian theology to knew scientific discoveries. And he thought that churchrun colleges could continue to teach the humanities and theology, they would shape students souls, but he thought it would be fine for Secular University faculty to take over the sciences and professional education. When it came to scripture, burwash combined commonsense realism with methodist ideas about how christians should read the bible. So the view that john wesley had was that understanding gods will requires bringing scripture into conversation with Church Tradition, reason, and personal religious experience. This is known as the wesleyen quad lad ral. It had the potential to be a more moderate guide for thinking about these things. Burwash was part of a british north American Intellectual world that remained more connected with the mother country, with the United Kingdom, the homeland of bar win, of course. And this is really important. Canadian christian intellectuals had more personal relationships in britain, they more frequently studied there, they had more institutional links with british denominations. So even though geographically speaking theyre just as far from what was happening at the universities of the United Kingdom and germany as American Protestants were, culturally speaking, canadian christians felt much closer. So they experienced Something LikeCharles Darwins discoveries less as a Foreign Invasion and more as a gradual development in their own intellectual culture. And this is another reason why canadian protestantism didnt fracture to the same degree and fundamentalists didnt gain the same kind of authority. So burwash and warfield shared some of the same training and had the same fundamental goals, really. They both wanted to defend the authority of christianity in the modern world. But they approached that goal very differently. And in canada, it was the burwash types, the moderate, the more compromisedminded 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 ive been describing fundamentalism as this really intellectual thing so far. Really obsessed with dogma and scientific knowledge. And in some ways it was that. But theres another movement in conservative protestantism at this time that overlaps somewhat with fundamentalism but its its own thing. And thats the Holiness Movement. Heres a couple of images of a Holiness Camp back in the day and today. Now, you may recall my talk of holiness christians dimly from the early parts of thesemester. Holiness beliefs emerged mainly in methodist circles. In britain and in north america. Among christians who got really interested in the holy spirits work in a christian after conversion. What they called the Second Blessing. The feeling of spiritual power and the total suppression of sin. By the holy spirit. John wesley had argued that since scripture demands that humans fulfill gods loss, the state of what he called christian perfection must be obtainable. Even if it takes us our whole lives, right . You remember that from what you read of wesley. Holiness christians really focused on this. And they took wesleys idea and they kind of ran with it. And they sentence, sin must not be inevitable then. It must be possible to totally suppress it in the course of this Second Blessing. And they came to really hold this experience of the Second Blessing as being almost as significant for a christian as conversion because it could bring to you what they called entire sanctfication, gods grace can free one not just of the sin but the individual to commit sins. So they had a much higher view of what the holy spirit could do. The holiness bridge is the last big group i want to talk about, and that the pentecostals. And its easy to lose sight of where we are as far as the family tree, right . So, lets refresh our memories. Maybe youre maintaining a growing family tree in your book. That would be a good thing to do. Lets go back to discuss the church of england, right . Church of england remember, lots of influences, reform influence, its got a little bit of lutheranism, and, of course, it retains a lost of catholicism. And down here, we have to think about wesleys background, lets remember the pyettous and the moravians, remember how important the moravians were for wesley. So, the methodists came out of the church of england. Remember, wesley was himself a church of england minister. The Holiness Movement comes out of methodistism. For the most part, there are varieties of christianity, but for the most part, methodists. This is where we are now. Now, were talking about penteco pentecostal. Who are the radical level wing of holiness protestantism, right . This is what it looks like, at least in a general way. Now, pentecostal revival first came to the attention of kind of the Mainstream Press. In 19 06 when newspapers starte covering a major religious event known as the azeusous street revival. Heres an image in los angeles. The Los Angeles Times reporting weird babel of tongues last seen. Google of words on azusa street. What is this reporter, this bewildered reporter talking about . All right. Well, pentecostal leaders had been traveling the country for a few years at this point. When an africanamerican 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. Hed gotten this from a reviva revivalist he heard teaching in houston and he traveled to los angeles and brought it with him. Now, he probably wouldnt have been most peoples pick for likely evangelicalists which ignite a world revival although thats what he comes to do. He was a son of slaves. He was born in louisiana in impoverished circumstances. And raised as a catholic, he wasnt raised as a protestant. He got called to preach. And like many pentecostal evangelicalists, it was a near death experience that did it. He believed that god yanked him back from the brink and wanted him to do this work. Seamour is second from the right in the front row. Heres where his revivals were based initially. He came to l. A. With really no money, no followers. But he started holding prayer meetings at the house where he was staying. And pretty soon, he was drawing huge audiences to the front porch, so big that they had to move to this abandoned warehouse on azusa street. And every day for weeks there were revival meetings kind of happening off and on at this mission house. People came to sing, hear sermons, hear testimonies who said they have to baptist in the spirit. Thats the phrase. If you had gone, sort of looked like no revival you would have seen, i think. I mean, people were just losing control of their bodies. Gyrating, dancing, falling to the floor. Swaying to the spirit. Laying on of hands, claiming to heal people of all kinds of illnesses and states of paralysis and other extreme physical ailments. And you would have heard them speaking in tongues. Weird babel of tongues. Now, some early witnesses said they heard people actually speaking in Foreign Languages that they had never studied. This would be called zenolalia. You have that term, although reports of this was very rare. Most of the time you would have heard what was called glo glossillalia which is spontaneous sounds that didnt recognize speech. Not a recognizable language. Has anyone here witnessed people speaking in tongues. Yes, what was the context . They just spoke of the spirit. And were people at this church event, thatw they speaking really loudly and emotionally, or was it kind of a calmer, quieter, quieter kind of speech . People were speaking as they were praying but it was pretty loud. Yeah. Sometimes, its almost really is a message for the congregation. Sometimes, a more private experience. Has anyone else witnessed this or participated in is it. Yeah. Yeah, the pastor is pretty loud, he speaks in tongues. It was viewed as if he only had the power to do so. It was like he was doing it, no one else could speak in tongues. So, the pastor would do this as part of his sermon almost . Not always. Sometimes. Thats really interesting, as a kind of way to assert an value kind of authority, the holy spirit working through him. Pentecostal faith as evidenced in the indwelling of the holy spirit in you is an act in the Second Chapter of the books of x. Like a mighty wind at the feast of pentecost. Called penalty th ed pentecost 0 days after the jewish holiday of passover. According to scripture, the purple of this was to empower the apostles with the gift of speaking in Foreign Languages so that they could go to the ends of the earth and convert more people to christs message. Now, pretty much was a thing that christians thought of as limited to the new testament. There were exceptions. There had been some reports of speaking in tongues before azusa street. Brigham young, the great women leader claimed to have spoken in tongues. It might have happened during the second great awakening. Its hard to say. But it took on a new significance now, at the beginning of the 20th century. Pentecostals believed that the spiritual gift mentioned in the new testament, not just tongues, but healing had been restored to earth because christ was about to return. They had a real sense of the imminence of the end times. So, this was gods one last appeal of humans to convert, before the terrible events of prophesy began to unfold. This revival on azusa street coincided i pulled the slide, but the date of that 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, were i mean, you may have noticed it in this picture, racially integrated in their leadership and in the people that came to worship. So if these azusa street reis virals i mean, this is los angeles at the turn of the century, booming, migrants coming from all parts of the country, as well as parts of asia. You had blacks, whites, latinos and asians worshipping together at a time when the vast majority of events were segregated. You had women disproportionately represented, women coming forward, testifying, preaching, 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 guess when they read these newspaper reports of what was happening on azusa street . Yes, in the back. Im sure they were calls for christianity and the racial integration. Like the role that was not originally part of the church and they probably just saw it like as crazy people. Absolutely. That was the dom. Inant reaction. The sense that both the breaking of the social taboos, the christians were defying gods rule for how humans should associate. And all of this new testament, miraculous stuff, they thought was not believable. This couldnt be. This is not something that respectable christians did. It had to be the work of charlatans or the work of the devil. Pence th pentecostalism was scandalous. Even to most fundamentalists. If we did a diagram of pentecostals and fundamentali fundamentalists, they were funding their own churches but a lot of selfdescribed fundamentalists wanted nothing to do with this pentecostal holy roller stuff, no way. By 1920, pentecostal revival had spread to every inhabited continent. It remains today the biggest and most vibrant strain of protestant christianity in the world. Although despite the early hopes for unity, for equality, by 1920, pentecostals, too, had started breaking into different secreta sects and doctrines and had begun 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 was a woman born in ontario, she made most of her career untiin california. Shed been converted at a revival as a young girl. She was married young. She tried to play the role of dutiful housewife. Her husband 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 got remarried. Theres her up on the top left with i think her first husband. She got remarried and started touring north america, preaching at revivals, arriving that the lower left here her gospel car which was emblazoned with slogans like jesus is coming soon, get ready. Her second husband wasnt crazy about this. He didnt want to play second fiddle to her. He wrote letters to her to act like other women and clean the house. And pretty soon, he got fed up and got a divorce. She was so determined that the car got stuck in the mud she got out and wrapped her clothes from her suitcase around the wheels to gain traction, as they continued crisscrossing canada and the United States. She was a little like lorenzo dowell or George Whitfield for just having a genius for winning an audience. There was a story she was preaching earlier in her career in a small town in ontario. And she had been preaching at this church for a couple nights. And no one was showing up, she was really discouraged. So she went out to town square and put a chair in the middle of the square and then she sat silently in prayer. Making you feel kind of awkward when im doing that, right . Yeah. Well, it made onlookers feel awkward too. They started gathering around her, after about half an hour watching this woman standing as a statue. Someone reaches out and touched her arm and she sprang to life. She said come with me, people, come with me. She leads them back to the church and they came. And she preach eed and it was t sense of a great revival. She had this sense of how people would respond and how to get them to overcome their skepticisms. She had two children by this point she brought her whole family, her mother came along to settle in los angeles, where she decided to make her career. This was after she did things like go up in an airplane to drop leaplets, advertising her revival in san diego. Really, she was on top of sort of the cutting edge of technology and things that would wow people. She built the huge Angeles Temple which opened in 1923. This was one of the first megachurches. It could eat 5300 people. She held three services a day, seven days a week. On sunday afternoons there would be a line stretching for two blocks with people eager to get in for the evening service. She had a Huge Ministry where that was just becoming a thing and the church evolved into its own denomination. The International Church of the four yeah gospel. Four square is a reference to the fourfold ministry of christ as savior, baptizer, healer and coming king, meaning second coming. Now, mcpherson is full of contradictions. In her theology she was pretty fundamentalist. And she was all about condemning mainstream sinful culture. She condemned theater, movies. But she borrowed a lot of hollywood techniques. She would walk on stage carrying a bouquet of roses to great applause. She was most famous for what she called her illustrative service which were just blindly productions this is inside the angelus temple. Here is one of her illustrated sermons, cast of dozens, elaborate costumes where she and her colleagues would act out stories. Often there were live animals. Once she drove a motorcycle on stage. Her critics dismissed it as religious vaudeville, but it was incredibly effective. She also was you know, in her pentecostal theology there was, of course, room for healing. So she held Healing Services frequently. But its interesting. The reports of her own comments on this make it clear that she was pretty nervous about doing this. Especially when she did it for a huge audience, you know in a los angeles stadium. She was worried that, you know, the person would not get up from their wheelchair. But often enough, often enough it sustained her credibility as a vehicle for the holy spirit, people did have some sort of evidence response to her healing. And you know there was a museum that she kept at her church of the canes and the crutches and wheelchairs that people had left behind. Its hard to know what to make of this. You know from the perspective of a professional secular historian. I think its important to take it very seriously and to recognize that Something Real happens in that space and in that encounter between mcfurson and the person shes healing. She had a deep awareness of the respectability problem that pentecostals had. She wanted this power of the holy spirit but she wanted to keep it reined in. As she tried to maximize her mainstream appeal, you know if someone got a little tool carried away, speaking in tongues in the aisles of her revival she would have them removed because she really wanted to appeal to a wider range of people. She was also contradictory on the questions of social justice and human suffering. She always taught that spiritual healing comes first. But during the great depression, her church opened up a food pantry that served all people where at a time when most charities in los angeles did not serve any immigrants. On race, she was pull of contradictions. She preached to mixed audiences, but she also sometimes endorsed the klan. And they endorsed her. So, its very hard to know what to make of her. Heres one of her characteristic outfits. She kind of dressed as a Florence Nightingale figure. A stage of femininity, i think. Heres her mansion built like a moorish castle. We could call her a fundamentalist. I guess you could call her a feminist. Its very hard to wedge her into boxes like modernist, antimodernist, because she crosses all of these lines. And shes interesting to us because she reflects these broader patterns weve been suddenly, like jerena lee, heres a woman with a sense of authority that lets her do an end run around the men, the men in the media as well as in the churches. She was a masterful selfpromoter who was rewarded by americas marketplace like all of the evangelical entrepreneurs weve met. She shows us the way that fundamentalists and pentecostals could say they were rejecting modern learning and worldly sins. But they were not cordoned off from mainstream culture. They were embedded in that culture. Was mcfurson an insider or outsider . She was a little bit of both. Lets summarize all of this with three big points about fundamentalists and pentecostals. First, between, say, 1880 and 1920, fundamentalists started to draw on that framework of common sense realism and biblical airency to form a movement. And many broke away to find their own churches and own subculture of organizations with this militant posture of resistance. Second, the movement was scholar. The polarization was more severe in america than in canada. Because of the strength of reformed churches because of revivalism and because of the relative isolation from europe. And, last, we can understand the holiness and pentecostal movements also like fundamentalism as reactions against modernity that pushed aside the authority of reason, 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. Embedded in mainstream culture and very, very savvy about using it. Fundamentalists and pentecostals were both insiders and outsiders, you know, prophets crying in the wilderness, as well as savvy hollywood entrepreneurs. And that paradox is part of the lasting success, i think, of these movements. Okay. Thats it for today. Week nights this month on American History tv were featuring the contenders. Our series looks at 14 president ial candidates who lost the election that had a lasting effect on politics tonight, we feature eugene debs, for the socialist party. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan 3. Every saturday go inside a different classroom and hear about topics about the american revolution, u. S. President to 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due to the fact of the coronavirus, watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with their students. Gorbachev did most of the work, reagan met him halfway, reagan supported him. Freedom of the press. Madison originally called it freedom of the use of the president to publish things. It is not a freedom for what we refer to as institutionally freedom of press. On American History tv on cspan3. Anywhere where you listen to podcasts. Youre watching American History tv, every