A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Pp. 319-323<\/em><\/p>\n In the 1970s, something changed in evangelicals\u2019 approach to politics. There are a variety of explanations for this. Some historians argue that Republican leaders under Nixon and others intentionally set out to make\u00a0evangelicals, who before the 1970s frequently\u00a0hadn\u2019t voted (given that God\u2019s kingdom is of this world), into their fold and convince them to vote and campaign. Others have argued that this moment was the product of fast societal change that began to make evangelicals wonder if it was safe for them to stay out of politics\u2014historians point to the IRS\u2019s targeting of segregationist Christian schools as the moment when evangelicals determined they couldn\u2019t stay out, but there were a rash of other issues that were extremely concerning to evangelicals as well, many related\u00a0to sex ed and other changes in schools.<\/p>\n Whatever the cause, evangelicals ended their political isolation. But what is less studied is the impact of the various think tanks and lobbying groups evangelicals founded during the 1970s and beyond. Historians have recently paid more attention to the role of conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, but evangelical lobbying groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA), founded in 1979, tend to be less studied.<\/p>\n You may wonder why I\u2019m writing about this in an Anonymous Tip post. Trust me, it\u2019s relevant. In the early 1980s, Vicki Frost, a mother in Hawkins County, Tennessee, objected to material in her children\u2019s new reading textbooks. She requested that her children be allowed to use an\u00a0alternate textbook, but the school denied her request. Frost and several other parents sued the school district. The case was argued and bankrolled by Concerned Women for America, which\u00a0lost it at the circuit court level<\/a>. The existence of groups like CWA has been a fundamental (and too little noticed) part of the religious right for four decades now. In the case,\u00a0Frost and her compatriots\u00a0were represented by a CWA lawyer, one\u00a0Michael Farris<\/a>.<\/p>\n And that brings us to our section today. It seems everyone has been reprinting news stories about Gwen\u2019s case, and they\u2019ve hit the AP. Word has spread. And so we get to this:<\/p>\n \u201cBarron & Associates,\u201d Sally said.<\/p>\n \u201cPeter Barron, please.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMay I ask who\u2019s calling?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMy name is David G. Humphrey,\u201d he said in his perfect radio voice. \u201cI am the president of America\u2019s pro-family organization, Heart of America. I read about the Gwen Landis lawsuit in our paper here in Kansas City this morning, and I\u2019d like to know if we can be of assistance on this important case.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sally transfers him to Peter. But first, let me note that before Humphrey made his call, we were told this about him and his interest in the case:<\/p>\n The third article in his Wednesday morning stack was an Associated Press story concerning an interesting civil rights case in Spokane, Washington. The picture that had adorned the front page of the Spokesman-Review on Tuesday was on page ten of the Kansas City Star today. He was interested in the article and intrigued with the photograph of Gwen Landis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n WTF, Farris. WTF. I mean really? Does this mean that if\u00a0Gwen had been a mousy brunette, or a black woman, rather than a stunning blond, Humphrey wouldn\u2019t have given the case a second look?<\/p>\n Anyway, Humphrey is transferred to Peter:<\/p>\n \u201cWell, Mr. Barron. What a pleasure! Thank you for taking my call. And if I may be so bold, the question is: How can I be of assistance to you?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI understand you are calling about our Landis case.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYes. This is obviously an important case. Probably headed to the Supreme Court, from what I read here in the Kansas City papers this morning. Very important case. And it sounds like you are doing this case out of the goodness of your heart. A single mom employed as a nurse\u2014at least that\u2019s what the article says\u2014cannot be paying you very much money. We\u2019d like to help.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is an interesting assumption. There could be a wealthy backer or something.<\/p>\n \u201cThat sounds very interesting. What do you have in mind?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI am the president and founder of this country\u2019s news, pro-family, public interest organization. We are interested in changing government to be more sensitive to the needs of America\u2019s families. We have called the organization Heart of America<\/em> to symbolize that we think families are the essential ingredient to change the heart of this nation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not sure what the word salad in that last sentence actually means.<\/p>\n \u201cIs this a Christian organization?\u201d Peter asked.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is a pro-family organization reaching a broad perspective of American citizens who embrace the Judeo-Christian ethic and subscribe to the importance of families. Our research indicates that over 75% of Americans hold strong favorable opinions on the issues that are the core of what makes Heart of America tick. Is that acceptable to you?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He says so much, and yet so little. What issues? Does Humphrey know\u00a0that there are plenty of people who think families are \u201cimportant\u201d\u00a0while disagreeing strongly with conservative political positions, or conservative definitions of what constitutes a family? For instance, gay people who wanted to marry their partners and raise\u00a0children together. Also, for instance, me. And while we\u2019re at it, there\u2019s no such thing as \u201cthe Judeo-Christian ethic.\u201d That idea was invented in the middle of the last century. The term is used because it makes it seem less like pushing specifically Christian values on everyone else,\u00a0but in practice those who use it\u00a0simply assume that Jews have the same ethical framework as Christians. They don\u2019t.<\/p>\n Anyway, back to the text, and repeating one line:<\/p>\n \u201cIs that acceptable to you?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think so.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter, Peter, Peter<\/em>. You didn\u2019t even ask what their positions actually are?<\/em> Because if I may point out, Humphrey hasn\u2019t said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just that I\u2019m a born-again Christian and I like to know where people are coming from,\u201d Peter replied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wait wait wait back up<\/em>. Remember that this part of the exchange started with Peter asking if Heart of America<\/em> is a Christian organization. He doesn\u2019t care about its positions. He only cares about whether it\u2019s Christian. Does Peter know that Christians are divided on a multiplicity of issues? Does he know there are Christians who work for children\u2019s rights, or gay rights, or who let women be pastors? But then, I suppose\u00a0in his view those people aren\u2019t actually \u201cChristian.\u201d<\/p>\n In this case, Peter needn\u2019t have worried.<\/p>\n \u201cWell, Brother Barron, is it? Praise God. We are a pro-family organization reaching out broadly to our nation, yes. But all of our staff and all of our board members are solid born-again, Bible-beliving Christians such as yourself. There are no coincidences in God\u2019s economy. This sounds like a divine appointment.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This points to another problem within this community\u2014the assumption that anyone who uses the label \u201cborn-again Christian\u201d or \u201cBible-believing Christian\u201d is automatically to be trusted implicitly. I suppose this probably happens in every every\u00a0with boundaries, but I\u2019ve seen it used time and again to curtail any interest in learning\u00a0more about\u00a0an individual\u2019s or group\u2019s character or track record. It\u2019s how leaders like Bill Gothard keep going, despite the multitude abuse allegations\u2014he calls himself a \u201cBible-beliving Christian,\u201d so he\u2019s one of us<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is it that you are\u00a0interested in doing?\u201d Peter asked.<\/p>\n \u201cWe want to help with funding your case. That\u2019s it. We\u2019ll send a letter out to our members and friends. We\u2019ll tell them the facts on your case. Ask for a donation. And then we\u2019ll send it along to you. Naturally, we have to cover our mailing expenses. But beyond that, it goes to your litigation fund. Nothing complicated. We just want to help.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter says it sounds too good to be true, and Humphrey reminds him that they serve a God who works miracles. Peter says he\u2019ll have to get his client\u2019s permission before giving the go ahead\u2014I\u2019m pleasantly surprised. Peter tells Humphrey that he\u2019s right, that he\u2019s a small operation working the case on nothing, with only the hope of eventually possibly recovering attorney\u2019s fees as part of the case. He says having the funding would be amazing, and Humphrey declares it \u201ca sign from God that all these circumstances fall together so perfectly.\u201d<\/p>\n But it turns out there is one<\/em> string attached. After Peter calls Gwen and gets her permission to work with Heart of America,<\/em> he calls Humphrey back:<\/p>\n David G. Humphrey was thrilled when Peter returned his phone call two-and-a-half hours after their first conversation. He asked Peter for only two things: a simple two- or three-page description of the case in laymen\u2019s language, and a picture of Gwen and Casey in their home to be used in telling the story of the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Apparently having Casey\u2019s photo in the press would create \u201ctrauma,\u201d but having her picture in a pro-family organization\u2019s fundraising literature would be just peachy. The text does not say whether Peter got Gwen\u2019s okay on the picture, but it does say Humphrey sent Peter\u00a0a $5000 check overnight, as \u201ca token of good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n I have a question. Does Peter have any way of being sure that all of the money raised using Gwen\u2019s case as a fundraiser, minus mailing costs, will actually be turned over to him? What would stop\u00a0Humphrey\u00a0from holding some amount of it back, and using Gwen\u2019s case as a fundraising tool for Heart of America?\u00a0<\/em>This being the book that it is, I doubt that\u2019ll happen. But it theoretically could. After all, Farris\u2019s own organization, the Home School Legal Defense Association, uses cases like Gwen\u2019s as fundraising and promotional opportunities all the time.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Whatever the cause, evangelicals ended their political isolation. But what is less studied is the impact of the various think tanks and lobbying groups evangelicals founded during the 1970s and beyond. Historians have recently paid more attention to the role of conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, but evangelical lobbying groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA), founded in 1979, tend to be less studied.<\/p>\n Click through to read more!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":845,"featured_media":29598,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[469],"class_list":["post-29597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-anonymous-tip"],"yoast_head":"\n