Leaders of the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) have been having a lot of meetings during the last year and a half. Matters finally came to a head last month when the thirty-six-member AACC general committee met in the tiny West African nation of Togo. After a week-long meeting, the committee declined to go along with General Secretary Burgess Carr’s wish that the headquarters be moved from Kenya, ordered construction of a Nairobi headquarters building to go full speed ahead, refused to accept Carr’s resignation, and gave him a fifteen-month sabbatical leave.
Although Carr, a 43-year-old Anglican priest, was not fired, the actions at Lome (Togo’s capital city) might have marked the effective end of his influence over much of the African church. It was a much different scene from that of December, 1975, when the World Council of Churches’ assembly met in Nairobi. Carr was then very much in command as Kenyan president Jomo Kenyatta and WCC dignitaries turned out for a ceremony launching construction of the new AACC headquarters.
Even though the general committee passed a formal resolution affirming “total support and sympathy for the general secretary,” the fiery Liberian ecumenist’s future was left in doubt. Contrasting public statements suggested that the government of Kenya might not allow Carr to re-enter the country. The influential Nairobi publication Weekly Review said the committee’s actions in Lome were “an unveiled encouragement” to the AACC official “to look for another job.” Meanwhile, Carr’s associate general secretary, Sarwat G. Shehata of Egypt, was named acting general secretary.
Standing with Carr at the 1975 ceremonies and still standing with him last month was his old friend Philip Potter, general secretary of the World Council of Churches. Carr was on the WCC staff before going to the AACC. In a press statement issued in Geneva, Potter said, “Canon Burgess Carr, by his deep Christian commitment, his boundless energy, and his remarkable political sensitivity, has brought to the AACC new dimensions in its witness.”
Time magazine reported that Carr would be given a teaching post at Harvard Divinity School next academic year and that he was to be a research fellow at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs until then. Harvard officials would not confirm the appointment since the Harvard Corporation had not approved it, but a source close to the development said the African ecumenist would become a visiting lecturer in ecumenical relations, either for the full year or for the fall semester. Carr was working on a doctorate at Harvard when he went to the WCC.
Carr’s difficulties within the AACC and with officials in the host nation of Kenya became public knowledge in June,
1976, though insiders had been expressing unhappiness long before that. A member of Kenya’s parliament, Wachira Waweru, told the parliament that an “African head of a church organization” was acting like a tyrant “and made office girls pregnant and went about iwht other people’s wives.” The MP said he was prepared to name the man and give evidence, but parliamentary techniques were used to shut off discussion. However, the government-operated Voice of Kenya, in a radio commentary this year, identified Carr as the man. The commentary said his “scandalous and adultery ous” conduct “provoked such an outcry that it warranted debate in the National Assembly.”
After the charge made on the floor of the parliament hit the press, the Anglican archbishop of Kenya, Festo Olang, wrote a “letter to the editor” about the matter. He suggested that the “church leader” might have been a “self-styled type, as the number of such church leaders is on the increase.” Olang went on to say that “no established church would allow such a character to continue in its leadership with such low moral conduct. Furthermore, disciplinary measures would be taken at the very first offence.”
Though Anglican, Carr is not under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Olang. He is a clergyman of the Diocese of Liberia, which is a missionary diocese of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). He was formerly a canon in Monrovia. Under Anglican practice, any charges against him would have to be referred to the bishop of the diocese in which he is “canonically resident,” that is, Liberia.
Much of the discussion in Togo was behind closed doors, but Carr did not respond directly to charges about his conduct in his address to the general committee. According to the published text of the speech, the general secretary declared that “tribulation has struck at our organization itself.” He recalled that a publication of the rival Association of Evangelicals of Africa and Madagascar (AEAM) alleged that there had been “all manner of debauchery, drunkenness, sex, etc.” at the last AACC assembly (in Lusaka, Zambia, in 1974). He then went on to say that the “enemies” of Africa are trying to destroy the AACC because of its “prophetic” political stances.
“The enemy,” said Carr, “appears to have succeeded in disguising his purpose behind the façade of moralism and piety. But this is nothing new. Repression always justified itself in moral terms, even in religiously moral terms. I hope you will be able to move beyond the level of personal morality—whatever the case—and deal with the larger issue that haunts the continuing existence of the AACC.”
The AACC general secretary then accused the government of Kenya and members of his staff of undermining his efforts and “collaborating with our enemies to destroy everything I have tried to build up over the last six years.” He added, “The situation is very bad; so bad that it has necessitated the calling of an emergency meeting of this general committee.” He asked the panel to decide whether the AACC “can continue on its present course … or whether and how it may have to make compromises in order to appease those hostile to us.”
In the next paragraph of the published text Carr spoke of forces that “have found a way of penetrating even the churches and using them.” He then suggested that part of the “tribulation” of the AACC might be related to the fact that Nairobi was the site of the 1976 Pan African Christian Leadership Assembly (PACLA) and is the African headquarters of World Vision. PACLA’s planners were generally considered to be evangelicals, but the assembly was probably the most representative meeting of African church leaders ever convened (see January 21, 1977, issue, page 45). It included people aligned with the AACC as well as people aligned with the AEAM, and it received criticism from both sides.
One of the speakers at PACLA was John Gatu, general secretary of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa. Gatu is a highly respected African churchman who is active in ecumenical circles. Since the Lusaka assembly he has been the chairman of the AACC general committee. He is a product of the East African Revival and is often identified as an evangelical.
As a citizen of Kenya and a leader of the AACC, Gatu was put on the spot by the crisis. He issued a statement that carefully sidestepped the misconduct charges against Carr. Gatu spoke of the meetings of the officers and of the executive committee that have been held since “very adverse and negative press reports” began to appear. “In the course of these meetings,” he noted, “both the officers, the executive [committee], and Kenyan church leaders have upheld the general secretary, and press statements have been published expressing confidence in him.” He also said, “Whatever critics—and they are many—will say about AACC success or its failures, it is an undoubtful fact that Canon Burgess Carr has put AACC on the world map more particularly since Lusaka.”
Gatu continued, “Those of us who have lived closer to Canon Carr know what a tremendous wealth of varied gifts he has brought to AACC—his eloquence in explaining and defining problems of the churches in Africa, his sensitivity to political and social issues, and his ability to give theological interpretations and concerns both locally and internationally, are just a few to mention. We certainly wish to thank God and thank him for this.”
The general committee defended Carr in stronger terms. Its resolution began by noting that the meeting in Lome was “under the chairmanship” of the AACC president, Richard Andriamanjato of Madagascar.
“With regard to the allegations related to the supposedly undignified conduct of the general secretary,” the resolution stated, “the AACC general committee after due investigation denounces the deliberate will of certain personalities to use systematic defamatory and disparaging weapons to destroy the reputation of a person who has fundamentally identified himself with the struggle of Africa today and has in clear terms made the voice of the church militant heard. The general committee recalls that in the long history of the church and that of churchmen who are called to play a prophetic role, the moral scandal and particularly the sexual scandal has been used at different times to discredit such persons and to destroy their reputation and their work. The general committee affirms that in this particular regard the right remains with the church to pronounce a possible judgment.”
The Lome resolution also defended Carr’s political activities, noting that they were in accord with positions taken by responsible AACC bodies. The document maintained that “the crisis through which the organization is passing today is only the result of attacks by reactionary tendencies meant to thwart those activities of the AACC aimed at liberation and justice.” The committee also resolved it would “never give up in the face of conspiracies against the AACC,” and it urged “all organizations and churches with whom the AACC has relations of solidarity and fellowship not to make hasty judgment based on rumors.”
The general committee ended its resolution on the Kenyan crisis with a gentle reminder to the headquarters nation that it still needs “the privileges and immunities which are normally granted to an international organization.”
Government officials in Nairobi were less than happy to hear of Carr’s fiery Lome speech and the committee’s defense. One of the most influential persons in the Kenyatta cabinet, Attorney General Charles Njonjo, told reporters he was “very furious,” because he had taken great pains to explain to Andriamanjato and others the situation facing the AACC. He denied that Kenya wanted to expel the headquarters, but he said “the AACC is not one man called Canon Burgess Carr and neither is he the AACC.” He added, “This man should now watch his step. He must not attempt to set foot here; otherwise we will turn him away.”
Carr, in Liberia, replied quickly. He said the announcement that Njonjo would refuse him entry “has come as no surprise to me. For the past two years Mr. Njonjo has relentlessly pursued the objective of removing me from office as general secretary of the AACC. Now … he has elected to abuse the powers of his office by declaring me a ‘prohibited immigrant’ to Kenya where my headquarters are located.” After a few days, when feelings had apparently cooled somewhat, Gatu reported, “It has been confirmed to us by the attorney general that Rev. Canon Burgess Carr has not been banned from entering Kenya.”
Throughout the crisis, Gatu has been the man in the middle. The Weekly Review noted that the Lome actions only made things more difficult for Kenyan church leaders who have been supporters of the AACC. The publication said in its analysis, “Rumors about Carr’s conduct have all along placed a stumbling block in the relations of the Liberian church leader and the Kenyan leaders. Carr’s own personal assistant, the Rev. Clement Janda of Sudan, recently summarized what appears to be Carr’s own attitude toward the rumors. Janda said that in a conversation with Gatu in early December last year he had discovered that Gatu was concerned about personal lives and conduct of the AACC staff. ‘He said that it had been reported to him that the staff in parties drink alcohol and behave badly with the opposite sex,’ Janda reported. ‘I told him that he must realize that churchmanship varies in Africa considerably. It would be a mistake to judge other Africans according to East African Revival standards.’ ” The Weekly Review quoted another Carr assistant, Miss Ibronke Lardner, as having told Gatu that “the downfall of the AACC will be placed fairly and squarely on his shoulders.”
How Andriamanjato, the AACC president, stands on the issue is unclear. The Madagascar preacher-politician and Carr are known to have similar views on the general political situation in Africa, however, and both are outspoken advocates of “liberation.” Andriamanjato has long been associated with the Prague-based Christian Peace Conference and last December was named president of the affiliated African Christian Peace Conference. Carr attended the CPC meeting in Sierra Leone at which Andriamanjato became president of the African CPC.
Both Andriamanjato and Gatu are concerned about support for the AACC, from both inside and outside Africa. More than 80 per cent of the organization’s finances come from outside the continent. Much of the external support has been generated by the WCC, but it was reported at the Lome meeting that the foreign contributions have dropped significantly. Some overseas organizations either reduced or suspended their giving in the midst of the crisis. Whether Potter’s statement backing the AACC will help with funding remains to be seen.
In many ways the AACC is the WCC’s prime showcase of regional ecumenism. It has included as official representatives many leaders of churches that are evangelical, but its staff work has been financially undergirded mostly by “liberal” groups in Europe and North America.
In sharp contrast is the situation in South America. The WCC has poured money into that continent for years in an attempt to organize a similar regional body, but the evangelical denominations have generally refused to send official representatives. Little financial support has come from within South America for the several “interim” ecumenical bodies spawned by WCC effort.
Thus the outcome of the AACC crisis will have far-reaching effects in either attracting or repelling interested observers of the WCC’s brand of continental solidarity.
Muted Concern For Israel’s Law
Jewish leaders in America and Israel are usually in the forefront of crusades for civil and religious liberties, but they are now in a delicate situation that has caused many of them to seek a low profile. An amendment to the penal code of Israel that goes into effect April 1 is viewed by many Christians as an “anti-missionary law.” It forbids “material inducement” to get someone to change religions. The United Christian Council in Israel and other bodies interested in Christian activity there have insisted they are as opposed to “material inducement” as the Orthodox Jews are, but they claim the law is so vague as to allow for interpretations that could stop much Christian work. (See February 10 issue, page 54.)
“Free Bible distribution might well be banned,” said Terje Hartberg, business manager of the Bible Society in Israel. In a report circulated by the United Bible Societies he said that the new legislation also “might be interpreted in such a way that curbs all diaconal activity in the Christian communities.”
In Geneva, General Secretary Carl Mau of the Lutheran World Federation said the law was a matter of grave concern and he fears it may harm Jewish-Christian relations. He made the comments after receiving a delegation sent abroad by the United Christian Council.
What the council representatives called “scurrilous verbal attacks on the Christian Church” at the time of the law’s passage last December have been tempered somewhat by Rabbi Yehuda Abramowitz, chief sponsor of the legislation, according to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the American Jewish Committee. Tanenbaum said that Bernard Resnikoff, director of the AJC’s office in Israel, spoke with Abramowitz about the effects of the new law. Abramowitz reportedly replied, “Don’t take my statement seriously.”
Resnikoff also scheduled meetings with representatives of Prime Minister Begin and the ministry of justice. The spokesmen for the government have given no indication that anything will be done to prevent the law from taking effect on schedule.
Tanenbaum, whose portfolio includes fostering good relations between the Jewish and Christian communities, has been the main exception to American Jews’ rule of silence on the new law. He said in a syndicated radio commentary originated by New York station WINS (West-inghouse) that “many influential Jewish leaders both in Israel and in the United States” are concerned about the law.
“We have communicated our opposition to the highest authorities in Israel,” he said. “Jews have suffered more than enough from denial of religious liberty and will not allow denial to be inflicted on others, especially in a Jewish state.”
Other Jewish leaders have sent strong messages to Israel, they say privately, but the contents have not been released. Asked about the possibility of repeal, an Israeli representative in New York would say only that the parliamentary process is very involved and would take time. To that, Tanenbaum responded that “they are masters” at finding ways to change things that need changing.
Peace of Mind For a Price
How much does peace of mind cost? The security director for the Washington office of B’nai B’rith was quoted in the Washington Star as saying that $250,000 was spent to install an electronic defense system “to put employees’minds at ease” following the March, 1977, Hanafi Muslim takeover of the building (see April 1, 1977, issue, page 48). The security officer, Jim King, formerly a detective sergeant, told a reporter that no staff members have complained about the measures. In fact, some want even more. “They would like bars everywhere,” he added, “like a jail.”
The Jewish organization’s building near Scott Circle was one of three seized by Hanafi sect members to protest the release of a movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God. The others were the Islamic Center and the District Building (Washington’s city hall), where a reporter was killed in the siege. There were also numerous injuries, and some illnesses of hostages have been attributed to the takeover.
At B’nai B’rith headquarters now, all who enter are seen on closed-circuit television before they can pass through electronically controlled doors. They must show identity cards to a guard. All packages and luggage must be inspected. If a guard senses trouble, he can press a button to release crash gates that seal off key areas. There is an emergency public-address system. The organization has had to increase its budget for security personnel as well as for the new equipment.
It’S Official: Poland
Last year it was Hungary. This looks like the year for Poland on Billy Graham’s schedule. The evangelist has received his second official invitation to preach in an Eastern-bloc nation. Polish Baptist leaders announced last month that the government’s vice-minister for non-Catholic groups, T. Dusik, had given them the official word that Graham could accept a long-standing invitation to come to Poland.
The European Baptist Press Service reported that Walter Smyth of the Graham team had already told the Poles that when the official invitation was cleared the evangelist would clear his calendar of other engagements to accept. The calendar has an available slot in September, however, before a series of engagements in Scandinavia. The meetings in Hungary last September (see September 23, 1977, issue, page 44, and October 7, 1977, issue, page 52) were Graham’s first in Eastern Europe since he preached in Yugoslavia in 1967.
In contrast, no guards are visible at the Islamic Center. Its director, Muhammad A. Rauf, was one of the fifteen hostages held by the Hanafis there last year. He pointed out that there was no bloodshed then because there were no guards then. Visitors still move freely at the center, and Rauf said nothing had been done to beef up security. “We depend on God,” he said. “It’s not possible to get full protection. We feel we are more protected this way.”
A synagogue across the street from the Hanafi headquarters added electronic security devices after the siege.
Still in the courts are the appeals of the twelve Hanafis involved in the takeover of the buildings. If the appeals court allows the current sentences to stand, ten of the twelve will be very old men when they get out of prison. Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, the leader, is now fifty-seven and will not be eligible for parole until he is ninety-seven. Abdul Muzikir, convicted of the second-degree murder of the reporter, is now twenty-three and will be eligible for parole in seventy-six more years. The sentences are being served in prisons scattered across the nation. Wives of the men recently wrote their lawyers saying their husbands had already served enough time. A prosecutor in the case said the stiff sentences were “a message to the world that terrorism is not going to be tolerated in this community.”
NAE: Calling For Justice
The flavor was academic as the National Association of Evangelicals held its thirty-sixth annual convention last month in Minneapolis. The theme, officially, was “God’s Mandate—Our Mission,” but the emphasis was on justice.
David L. McKenna, president of Seattle Pacific University and the convention’s program coordinator, gave the keynote address. He challenged the delegates to consider the relevance of the prophet Micah’s admonition to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God.
Among the convention’s answers was a position paper aimed at meeting both spiritual and social needs. “Justice and mercy met at Calvary,” said the document, “requiring us to affirm our responsibility to demonstrate the gracious kindness of God by word and deed in our lives. This justice and mercy requires that God’s people make God’s eternal standards for societal life known to the highest realms of power and authority.” While not specifically speaking of the role of the organized church in seeking justice, the paper said, “We must never lose sight of the need for individual commitment and collective response to the issues of human justice, global compassion, and personal holiness.”
Another speaker was a second college president from the state of Washington, Edward Lindaman of United Presbyterian-related Whitworth College in Spokane. Also coming from the academic community was historian Timothy L. Smith of Johns Hopkins University. Well-known preachers on the program were exiled Ugandan Anglican bishop Festo Kivengere and “Lutheran Hour” speaker Oswald Hoffmann.
Among the resolutions passed by the convention was one asking the federal government to take a look at its own stewardship. The document noted increasing government interest in the fiscal policies of religious organizations and asserted that the NAE supports “the basic standards of responsible fund management and accountability.” Then the resolution turned to the federal establishment and said that it, too, must keep its financial house in order. The NAE, said the document, is concerned that the U.S. government “continues to incur such a debt … that the interest payments alone are now $200 million per working day. We view with concern the proposed budget which will increase our debt by $60 billion and according to the predictions of some, by more than $90 billion. Such an economic profligacy means that our imagined present prosperity is actually being enjoyed by us at the expense of the unearned incomes of our greatgrandchildren.”
The resolution warned direly that “the economic collapse which is threatened by run-away inflation could produce starvation, pillage, revolution, military invasion—the end of all those things which we hold dear.” The NAE then called on the government “to take to itself a new sense of economic responsibility including a balanced budget, more careful spending, the limitation of its bureaucratic growth,” a program described as one that alone “can reduce taxation, inspire personal responsibility, and build for a more stable future.”
A resolution calling for support of the Panama Canal treaties got a brief hearing but was sent back to the executive committee. That body is unlikely to vote on it before the Senate votes, in the opinion of an NAE veteran.
Floyd Robertson, a member of the NAE Washington staff since 1960 and secretary of the office of public affairs since 1974, was named layman of the year at the convention. The retired Navy officer has been executive secretary of the NAE’s Commission on Chaplains since 1960.
Carl H. Lundquist, president of Bethel College and Seminary in St. Paul for twenty-four years, is the new president of the NAE. He succeeds Nathan Bailey, president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Active In Politics
Lynden is a rural community just south of the Canadian border in Whatcom County in northwestern Washington. It is in an area long known for prosperous farms and winning basketball teams. It has been gaining attention more recently as a center for Christian political action, thanks to Roger L. Van Dyken, 32, and his fellow members of Concerned Christian Citizens for Political Action (CCCPA).
The organization, which Van Dyken founded several years ago, focuses primarily on county politics but keeps an eye on state issues that affect Whatcom County residents. In last November’s election, as in preceding ones, CCCPA members researched the issues, surveyed the electorate, and encouraged area residents to vote. CCCPA rarely endorses a candidate or issue, but the November ballot included an anti-pornography initiative designed to close hardcore-porno movie houses and bookstores, and CCCPA voiced its support. (About 55 per cent of the voters in Whatcom County backed the initiative, which received about the same support around the state. Using voter surveys, CCCPA had projected a 59 per cent favorable vote. Van Dyken attributed the difference to a last-minute wide-scale advertising campaign mounted by initiative opponents.)
Five of six candidates endorsed by CCCPA won seats in the county election. They are part of a panel that will write a county charter under the state’s home-rule statute.
In addition, CCCPA published its annual Election Guide, a local best seller, and it sponsored a pre-election conference that featured a discussion of the issues by proponents and opponents.
The basis for membership in CCCPA “is simply a desire to work together for communal Christian political action,” says Van Dyken, who served as a legislative assistant for former Maryland congressman Larry Hogan and as an organizer in the 1972 Nixon presidential campaign in southern California. He dropped out of the national political scene in favor of a less harried life on a farm in his wife’s hometown of Lynden and as a teacher at Lynden Christian High School. Eventually, he became involved in community affairs and today directs several groups, including private educational organizations. He also serves as executive director of CCCPA.
CCCPA members pay no dues. The organization, however, does solicit donations, enough to meet its current budget of more than $10,000. In return, members receive a newsletter, the Election Guide, and a way to become active participants in the local political scene.
A coordinating committee helps to steer CCCPA. The committee, explains Van Dyken, only “energizes the political conscience, and then coordinates any resultant political efforts on the part of the community.” CCCPA’s role is more as a “stimulus than as a power broker,” he adds. “Power is a by-product.” Says he: “We want to encourage people to think ‘Christianly’ for themselves, making up their own minds with the perspective and facts they can obtain from us and other sources.”
CCCPA is not representative of any larger group, according to its leaders. In fact, says Van Dyken, it has deliberately limited itself to Whatcom County, whose 80,000 residents are about evenly divided between rural areas and the county seat of Bellingham, a university town. However, although CCCPA is a non-partisan and non-denominational organization, its outlook has been shaped by the conservative Christian Reformed Church, which has a prominent presence in the area. (Van Dyken is a member).
Van Dyken says CCCPA got its start from an earlier unsuccessful campaign to gain federal income-tax credit for private school tuition and later from the frustration of the Watergate scandal. The area once was a Republican stronghold, but voting patterns have become more balanced since Watergate.
People here may have felt “a sense of guilt after Watergate,” Van Dyken says. “Initially there was a sense of helplessness, for it seemed there was no vehicle by which to voice concern or accomplish something positive.”
Van Dyken and other CCCPA leaders believe they’ve changed that attitude. In an action that seems to have symbolic overtones, they’ve invited Born Again author Charles Colson, an ex-Watergate figure and former top Nixon aide, to speak at CCCPA’s rally next fall.
STEVE ELLIS
Back on the Beat
Without his familiar clerical collar, Lester Kinsolving went back to the U.S. Capitol’s press galleries last month. He returned exactly a year after losing his pass in a dispute with the standing committee of correspondents over his outside speaking activities (see March 18, 1977, issue, page 57, and April 15, 1977, issue, page 58).
The priest-journalist had appealed his dismissal to the Senate Rules Committee, which directed the correspondents’ panel to settle the dispute. The rules provide that no representative of a foreign nation can be admitted, and Kinsolving’s paid appearances at some stockholder meetings debating South African investments had been considered a violation by the majority of the pass-granting panel.
Kinsolving was asked to write the correspondents a letter, admitting past violations and pledging to comply with the rules in the future. He refused to admit any guilt but noted that he had not accepted any fees to appear at stockholder meetings since May, 1976. He also pledged to abide by the rules and regulations in the future. In a prepared statement the syndicated columnist said the intervention by the Senate Rules Committee was the first of its sort since 1948. He added, “The Rules Committee has enabled me to state my future intentions without self-incrimination regarding the past.”
Kinsolving did not stay long at the Capitol on his first day back. He had to hurry down to the White House to cover a briefing by some of the very people he blamed for having him pushed out of the congressional galleries: leaders of the National Council of Churches. He contends that NCC agents took the initiative to revoke his credentials because he showed up at stockholder meetings to oppose NCC representatives on questions of corporation policies in South Africa.
Ncc: Inside With Carter
There have been times when William P. Thompson stood outside the gates of the White House with his message for the people inside. Last month he took his message in. Thompson is the president of the National Council of Churches and the stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church. Leading a delegation representing the NCC, the lawyer-churchman spent about a half hour with President Carter and another half hour with some top White House aides.
This first meeting by the President with an NCC group had been in the making for months and was a part of the chief executive’s policy of hearing from a variety of groups. The session was arranged by Midge Costanza, the President’s assistant for public liaison, who talked with the NCC representatives after Carter left the Roosevelt Room.
Carter began the meeting by commending the NCC for what he called its superb record of success in applying Christian teaching “directly to human beings.” He thanked the denominational leaders for representing 40 million church members and for its “helpful and constructive” communications to the government. “We have found our interests compatible” on a number of issues, he said.
While Thompson and the NCC representatives sought to leave outside the gates some of the combativeness they used with previous administrations, they did not shrink from stating some disagreements with the Carter administration. Thompson commended Carter for “your leadership in using the symbolic and real power of your office to advance the cause of arms control and disarmament,” but he expressed distress that “you may approve the production and deployment of the neutron bomb.”
The NCC president’s opening statement also implied a disappointment in the failure of the White House to take a more public role in freeing the “Wilmington Ten” prisoners in North Carolina. The governor of that state recently declined to release the convicted fire bombers but reduced their sentences. Thompson promised to “address the continuing injustice permitted by the governor’s decision until the festering boil it represents is lanced from the body politic.” He told the President that the impact of this case weakens the voice of the United States when it tries to speak and act on human-rights violations abroad.
Thompson told Carter that the government should make full employment “the nation’s number-one priority.” He expressed pleasure with the White House plans to propose a new national urban policy and said the President’s comprehensive approach to welfare reform was very encouraging. He assured Carter of NCC support for the Panama Canal treaties and commended him for trying to get Senate ratification of the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political and Economic and Social and Cultural Rights. Thompson also plugged for Senate ratification of the Genocide Treaty, drafted thirty years ago.
Carter in turn chided the churches for not working in some areas of social concern where they might be effective. He said the government has done more to eliminate racial segregation, for instance, than the churches have. “I recognize we have a long way to go in the government,” said the Southern Baptist layman, “but on balance the government has done a better job than the churches. I say this as a member of both.”
The President concluded his remarks by assuring the NCC representatives of his prayers for “the great work this organization is doing around the world” and then asking them to pray for him. The delegation gave the President a copy of the new Revised Standard Version common Bible, including apocryphal books recognized by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Then Bishop E. P. Murchison of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church gave a closing prayer before Carter left the meeting.
In a talk with David Rubenstein of the White House domestic-policy staff, the NCC delegates questioned the increased military budget. Rubenstein responded that the proposed budget provides “very limited real growth” and would be very difficult to cut further “because so much of what we’re spending is for manpower.”
In responding to reporters’ questions after the meeting, Thompson and NCC general secretary Claire Randall said they had not asked about the White House positions on abortion, Viet Nam, Uganda, or Israel. They indicated that some of these concerns had been raised by NCC representatives at other levels of government or by member denominations. Before they went to the White House, the NCC delegates sent the President an eleven-page memorandum of their positions on several issues.
