By: Jana Roste
Throughout time, institutions of higher education have attempted to define and operationalize religious liberties. In the 1960s, debates regarding religious liberty surrounded church and state relations. In 1963, James E. Wood, a professor of religious history at Baylor and later named the director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, stated that “the issue of church and state has become one of the most controversial and vital questions confronting the world today” (Wood, 1963). The national attention to church-state relations was specifically important to the Baptist institution Baylor University as the historic, traditional Baptist beliefs insist that “the best protection of religious liberty comes through the separation of church and state” (Special Church-State Committee, 1966). In the 1960s, Baylor, amongst other colleges and universities, faced the challenge of interpreting the traditional Baptist doctrine of the separation of church and state amidst a growing number of discrepancies regarding government financial aid.
Religious Liberty in the 1960s
Many of the church-state controversies in the U.S. during the 1950s and 60s stemmed from the K-12 education system. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional a New Jersey statute allocating taxpayer funds to bus children to religious schools because the tax money was not directly supporting religious schools. Within this case, the Supreme Court established that similar to the federal government, state and local governments are also prohibited from the establishment of religion and declared that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions” (U.S. Supreme Court, 1947). This statement proved to be an important defense for Baptist leaders in future controversial cases.
Not only was the funding of sectarian K-12 schools news across the nation, so was the dispute regarding governmental control within these institutions. In 1962, the Engle v. Vitale case came to the Supreme Court in which the court ruled the composition or recitation of an official school prayer within the public school system violates the First Amendment (U.S. Supreme Court, 1962). Baptists believe that both Supreme Court cases have been very consistent with the constitution (“Dr. Pfeffer advocates separation,” 1964). In addition to the debate regarding religion’s place within public education, the oppression and struggle of the church before and during WWII and the advancement of communist hostility towards Christianity perpetuated the church-state controversies (Dawson, 1964).
Out of response to this growing national debate regarding religious liberty, various organizations were created to investigate and advocate church-state matters. The United Nations made their own pronouncements regarding religion liberty (Dawson, 1964). Church and political leaders crossed denominational lines to form the Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (POAU) in efforts to fight for the separation of church and state in the education system, avoid any more breaches in the wall of church-separation, and repair any current violations (Dawson, 1964). Many denominations created their committees to investigate these matters. The Baptist General Conference of Texas (BGCT) created the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington, D. C. in 1946 which hosted Religious Liberty Conferences to aid in public knowledge of the issues on religious liberty (DeShong, 2018).
Baptist Perspectives of Religious Liberty
Religious liberty is a distinguishing principle within the Baptist faith (Dawson, ca. 1950s). Joseph Dawson (ca. 1950s) a national leader in church-state studies and policy, defined religious liberty as, “the right and security of every person and group for freedom of conscience, belief, and practice, together with free association and unrestricted propagation of faith” p. 3).
The traditional Baptist principle of church-state separation is grounded on spiritual, moral, and constitutional foundations. The principle is first grounded in the voluntary nature of human’s relationships with God. God chose to base his relationship with man and woman on a voluntary response; therefore, man shall have certain freedoms regarding religion (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). In their 1961 report, the Special Committee on Church-State Relations acknowledged that traditional Baptists also look towards the first amendment in their efforts for complete religious liberty as discussed in the introduction (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961).
Nationwide, the discussions regarding church and state created more public ambiguity regarding the principle of religious liberties. Despite what seemingly could be perceived as a time of turmoil for Baptists (and the nation alike) as they fought towards their efforts of religious liberty, the BGCT entered the 1960s with optimism. “The awakened interest in religious liberty and separation of church and state has the potential of accelerating our advance in this area. Many of our current problems were created by long neglect and indifference” (Christian Life Commission, 1960). This optimism motivated the BGCT to survey its own church-state relationships to uncover any possible Baptist violations to create consistency within their own principles (Christian Life Commission, 1960).
Baylor University and Church-State Relations
Baylor’s motto highlights Baptist perceptions of church-state relations. It’s motto, Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana, meaning “for the church, for Texas,” explicitly features the traditional Baptists’ belief that the Christian college should serve both the church and the state without compromising the autonomy of either institution (Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1962). As a member institution of the BGCT, Baylor’s motto points to Baptists’ desire to “provide leaders and good citizens for our nation and world… [but the first obligation is] that of training youth in the precepts of the Christian faith and ethic” (Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1962, p. 9).
Student Education of Church-State Relations
As religious liberty issues hit the national stage, Baylor sought to educate its students on these issues. Baylor’s student-run newspaper, The Lariat, filled its pages with frequent articles educating its students on religious liberty principles, but also kept its students up to date on national trends in this area by inviting many guests to speak at Baylor’s annual focus week or chapel. Students themselves varied in their understandings and perceived importance of these issues. Given five distinct Baptist principles, an average of 13.5% of freshmen and sophomores believed the separation of church and state to be the key Baptist distinctive. In addition, an average of 61.5% of freshmen and sophomores believed that the article in the constitution about religious freedom consisted of the most influential period of Baptist history. In 1962, an average of 16.75% of freshmen and sophomores would agree to the acceptance of any federal aid (Theological attitude questionnaire results, 1962).
Baylor was not just experiencing debates of religious liberty regarding governmental aid, but also in its understandings of students’ denominations and voluntary religious freedoms. In 1969, Baylor student leaders brought to light a perceived issue that forced worship and chapel violated one’s freedom of conscience. These arguments were supported by The Baptist Standard which illustrated that forced worship conflicts with the traditional Baptist principle that God made man free. These Baylor student leaders recommended that Baylor provide an alternative to chapel outside of taking a religion course as a substitute or more extremely attending another college. The students proposed a brief course on the central, vital issues of theology and ethics to replace mandatory worship to better coincide with tradition Baptist doctrine (Moore et al., 1969).
J. M. Dawson Studies
Baylor could be considered a leader in church-state relations due to its home of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies program. Created in 1957, the purpose of the J. M. Dawson Institute was to integrate church-state studies into the university curriculum, stimulate intellectual interest, and encourage research and publication in the area of church and state relations (Wood, 1971) through research in church-state relationships at various governmental levels (The story of the J. M. Dawson Studies, n.d.). The choice to host the institute at Baylor was strategic. “Universities have been the places where great movements for humanity… and liberty… and freedom have begun” (Grey, 1957, p. 6) and Baylor specifically was chosen due to its prestige as the largest Baptist University in the world, its great reputation in scholarship, and standing in the field of religious education (Grey, 1957).
The J. M. Dawson Institute at Baylor not only created great educational opportunities for its own students in addition to serving as a model to other colleges and universities in church-state studies. By the end of the 1960s, the J. M. Dawson Institute, and furthermore Baylor, was home to a graduate degree program in church-state studies, the J. M. Dawson Church-State Research Center, a lecture series on church and state relations, several book publications, and the national Journal of Church and State. The journal brought national recognition and praise to Baylor and allowed Baylor’s students and scholars to participate in religious liberty education (Wood, 1971). Undergraduate Baylor students reaped the benefits of the institute as the J. M. Dawson Institute created handbooks called Readings in Church and State, which traced the development of the separation of church and state in American history and were utilized in Political Science 202, History 105, and Religion III at the undergraduate level (The story of the J. M. Dawson Studies, n.d.; Wood, n.d.). These educational practices came in an era in which the nation’s, and Baptists alike, understanding of religious liberty was in constant flux and debate.
Funding at Baylor University in the 1960s
Formerly a law professor, Dean of the Law School, and Executive Vice President of Baylor University, Abner V. McCall assumed presidency of Baylor in 1961. McCall also served as president of the BGCT from 1964-1965. McCall upheld traditional Baptist views on campus life social issues and a limited federal government (Baylor University, n.d.; McCall, 1965-c). Within a decade of growing college enrollments nationwide, McCall helped Baylor navigate campus expansion, raised enrollment numbers, and improved the financial conditions of the university (Baylor University, n.d.). Despite McCall’s success in improving Baylor’s financial condition in the 1960s, Baylor was in constant search for additional funds to finance new or renovated academic buildings and dormitories due to rising enrollment rates. McCall frequently noted that although Baptists typically do a better job at supporting their schools, Southern Baptists could not sufficiently fund their institutions to the needed level of quality (McCall, 1965-d; Miller, 1966). Prior to 1961, some Texas Baptist colleges and universities accepted low-interest government loans to help finance new dormitories. Baylor specifically had built several dormitories with these loans and in 1960 were approved to build a new women’s dormitory with these funds (“Baylor church-state relations,” 1961). These plans for a new women’s dormitory changed as the BGCT sought clarity on how the church-state principles affected higher education.
Government Loans in 1961
To align with other Baptist efforts to examine current church-state breaches in principle, the BGCT appointed a special committee in 1959 to study which institutions had received money, gifts, or grants from the government, whether that be in the forms of loans or direct grants. The goal of this committee was to suggest guiding principles for Baptist institutions on the basis of funding (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). These guiding principles were collected and presented in the Basden Report in 1961.
The Basden Report from the Special Committee on Church-State Relations (1961) recommended that the BGCT “re-affirm the historic Baptist position of unequivocal opposition to all direct aid, money, or property to church schools, colleges, and other church institutions” (p. 4). Rather, these institutions should be funded through denominational organizations, churches, individual Southern Baptists, or other private organizations. The Basden Report’s recommendation aligned with many current Baptist practices of higher education funding. However, the report included the recommendation to end any governmental loans. At the time, many Baptists’ believed that federal loans for dormitory construction were constitutional under the welfare concept of the state to provide housing or on the argument that money loaned is returned to the government and therefore not a subsidy (thus, Baylor utilized these loans until the BGCT voted against this policy in 1961) (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). However, in 1961, the Special Committee on Church-State Relations looked towards the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1947 Everson Case which stated that that no tax can be used for any religious institution, to rule out any loan program for religious institutions. In addition, as seen in the Engle v. Vitale case, Baptists believed that as each person has a voluntary relationship with faith, therefore, the common taxpayer’s money should not be used to support a religious institution (Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1962; Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). Finally, many institutional and denominational leaders feared and believed that any acceptance of government aid would allow for some degree of government control over their religious teachings (McCall et al., 1965).
Although institutions pay back government loans with a low interest at 3.5%, the average yield on government bonds is usually about 4%, which would mean that some government subsidy exists. This argument to terminate loan relations with the government largely stemmed from fear that low interest loans would create opportunity for governmental control of Baptist institutions. The committee stated, “religious liberty is far too precious a price to be sacrificed on the altar of easy money” (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). The Basden report confirmed the continued use of other funding initiative such as government loans given directly to students or the acceptance of government funds for research with care as this research advances the needs of the government and nation (Special Committee on Church-State Relations, 1961). Following the Basden Report, Baylor reversed gears and instead borrowed $600,000 from the university’s permanent endowment in addition to other commercial sources in order to build their new women’s dorm as they were no longer able to receive funds through the Federal Housing Administration Loan due to BGCT pressure (“BU board seeks dormitory funds,” 1961; Harral-b, 1965).
Joseph Dawson, a national leader in church-state studies and policy, supported the Special Committee on Church-State Relations decision. Dawson (ca. 1960s) said, “The most insidious assault is being made by selfish groups which hope to change the accepted interpretation of the Constitution in order to get tax funds for their sectarian institutions” (p. 3). However, many higher education leaders were concerned with the report’s recommendations concerning the inability to take low-income loans. Many believed that while other denominational colleges and universities will continue to grow with the financial backing of these loans, Baptist schools would be unable to build any more dormitories for several years as institutions also needed to focus on expanding academic facilities to also cope with the growing enrollments and continue to attract future students (“Baylor church-state relations,” 1961; White, 1961). The needs of higher education institutions differ from churches as colleges and universities must meet educational and health standards and therefore need extra support.
Those opposing the Basden Report’s recommendation regarding loans also expressed frustration with inconsistencies within the report arguing that Baptists were already using government services at a cost to the government (e.g., chaplains receiving reduced postal rates for publications) (White, 1961). Others argued that the Basden Report was written based off one of the oldest Baptist principles of the separation of church and state, which makes them distinct from other Protestant groups, yet furthered this distinction as tax-supported institutions could pay higher faculty salaries, charge lower tuition rates, and afford better facilities (“Baylor church-state relations,” 1961). Regardless, the Basden Report stood.
McCall’s Push for Government Loans in 1965
Four years following the Basden Report, the issue of low-interest loans was once again brought to the attention of the BGCT. Furman University in South Carolina accepted a federal grant under the Higher Education Facilities Act, and other Baptist colleges and universities nationwide were pushing to follow suit (Guinn, 1965). This time around, McCall proved to be a prominent and outspoken leader in these efforts (Miller, 1966). At Baylor, the lack of housing created one of the biggest problems in the Dean’s office. By 1965, Baylor had already let more students live off campus yet still ran into inadequate housing on campus (Harral-a, 1965). Dorms were overcrowded and in need of renovations (McKinney, 1965).
In their article, “Can Baptist Colleges Afford Isolation Instead of Cooperation?” (McCall et al., 1965) McCall and fellow presidents from Furman University, Mercer University, Stetson University, and Wake Forest College McCall stated their arguments by recognizing the changing needs and times of higher education. A common resistance to accepting loans stemmed from fear of governmental aid opening the door for government control. McCall combated this argument by pointing out current inconsistencies in which Baptists were already in cooperation with the government (e.g., church exemption to property tax, special mailing rates for religious periodicals, and others) whether it accepted aid or not. In addition, donors and charities were already donating with strings attached (McCall, 1965-a; McCall et al., 1965). Within higher education, accrediting firms created many more regulations that any sort of government control, yet positively affected the quality of education. Higher education utilized standards for college faculty, the number of hours faculty can teach, standards for curriculum, admission procedures, and many more (“Baptist institutions,” 1965). Amongst these outside controls, McCall stated that “the current governmental regulations have changed our denominational colleges. However, they have not made them less Christian” (McCall, 1965-a) and increased the quality of education (McCall, ca. 1965). McCall noted that government funding does not equal government control as government aid has helped keep some Baptist colleges afloat prior to 1961. McCall argued that the federal government has never attempted to control the religious teachings at Baylor or any other Texas Baptist institution (McCall, 1965-a; Turner, 1965).
The president’s article regarding isolation and cooperation encouraged Baptists to not see current church and state arrangements as inconsistencies, but rather state them positively in terms of “cooperation that seeks to preserve both independence and interdependence” (McCall et al, 1965). McCall believed that when viewing church-state relations with this lens, the Baptist principle remains strong and consistent. McCall also appealed to Protestant motivations in saying that the matter boils down to following Christ’s command to accepting all rather than turning away the “sick, suffering, and poor” because this arrangement violates church-state separation (Turner, n.d.).
A Changing Society Requires a Change in Funding.
McCall also appealed to the needs of higher education and times of society. In decades prior, the federal government had increased financial aid for both private and public institutions through various plans (e.g. the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963) to help meet a national emergency. McCall argued that not only would these government loans help to alleviate the needs of Baptist institutions, but with better funding, Baptist universities could better serve its nation—a strong Baylor value as expressed in its motto (McCall, ca. 1965). Ideally, Southern Baptists could fully fund Baptist institutions of higher education to eliminate the need for any outside aid, yet to this point in history, Southern Baptist funding had failed to meet complete funding needs (McCall, 1965-a). Even state institutions were looking to private funds in addition to government loans to alleviate their financial needs (Harral, 1965-d). Baptist leaders had discussions regarding the possibility of schools closing. Orin Cornett, a Washington Baptist layman thought parallel to McCall in saying that Baptist schools had the choice to, “accept federal funds and try to ‘maintain our integrity,’ refuse federal grants and suffer a decline in educational standards, or close the school (Baptist Press, 1965).
McCall noted that the First Amendment was easy to apply in its original context as colleges and other welfare operations were left to the people. However, by the ‘1960s, changes in society and operations of the government have created new forms of church-government relations (“Baptist institutions,” 1965). As a result, although changing Baptist policies would come with great difficulty, McCall believed that the denomination would be forced to change their stance regarding governmental aid in the upcoming decade (McCall, 1965-b).
Along with McCall, nearly all of the forty-two Baylor board of trustees (1 voted no while 5 abstained from voting due to conflicting interests by holding positions on the Special State-Church relations subcommittee) passed the notion to suggest to the BGCT that colleges and universities should once again be able to use federal loans on self-liquidating projects such as new dorms (“Trustees seek loan privilege,” 1965). Therefore, McCall suggested to the BGCT that the convention adopt a policy that each institution’s board of trustees should be given the responsibility to accept or decline government loans as Baptist trustees are dedicated Baptists and are equally eager to preserve religious liberty (McCall et al., 1965; McCall, ca. 1965). However, these loans were not to be accepted unless Baptist funds proved inadequate, were needed for proper education, or if trustees deemed the loan agreement conditions to allow for governmental attempts to control religion (McCall, ca. 1965). Baylor was not alone in these efforts. Out of the then ten higher education institutions of the BGCT, the trustees of Hardin-Simmons University and Howard Payne College also passed similar resolutions (Harral, 1965-d).
McCall and Other Voices.
Outside of McCall’s involvement with other presidents, McCall was poised as a vocal leader on this issue. At Baylor, McCall’s thoughts frequently made the pages of The Lariat, Baylor’s student-run newspaper. McCall was also quoted in newspapers statewide. The Central Texas Bureau of news said of McCall, “One of the biggest Baptists of all told Texas Baptists to their face what other people have said behind their backs for years… Baptists have never maintained pure separation of church and state and even more increased involvement with fast-expanding government is inevitable” (Turner, 1965).
McCall and others’ push to accept governmental loans did not come without major push-back. McCall received many letters of disapproval from pastors, higher education leaders, layman, parents, and others (Office of the President, 1965). Editor of the Baptist Standard, Dr. E. S. James got the attention of many when noting that he would vote against federal loans as they are the first step towards taking direct aid in the form of grants, which “[would] be the beginning of the end for Baptist related institutions” (Harral, 1965-c). James also pointed out that institutions are voluntarily putting themselves under voluntary control as some schools don’t technically need to be accredited (Harral, 1965-c). Others noted they would rather have Baptist institutions cut back on course offerings rather than accept federal aid (Harral, 1965-d). Amidst Baptist uncertainties with the interpretation of the religious liberty principle, Guinn (1965) stated, “Baptists played a significant part in ploughing this idea of religious liberty into the nation’s conscience a long time ago. The battle has been thrust upon us again. Is it possible that our convictions are not as deep as those of our forefathers?” (p. 9).
Baylor students also weighed in on the matter. A straw vote displayed that Baylor students favored the acceptance of federal loans for building construction by a small margin of 518 to 495, while 128 students were undecided. Of those students who favored accepting government aid for construction, 389 of the 518 believed that the acceptance of federal aid would not lead to federal control while 50 students believed aid would lead to federal control, and 69 students unsure on the matter (“Students favor building aid,” 1965).
The BGCT’s 1965 Decision.
As the noise level of Baptist higher education leaders started to rise again in the 1965, the BGCT once again appointed a Special Church-State Committee to reevaluate the Basden Report. In 1966, the special committee recommended that the BGCT re-affirm the recommendations in the Basden report, once again determining that government loans of any kind would allow for possible governmental control (Special Church-State Committee, 1966).
The report noted that Baptists have insisted that the best protection of religious liberty then comes through a separation of church and state which should guide its policies (Special Church-State Committee, 1966). Accepting any form of loans through taxpayer dollars opposes the principle of religious liberty as all tax money is coerced. This report helped lead to a long debate at the BGCT annual meeting, resulting in a 739 to 536 vote in favor of continuing to not accept government aid (Darden, 1966).
Conclusion
As the nation sought to determine the principle of religious liberty, Baylor University had its own challenges regarding its understanding of this prominent Baptist doctrine. Controversies regarding government financial aid and the potential attached government control sparked these religious liberty discussions. Under President McCall’s lead, Baylor navigated its traditional Baptist beliefs on the separation of church and state with challenges regarding governmental funding and religious freedom on campus.