In 1981, James Robison was a rising star among Southern Baptist evangelists. His ministry employed 150 full-time staff and boasted an annual budget of $14 million, up from a mere $2 million four years earlier.Footnote 1 Country music legend Johnny Cash sang at his revivals. An early leader in the Christian Right, Robison took credit for Ronald Reagan’s famous 1980 campaign statement to evangelical leaders “I know you can’t endorse me, but… I want you to know that I endorse you and what you’re doing.”Footnote 2 During his meteoric assent, Robison’s strongest supporters were members of the “conservative” faction of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Exemplifying the attitude of this group, W.A. Criswell, pastor of the massive First Baptist Dallas, called Robison, “a new star in the galaxy of God’s flaming shining lights that point men to Christ.”Footnote 3
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Robison’s ministry changed focus. From the pulpit and the television studio, Robison began preaching on charismatic themes like spiritual warfare, divine healing, and the restoration of the New Testament church. This embrace of a particular brand of charismatic theology triggered pushback from his erstwhile supporters in the SBC. Former associates denounced his ministry as “cultic” and SBC megachurches cancelled scheduled revivals. Robison’s sharpest critics were the Southern Baptist conservatives that had so recently championed him. While he would continue to play a prominent role in the broader evangelical world, by the end of 1984 Robison had become a pariah in Southern Baptist circles.Footnote 4
The transformation of the SBC in the 1980s and 1990s is one of the defining events of US religious history. In the middle of the twentieth century, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination seemed to be trending toward convergence with Mainline Protestantism. But beginning in 1979, a coalition of Biblical inerrantists launched a “conservative resurgence” in which they captured most of the key positions within the denominational bureaucracy and transfigured the SBC into the cornerstone of the emerging Christian Right coalition.Footnote 5 Excluded from leadership, many of the “moderates” who openly opposed the movement ultimately withdrew into networks that eventually developed into two separate denominations, the Alliance of Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Written during or in the immediate aftermath of the Southern Baptist controversy, the first wave of scholarship on the conflict relied primarily on key participants’ public statements and retrospective impressions.Footnote 6 These studies provided important insights into Southern Baptist conservatives’ ideological commitments and traced the movement’s ascendence within the national denomination. However, early research had limited access to the internal structure and decision-making processes of the movement itself and, as a result, tended to overemphasize the unity and coherence of conservative activists’ interests. Since the publication of this first wave of scholarship, key activists’ papers have become available for study. These new sources offer a more nuanced picture of activists’ networks and reveal the limits of conservatives’ cooperation and the unevenness of their reforms, facilitating a reexamination of the historical consensus.Footnote 7
Taking a micro-historical approach, this article draws on previously unanalyzed correspondence from the James T. Draper, Jr. Collection at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary to reconstruct the events that led to Robison’s exclusion from the Southern Baptist conservative movement.Footnote 8 A leading figure within the conservative resurgence, Draper was Robison’s pastor at First Baptist Church of Euless (FBC-Euless) until 1984. In this role, Draper – more than any other single individual – determined how SBC conservatives responded to Robison’s new charismatic message. While historian C. Douglas Weaver has documented the basic outlines of Robison’s exclusion, this material significantly extends Weaver’s account, which relies almost exclusively on Robison’s own memoir and on news articles, sources that provide little insight into the process by which conservative leaders decided to cut ties.Footnote 9 In particular, this article reveals Draper’s pivotal role in defining conservatives’ response to Robison’s charismatic turn.
More generally, the Robison controversy clarifies how Southern Baptist conservatives defined the movement’s “symbolic boundaries” – cultural distinctions that demarcate the lines between individuals or groups.Footnote 10 These boundaries are not freestanding but rather are worked out through practical actions that define and redefine who is included or excluded.Footnote 11 Robison’s growing involvement with charismatic theology offers a window into the process by which such boundaries are established and negotiated. Southern Baptists had a long history of resistance to charismatic theology and some individuals associated with the SBC conservative movement had previously expressed individual concerns about charismatic practices.Footnote 12 Nevertheless, the movement’s leaders had not yet taken a collective stance regarding the degree to which the charismatic movement could be tolerated, and some leading conservatives considered charismatic pastors to be valuable allies in the fight against liberal Christianity.Footnote 13 By documenting conservatives’ behind-the-scenes efforts to handle Robison’s charismatic turn, I show that Draper and other movement leaders did not treat Robison’s eventual exclusion as preordained. Instead, they initially tried to repair the breach and bring Robison back into the Southern Baptist mainstream.
The ultimate rejection of Robison’s restoration ministry demonstrates the significance of theological and denominational cleavages at a moment when evangelicals were beginning to think of themselves as a political bloc.Footnote 14 Robison’s exclusion also demonstrates the important differences between the objectives of Southern Baptist conservatives and the Christian Right as a whole. While the architects of the conservative resurgence participated in evangelicals’ broader alignment with the Republican Party, they did not seek to turn Southern Baptists into generic conservative evangelicals. Rather, they wanted the SBC to enforce a particularistic conception of Baptist identity that barred most charismatics from leadership.
I. Mutual Cooperation (1976–1981)
Born to a single mother in 1943 and raised by foster parents until he was five, Robison split his childhood between Texas and Southern California. He felt the call to ministry in 1961 after an encounter with sixteen-year-old evangelist Daniel Vestal.Footnote 15 Robison dropped out of East Texas Baptist College in 1963 to pursue evangelism full-time, holding revivals in four states in his first year. In 1965, he organized his ministry as the James Robison Evangelistic Association (JREA) through which he continued to conduct revivals, and in 1970 expanded into television.Footnote 16
In 1976, Robison joined FBC-Euless, a Tarrant County congregation that was undergoing rapid growth under the pastorate of James T. Draper, Jr.Footnote 17 Draper had moved to FBC-Euless in November 1975 following a stint at First Baptist Dallas where he clashed with Betty Criswell, the powerful wife of lead pastor W.A. Criswell.Footnote 18 Draper threw FBC-Euless’s growing resources behind JREA.Footnote 19 Draper himself travelled with Robison on evangelistic crusades (sometimes declining payment for appearances) and used his connections to wealthy Texans to arrange large donations to the ministry.Footnote 20 He also helped Robison secure political connections beyond the network of conservative Southern Baptists that had supported Robison’s rise. For example, in early 1980, Draper encouraged Robison to meet with Mark Briskman, the regional director for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, promising Robison that the meeting would open doors not only with the Jewish community but also with conservative lobbyists in Washington.Footnote 21 In recognition of his various activities on Robison’s behalf, one JREA staffer would tell Draper in 1979, “Probably no pastor in our association [local Baptist organization] has given more help and support to JREA and its leader than you have.”Footnote 22
Perhaps Draper’s most visible support for Robison came after the latter clashed with WFAA, the broadcaster that produced JREA’s television programs. In 1977, WFAA threatened to take Robison off the air after he attacked the “queer ministry” of the gay-affirming Metropolitan Community Church and criticized Playboy Magazine publisher Hugh Hefner.Footnote 23 According to the station’s interpretation of the Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Doctrine, WFAA needed to give advance notice to any individual mentioned in its programing. After WFAA announced the cancelation, Draper contacted station executives to advocate for Robison. Admitting that Robison had made a mistake by mentioning specific individuals, he gave his assurances that it would not happen again.Footnote 24
The station agreed to reinstate Robison’s program.Footnote 25 However, on February 25, 1979, Robison made another on-air attack in which he accused homosexuals of “recruiting” young boys and called the recent assassination of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk part of God’s judgement.Footnote 26 In response, WFAA announced that it was cancelling Robison’s Sunday morning program. JREA fought the decision, arguing that the station’s action had violated Robison’s free-speech rights. To mobilize support for Robison’s cause, JREA evangelist Freddie Gage organized a “Rally for Freedom” on June 5 at the Dallas Convention Center. The event attracted prominent speakers from within the evangelical movement, including W.A. Criswell and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell.Footnote 27
Robison’s heavily publicized campaign secured an out-of-court settlement from WFAA that put him back on air.Footnote 28 JREA nevertheless continued to pursue a ruling from the FCC that the cancelation violated his freedom of speech. There he proved unsuccessful. In a February 1980 decision, the FCC’s Broadcast Bureau ruled that it could not interfere in the station’s decision to drop the program. As the FCC was expressly prohibited from influencing the editorial decisions of individual licensees, “WFAA-TV’s decision not to continue Mr. Robison’s program… is entirely an exercise of the licensee’s editorial discretion.”Footnote 29 In March 1981, the FCC denied an application for review filed by JREA’s lawyers.Footnote 30
Throughout the confrontation with WFAA, Draper campaigned on Robison’s behalf. In April 1979, at Gage’s suggestion, Draper sent a letter to fellow pastors and evangelists soliciting funds for Robison’s legal expenses.Footnote 31 Draper painted Robison’s struggle with the station as a free-speech issue that “will affect and benefit every preacher of the gospel in America.” Anticipating apprehensions that televangelists like Robison syphoned resources away from congregations, Draper assured his fellow pastors of Robison’s positive contributions to FBC-Euless, “For the past three years I’ve served as pastor to James Robison, and I could not have asked for a more encouraging friend or loyal member. He practices what he preaches about the local church.”Footnote 32 Draper doubled down on this support in letters to individual pastors, telling one concerned Southern Baptist that “[Robison’s] ministry is the only ministry on television that consistently tells people to tithe and participate through their local church. All other television ministries build their own following apart from the local church. James has never done this.”Footnote 33
The 1970s also brought both Robison and Draper into the emerging Southern Baptist conservative movement. In 1973, Southern Baptists concerned with what they considered to be liberal drift within the denominational bureaucracy organized the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship (BFMF), which soon secured the support of several prominent pastors, including Charles Stanley of First Baptist Church of Atlanta and Adrian Rogers of Bellevue Baptist Church in Tennessee.Footnote 34 The BFMF survived until 1989, but the combative personality of its leader, Bill Powell, ultimately undercut its influence. By the end of the 1970s, the conservative movement’s center of gravity had shifted to an informal network coordinated by Paige Patterson (president of the Criswell Bible Institute at First Baptist Dallas) and Paul Pressler (a Texas state judge based in Houston). Draper and Robison were both early participants in this network, attending closed-door meetings to plan strategy and select candidates for denominational positions. At the 1979 SBC Pastor’s Conference, Robison thundered: “My friends, if we as Southern Baptists forsake the truth of God’s Word and if we as a denomination tolerate liberalism in any form and continue to support it, we will be guilty of the suicidal death of countless millions of people throughout the word. We must not tolerate anyone who does not teach and preach that the Bible is the Word of Almighty God. […] My friends, we are in a battle.”Footnote 35 After the speech, Robison led the discussion in a meeting where conservatives selected Adrian Rogers to be their 1979 candidate for SBC president.Footnote 36 By the early 1980s, Draper was taking on increasingly prominent roles in the conservative resurgence, presiding over the Pastor’s Conference in 1980 and in 1982 winning the SBC presidency with the movement’s backing.Footnote 37
II. Emerging Confrontation (1982–1983)
JREA’s charismatic turn began in 1982 when, through fellow FBC-Euless member Dudley Hall, Robison arranged to travel with Milton “Milt” Green, a former carpet cleaner turned faith healer, for a series of meetings in Alabama.Footnote 38 By his own account, Robison had for several years been afflicted by spiritual “despair” that left him going through the motions of his ministry.Footnote 39 But one night, after the two had returned to their hotel in Selma, Green told Robison that he believed him to be afflicted by demons. He then prayed over Robison, rebuking the devil and telling him to depart. In the moment Robison felt nothing but 2 days later he awoke with the feeling that “the claw that was in my brain” had been removed. In the following days and weeks, Robison described an intense reawakening of his relationship with God.Footnote 40
In his 1988 autobiography, Robison downplayed the effect of this spiritual renewal on his theology, claiming that he had always believed that all the gifts of the spirit continued to have contemporary relevance.Footnote 41 However, those close to him noted a dramatic shift in emphasis after this experience. In the months following the hotel exorcism, Robison began stressing the need for the church’s “restoration” – meaning the recovery of the spiritual gifts and social patterns of the New Testament Christians.Footnote 42 Prominent place was given to healing through the power of the Holy Spirit and spiritual warfare to combat demonic forces. As part of this new emphasis, Robison embraced Green, promoting the evangelist’s seminars and regularly repeating the story of the hotel exorcism.Footnote 43
Despite his demanding schedule as SBC president, Draper soon expressed perturbation about JREA’s involvement with Green. On July 30, 1982, he met with Robison and Paige Patterson to discuss materials that JREA was now distributing to promote Robison’s new emphasis on restoration and healing. Patterson’s involvement indicates that Robison’s ministry was already a serious concern for leading conservatives. At the meeting, Robison appears to have downplayed his views on healing but failed to assuage Patterson or Draper’s unease. After calling former SBC president Adrian Rogers on July 31, Draper wrote Robison to tell him that he remained “greatly concerned with what I hear on your tapes.” At this early stage, Draper seemed willing to entertain the possibility of theological convergence with Robison. While he stated unequivocally that he could not yet embrace Robison’s message, Draper reassured his congregant about the possibility of continued discussion, “I am open to study and seek God’s mind in the matter but at this time I am not at liberty to embrace what I am hearing.”Footnote 44
Draper attended a JREA event in San Antonio on August 20, which solidified his concerns about where Robison was taking his ministry. After returning to Tarrant County, Draper indefinitely postponed a planned Robison crusade to be hosted at FBC-Euless and asked Robison to refrain from sharing his new perspectives with the congregation: “Most of what you are teaching and preaching is very pastoral in nature. I believe that it must come from the pastor rather than being introduced in a crusade atmosphere. If it is to be preached to our people, it should come from me.”Footnote 45
While Draper’s correspondence had already alluded to serious theological differences, a November letter by Paige Patterson provides the first written articulation of what conservative leaders considered to be problematic in Robison’s teaching. Patterson accused Robison of believing that all illness is caused by demonic possession and fiercely attacked the idea that God promised wellbeing to the faithful. In particular, he rejected the implication that physical infirmity was a sign of spiritual immaturity or lack of faith:
Do we really want to assert that Fanny Crosby [a gospel singer and composer] would have been more effective for God had she had her eyesight? Was she lacking in faith because she was never healed? Was she the victim of demonic attack? Was she spiritually unaware of the spiritual warfare and healing potentials of Christ in which you profess belief? And what of Helen Keller? What of the incredible Christian graces that were produced in her and in those who ministered to her?Footnote 46
Patterson also questioned Robison’s association with Green and with Jim Hylton – another Southern Baptist who had embraced charismatic ideas. He conceded that Hylton was a “godly man” and a “gentle spirit” but warned against putting too much faith in a pastor whose church had a stagnant membership.Footnote 47 Green came in for sharper criticism, with Patterson accusing him of showing “disregard for doctrinal truths that I regard as dearer than life itself” and engaging in “serious heresy.” The letter concluded with a call for Robison to return to his former positions: “I… believe that the day will come when we will find the direction of our ministries to be harmonious again. […] Until then, mutual prayer will be the extent of our work together because we are simply light years removed in emphasis and what we view as crucial.”Footnote 48
To collect evidence of theological error, FBC-Euless staff secretly recorded Green’s seminar. It is not clear whether Draper requested the recordings himself, but he kept copies in his office.Footnote 49 He also asked William E. Bell, a professor at Dallas Baptist College who since 1977 had served as FBC-Euless’s theologian in residence, to write a critique of the beliefs about healing expressed on the tapes. Bell’s analysis introduced a new theme that would become central to subsequent criticism. Not only did Green’s (and by inference Robison’s) teachings on health and spiritual warfare stray from the Baptist mainstream, but they also undermined the authority of local pastors: “Non-Charismatic pastors and other church leaders are vilified as ‘Pharisaical’, ‘unbelieving’, ‘Satanically-blinded’, ‘arrogant’, ‘ignorant’, etc., thus undercutting their positions as spiritual leaders and encouraging rebellion and schism in the churches.”Footnote 50 As noted above, Draper’s public championing of Robison had been premised on the fact that the latter’s ministry was supportive of (rather than competitive with) the local church. This, at least according to Bell, was no longer the case. Instead, through Green, JREA was now denigrating those pastors who rejected the emphasis on restoration. For Southern Baptist conservatives this development was particularly concerning, since movement leaders viewed pastors as holding the right to almost unfettered spiritual authority within their congregations.Footnote 51
By this point, conservative leaders in Texas and Oklahoma were beginning to align in opposition to Robison’s ministry. W.A. Criswell’s First Baptist Dallas and Bailey Smith’s First Southern Baptist Church of Del City, Oklahoma, cancelled or postponed scheduled Robison appearances. But others continued to try to get Robison to walk back his statements about restoration and spiritual warfare. After attending one of Milt Green’s seminars, San Antonio pastor George H. Harris expressed enthusiasm for the “the love and genuineness of the man [Green], the Christian fellowship of believers and the teachable spirit.”Footnote 52 However, he suggested that Green’s teaching on the demonic went beyond scripture and worried that the seminars might lead believers away from the true gospel. “I think it is very dangerous to subject laymen to this kind of interpretation and expect them to keep their feet on solid rock.” Nacogdoches-based evangelist Rick Scarborough worried that Robison was giving up on reaching the lost: “In your discovering new truth, it appears that your thundering, prophetic voice against sin has been silenced. Our country desperately needs a call to repentance, and like many others in this land, I am convinced the vessel that God has chosen is James Robison. […] Please don’t exchange the best for the good.”Footnote 53
In the wake of criticism from leading Southern Baptist conservatives, Robison began to distance himself from the conservative movement. In February 1983, he apologized for his past attacks on Southern Baptist moderates and reached out to professors at Baylor University, a school that conservative leaders – including Draper – were accusing of liberal drift.Footnote 54 At the same time, he began to downplay his ties to the SBC and to question the importance of denominational distinctives. In one letter to supporters, Robison wrote, “When God’s people come together in His Word, there will be such a move of God that division will be abolished, traditions shattered, denominational barriers diminished, Christ exalted, the Bible honored, and millions swept into the kingdom of God as all behold the light of His glory and grace.” Lest anyone miss the point, he went on, “Let Baptists be Baptists, but above all, let Baptists be Christian.”Footnote 55 Once a reliable proponent of the conservatives’ cause, Robison was now presenting theological purity as a distraction from a greater calling: evangelism, plain and simple.
Through the beginning of 1983, SBC conservatives’ opposed JREA from behind the scenes as movement leaders continued their efforts to redirect Robison’s energies away from his restoration approach. This changed in June, when the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ran a series of articles describing Robison’s relationship with Green.Footnote 56 The articles featured critical quotes by Patterson and Bell and reported that some churches (including the Alandale Baptist Church in Austin) had lost members after visits from Robison or Green. This publicity significantly escalated the conflict, as it limited the parties’ room for maneuver and increased pressure to treat the rupture as permanent.Footnote 57 Nevertheless, Draper continued to express optimism that Robison would eventually balance his emphasis, “James has a tendency to work out his thinking before the whole world. […] He… has already pulled back on his position some, and I think he will continue to do that.”Footnote 58 While admitting that some FBC-Euless members had left Green’s seminars with “extreme attitudes,” Draper was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reassuring the readership that he did not anticipate Robison’s leaving the congregation.Footnote 59
In private, however, Draper’s criticisms were growing sharper. While in initial discussions with Robison he had indicated openness to entertaining some aspects of Robison’s restoration ministry, by fall 1983 Draper’s views had hardened into clear opposition to what he considered to be an extreme emphasis on charismatic doctrines. In October, he accused Robison of attacking the local church and of lashing out at people like George Harris and Paige Patterson who had raised concerns about Green. He also anticipated a showdown at FBC-Euless if Robison continued on his current trajectory:
Because of the schismatic spirit I see in many who come through the [Milton Green] seminar, I will not encourage people to attend. While I will not fight the seminar at this point, I will not support it either. It is causing division in many churches and I still believe that the emphasis will eventually cause a breach in our fellowship here at [FBC-Euless]. There are strong charismatic tendencies, aggravated by your appearance at charismatic conferences, television programs with charismatic leaders, continued strong emphasis upon healing and deliverance, etc. The situation eventually will polarize the church into grounds for battle. That will give me no pleasure and will certainly grieve our Lord. Rest assured that I will take whatever stand is required to protect the fellowship of the church if such a time does indeed come.
Draper told Robison that he did not consider there to be a need for further discussion. Instead, he urged Robison to “let these matters lie in your heart.”Footnote 60
III. The Break (1984)
Through the end of 1983, Draper continued to avoid a public confrontation with Robison, even as the differences between the two began to appear irreconcilable. Draper’s message at the James Robison Bible Conference on January 26, 1984, marked a turning point. In the lead up to the conference, some observers questioned the wisdom of appearing to endorse Robison by contributing to his event. Draper assured them that his aim was to speak against what he considered to be the errors coming out of JREA. “I understand that some will misinterpret my going,” Draper acknowledged, “That is a calculated risk. […] Rest assured that I will be preaching the truth of the Word of God and standing on what may often be misrepresented from James and his associates.”Footnote 61
The sermon, which Draper also delivered at FBC-Euless on January 29, defended the integrity of the local church against detractors.Footnote 62 In violation of scripture’s injunction to support the body of believers and the pastors who were called to lead them, “there is a very hostile and antagonistic attitude by many toward the local church. […] The church is often accused of refusing to believe the whole Word of God and refusing to receive certain ‘light’ from God’s Word.” While he did not mention Robison or Green by name, Draper made no secret as to who he thought was responsible for this attack on the church; “I hear much today about revival and spiritual awakening,” he told the audience, “I do not see much evidence of it. […] I see great passion for harsh condemnation. I see Christians who claim to be ‘spirit-filled’ and ‘free’ becoming spectators in their local churches and critics of all who do not see Scriptural teaching the way they see it. It seems to be the passion of their lives to condemn those who differ with them.”Footnote 63
While some Southern Baptists had questioned Draper’s decision to speak at the conference, Robison’s critics greeted the message with enthusiasm. Requests for copies of the sermon poured in from pastors and lay people.Footnote 64 The executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas praised Draper for addressing “the disruptions in our churches caused by those who have a particular approach to healing, demons, and the charismatic.”Footnote 65 Former SBC president Bailey Smith (who had already cancelled a Robison revival at his church) sent congratulations with a brief handwritten note: “I’m so proud of you. Don’t buckle! I’ll stand with you publicly or privately.”Footnote 66
Shortly after Draper’s sermon, Freddie Gage – a longtime Robison associate who had organized the 1979 Rally for Freedom – broke with JREA and began speaking against Robison in Southern Baptist churches. By this point, Gage was thoroughly fed up with the “Greenies” (a derogatory term for those who accepted Milt Green’s teachings). “The biggest mistake I ever made, I see now, was not having a complete break a year ago,” Gage told one associate. The evangelist had a litany of complaints about JREA leaders. He accused them of discouraging supporters from visiting doctors; of moving beyond scripture by accepting “new revelations”; and of having a monomaniacal focus on spiritual warfare: “I mean [for them] everything is a demon. Demons control the preachers. Demons under every bush. It’s mind boggling.”Footnote 67 In addition to his own efforts to discredit Robison, Gage encouraged Draper to go further in opposing JREA and produce a set of tapes repudiating “the heresy that is in the Green Seminar and the Robison movement.”Footnote 68 According to Gage, some Southern Baptists continued to defend Robison’s teachings by pointing to his association with Draper, so a strong statement from the SBC president could substantially limit JREA’s influence inside the denomination.
In April, the Baptist Standard (the Texas Baptist state newspaper) published an article on the Robison-Green controversy that was subsequently reprinted in the SBC’s denominational paper, the Baptist Press. Footnote 69 The article quoted some of the most influential Southern Baptists in the country, including Richard Jackson of the North Phoenix Baptist Church and John Bisagno of the First Baptist Church of Houston, as concerned about Robison and Green’s teachings. JREA was not entirely without support, however. Fred Wolfe, who would later be elected SBC president with the conservative movement’s backing, said that he “did not find any unusual or unbiblical emphasis” in Robison’s preaching. Wallace Henley, then president of the Alabama Baptist Convention, defended Green’s teaching on demonic influence as consistent with his own observations.Footnote 70 Nevertheless, Robison appeared increasingly embattled as former allies denounced his ministry.
In the wake of the Baptist Standard article, Robison sent an open letter to the JREA mailing list rebutting his critics. He called accusations that he was discouraging supporters from using doctors “pure slander.” Nevertheless, he was emphatic in stating that God promised physical healing in this life and seemed to embrace the conclusion that most or all sickness was the result of demonic influence, “I do believe it is possible – as well as the will of God – for believers to overcome sickness and live in Divine health. But it will not come without spiritual battles in this life.” Even though Draper was one of those accusing JREA of turning against local congregations, the letter continued to use Robison’s association with FBC-Euless as evidence that he supported pastors through his ministry, “I have great love for the local church. When I am at home I never miss a Sunday at my church. I have a great love and respect for my pastor.”Footnote 71
As the conflict unfolded, Draper refused a JREA request to use FBC-Euless for a Bible conference. Staff at FBC-Euless aligned on one side or the other and Robison’s subordinates began praying for Draper’s salvation.Footnote 72 Yet, Draper stopped short of asking Robison to leave the congregation. To those who expected more, Draper explained that he “[did] not want to make a martyr out of him [Robison]” and believed that Robison “would like nothing better than for me to make a big issue out of it and drive him from the church.”Footnote 73 By withdrawing support for JREA, Draper hoped to force Robison to either recant or leave on his own. But he would not give Robison an opportunity to blame him for the final break.
In August, Robison wrote Draper an impassioned, stream-of-consciousness note. In a last-ditch attempt to salvage the relationship, he pleaded that Draper cease attacking charismatic practices and asked for a face-to-face meeting, “You say let’s talk – let’s get together – let’s visit – But you never do. Do you even want to – We do what we truly want to do. – Don’t we.” He accused Draper of putting SBC affairs ahead of his own church, asking, “Isn’t this as important to our own church as the matter at Baylor or other Baptist concerns?” While professing uncertainty about Draper’s wishes, Robison said that God had not given him permission to leave FBC-Euless. Indeed, he continued to believe that they could solve their differences in face-to-face conversation.Footnote 74
Draper did not meet with Robison but instead responded in writing. In Draper’s eyes, their respective views were too entrenched for further debate to be productive; “We must allow each other to express his beliefs without feeling that a debate must be entered into with one person emerging as the victor.” He also reiterated that neither he nor FBC-Euless would support or endorse JREA in future: “I do want to repeat so that there will be no misunderstanding: I cannot continue to support and be identified with you. I will not appear on any further programs with you and do not want my name mentioned by you or others in any way to suggest support. I do not believe the direction you are going is God’s will for me or our church. Please accept that.”Footnote 75
Following Draper’s icy response, Robison indicated that he now felt that God had given him permission to leave the congregation, although he continued to hold out hope that this would not be necessary.Footnote 76 Finally, in September, Robison announced that he would leave FBC-Euless to help form a satellite congregation of Lake Country Baptist Church, pastored by fellow-charismatic Jim Hylton.Footnote 77 In statements to the press, Draper acknowledged that Robison might take several hundred FBC-Euless members with him.Footnote 78 Robison’s role in this new congregation would be limited. Instead, he planned to focus his energies on JREA’s television ministry, which had expanded to daily broadcasts distributed nationally through networks like PTL and the Trinity Broadcasting Network (both associated with charismatic televangelists).Footnote 79
IV. Aftermath
After Robison’s departure, Draper continued to discourage Baptist pastors in other states from supporting JREA crusades.Footnote 80 In early 1985, FBC-Euless hosted a Bible conference in direct conflict with JREA’s.Footnote 81 However, Draper did maintain some contact. In September 1986, the Robisons hosted a campaign event for Wayne Lee, a member of FBC-Euless who was trying to unseat Gibson “Gib” Lewis, the Democratic speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. The Drapers not only attended the event but agreed to speak on Lee’s behalf.Footnote 82 While Draper would not support Robison’s religious ministry, there was still room to work together in support of conservative political candidates.
In 1989, Robison made an attempt to return to active involvement in Southern Baptist life, attending the Texas Baptist Evangelism Conference and reaching out to former associates regarding the possibility of reconciliation. His overtures received a frosty reception. Freddie Gage told Robison that a return would not be possible without a public apology for his past actions: “You are operating under the illusion that you can come back and preach in Southern Baptist churches after five years of having no link whatsoever with Southern Baptists. I promise you, it will never, never happen unless you are willing to apologize to hundreds of churches who were split over your Milton Green seminars.”Footnote 83
On May 9, Robison met with Draper and Patterson. Following what appears to have been a warm conversation, Draper left open a potential path for reconciliation but, like Gage, emphasized the need for public confession and a renunciation of his restoration ministry: “I believe you will have to publicly confess that you were wrong in your emphasis back during that period of time. It is my deep belief that you were clearly led into error and that what you preached then [earlier in the decade] does not reflect the testimony you gave us this week. I did not sense any admission on your part in our meeting that what you had done included being involved in Biblical error. I believe that has to happen.”Footnote 84 Robison’s previous support for Green, who had died in 1987, continued to be a major sticking point, and Draper pushed Robison to clearly reject Green’s ideas: “I do not believe you have any real concept of the tremendous confusion, heartache and chaos that resulted from what you and Milt Green were doing at that time. What you did, preached and encouraged was wrong.” In effect, Draper was asking Robison to admit fault and take responsibility for the breach with Southern Baptist conservatives. To come back, he had to accept his critics’ characterizations and repudiate his charismatic theology.
In his reply, Robison professed shock at Draper’s demand for an apology. He argued that he had already corrected the errors in his earlier emphasis and had laid the groundwork for healing and future collaboration. Surprisingly, he accepted Draper’s basic characterization of Green:
I have also made it clear, and my walk proves this out, that Milt Green’s emphasis in many areas was incorrect and his teaching did contain what you and I would perceive as error. His manner of referring to the local church as Babylon and his teaching concerning salvation with undue emphasis on works smacked of legalism that nullified the grace of God and placed salvation too much upon the shoulders of those who confess Christ. It diminished the power of the cross or sufficiency of God’s grace in many instances. […] He unknowingly led many into bondage rather than liberty and many churches were unnecessarily devastated. This fact breaks my heart.Footnote 85
However, Robison did not commit to taking further steps toward publicly renouncing Green or his own previous positions. Instead, he indicated that his previous public statements and the current actions of his ministry should be sufficient. What was important was not to look back but rather to move forward together to bring souls to Christ:
You may remember, when I was only 18, with a heart burning for God and souls, I came to you and asked for a chance to be used. Now, once again at age 45, I’m coming to you and asking for a chance to be understood, to have the opportunity of helping heal Christ’s bruised and broken Body, to help build understanding among believers, to join hands with others and win our community to Christ, and to help take the Gospel to the whole world. Somehow I’m convinced, as much as possible, we should move together in world evangelism.Footnote 86
Playing off accusations that he had turned away from soul-winning when he embraced the charismatic movement, Robison held out the hope of returning to the pre-1982 collaboration with conservative Southern Baptists on evangelism.
But without an apology for past transgressions, Southern Baptist conservatives were unwilling to welcome Robison back into the fold. On May 25, Draper told Robison that he considered the latter to still endorse the positions that had caused the rift. “There is still a great gap between us. I do not believe that you have been misunderstood. I believe that you have been understood,” said Draper, “You forcefully and skillfully reveal your convictions and beliefs regularly in the public arena.” By distancing himself from these positions in private conversations with Baptists, Robison was guilty of inconsistency and of dodging responsibility for the actions of those supported by his ministry:
You stated in your letter that many of the things Milt Green taught were in error. You do not seem to understand you totally identified with Milt Green, substantiated and promoted his ministry, and thus, participated in that ‘error.’ […] You do not seem to realize that there will have to be a disassociation of yourself from the teachings and practices used by Milt Green and which were promoted through your office, through the use of your building and through those seminars if there is to be genuine trust built again between your friends and yourself.
Draper told Robison that he would not communicate with him in writing going forward and that he could not endorse future cooperation: “The pain is still too real in my own heart and in this church for me to open myself or the church to the possibility of it happening again.”Footnote 87
Patterson backed Draper, reiterating the position that cooperation could only come after Robison made a public break with the charismatic movement. It went beyond the “cultic” ministry of Milt Green. Through his associations, Robison had “in effect commended the theologies of many charismatics, many of whom are not even right on the basic doctrine of salvation and, therefore, have misled our people [lay Southern Baptists].” With a “repudiation of the former theology” Southern Baptist conservatives might consider inviting Robison into their pulpits or hosting his crusades. But anything less meant cooperation would be impossible.Footnote 88 In the face of coordinated opposition from his former associates, Robison’s attempt to regain his influence in Texas Baptist circles was dead in the water.Footnote 89
V. Conclusion
Prior to his encounter with Milton Green, James Robison was a leading figure within the SBC conservative movement. Taking a micro-historical approach that focuses on Robison’s evolving relationship with James T. Draper, Jr. in the 1970s and 1980s, this paper extends our understanding of how evangelical Protestants responded to the growth of the charismatic movement.Footnote 90 Conservative Southern Baptists considered Green’s views regarding healing and spiritual warfare to be extreme positions that went beyond typical charismatic or Pentecostal teachings.Footnote 91 Nevertheless, the Robison-Green controversy set the pattern for Southern Baptists conservatives’ subsequent attempts to suppress charismatic practices within the SBC.Footnote 92 In the eyes of movement leaders, these practices represented neither banal variations in religious expression nor an abstract threat. Rather, the confrontation with JREA led Southern Baptist conservatives to link charismatic Christianity with congregational turbulence and attacks on pastoral authority at the heart of their own network.
The Robison controversy also clarifies how Southern Baptist conservatives constructed the symbolic boundary between insiders and outsiders. While conservative leaders treated Robison’s restoration ministry as threatening from the beginning, I show that they did not immediately view it as cause to break ties. Rather, they worked out the practical implications of their religious commitments in real time as they defined the boundaries of legitimate cooperation. Movement leaders did not publicly break with Robison until after their attempts to bring Robison back into the Baptist mainstream had failed and the conflict had expanded to implicate a growing network of Baptist pastors.
Historian Barry Hankins has argued that the overarching goal of Southern Baptist conservatives was to bring the SBC into alignment with American evangelicalism.Footnote 93 This position treats the Southern Baptist conservative resurgence as furthering national shifts in which particular denominational identities have lost salience for Protestants and have been subsumed under the broader categories of “conservative” or “liberal” religion.Footnote 94 Sociologist Robert Wuthnow has proposed an alternative interpretation of the SBC controversy in which the conflict between conservatives and moderates bucked national trends by actually increasing the importance of a distinctively Baptist identity.Footnote 95 The conservative movement’s rejection of Robison and of charismatic beliefs more broadly tends to support this second, particularistic reading, at least for religious elites. Far from embracing a big tent that treated all evangelical traditions as equivalent, conservative leaders acted to reinforce the line demarcating Baptists from charismatics and other evangelical traditions.
While not the subject of this paper, Southern Baptist conservatives’ distinctive opposition to women in pastoral ministry also points to a particularistic interpretation of the movement along the lines proposed by Wuthnow. Many conservative evangelicals are committed to a hierarchical worldview characterized by the belief that “godly” men (understood to be white and heterosexual) should occupy privileged positions within families, churches, and public spaces.Footnote 96 However, Southern Baptist conservatives have, throughout the movement’s history, exhibited a distinctive commitment to the exclusion of women from pastoral ministry that sets them apart from other evangelicals. Indeed, Southern Baptists institutions have, in the years following the conservative resurgence, played an entrepreneurial role in promoting complementarian theology within the larger evangelical subculture. Instead of straightforward alignment with the broader Christian Right, this singular emphasis (particularly with respect to the pastorate) evidences the movement’s denominational peculiarity.Footnote 97
Recent critics of the conservative resurgence – responding to revelations that core leaders engaged in (and/or systematically concealed) sexual abuse – have argued that the movement’s architects were motivated by sheer lust for power rather than sincere religious conviction.Footnote 98 While such claims usefully draw attention to movement leaders’ efforts to secure personalistic control over denominational institutions, they treat SBC conservatives’ religious and cultural commitments as largely irrelevant to the movement’s development.Footnote 99 The Robison case challenges this oversimplified narrative by highlighting the key role that religious commitments did play in influencing activists’ decisions. While conservative leaders may have feared that continued association with Robison would have discredited them with their base, this alone cannot explain the emotional intensity of conservatives’ response. Nor can the response be explained as a reprisal against a former ally who had rejected the movement. Conservatives’ efforts to convince Robison to distance himself from Milton Green and the charismatic movement began almost immediately and well before Robison publicly broke with the conservative resurgence. Instead, the actions of Draper and others are only intelligible against the backdrop of a strong concern that Robison’s restoration ministry was theologically aberrant and threatened the integrity of Southern Baptist churches. Rather than treat conservatives’ efforts to secure power within the denomination as unrelated to activists’ religiosity, an adequate account of the Southern Baptist conservative resurgence must treat the movement’s cultural orientation as deeply intertwined with the personal and political ambitions of its leaders.
Acknowledgments
Bradford Gladstone and Benjamin Kaplow commented on a draft of this paper. This paper also benefited from the feedback of James T. Draper, Jr and was read by Carol Stertzer and Bruce Jacobson at James Robison’s ministry, LIFE Outreach International. Special thanks to Craig Kubic at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who helped me navigate the James T. Draper, Jr. Collection.
Open access
