Religious liberty has been under relentless assault in recent years. Cases have sought to banish the Ten Commandments from children’s classrooms, crèches from town greens, and Bible studies from both public schools and private homes. But now, I fear, a new line has been crossed: A District of Columbia court has ordered a Roman Catholic institution to pay the bill for homosexual dance mixers.

The case, which has aroused surprisingly little interest among evangelicals, began eight years ago. A student organization, the Gay People of Georgetown University (GPGU,) demanded recognition and funds from the university in order to sponsor gay social events and promote homosexual education. Georgetown refused, arguing diplomatically that “while it supports and cherishes the individual lives and rights of its students, it cannot subsidize this cause because it would be an inappropriate endorsement for a Catholic university.”

GPGU sued, alleging illegal discrimination. It turns out that, under the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, no organization can legally deny benefits to anyone based on “sexual orientation discrimination”—a term it defines as “male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice.”

At the initial hearing, the D.C. Superior Court sided with Georgetown. The court agreed that the general constitutional guarantee of religious freedom took precedence over Washington’s Human Rights Act.

GPGU appealed. And last November, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding: “The District of Columbia’s compelling interest in the eradication of sexual orientation discrimination outweighs any burden imposed upon Georgetown’s exercise of religion by the forced equal provision of tangible benefits.”

Translated out of legalese, this means the court believes guaranteeing homosexual rights to be so central to government’s role that it outweighs the right of religious institutions to distribute their money according to their beliefs. Thus, a local, 13-member city council was able to pass a simple ordinance, arbitrarily determining Washington’s “compelling interest”—and, sweeping aside 200 years of established constitution protections, a local court enforced it.

This is frightening. After all, what government bureaucracy doesn’t think its own interest is “compelling”?

The court did affirm that Georgetown need not give formal university recognition to GPGU, acknowledging that it could not determine what the university should think about homosexuality (though there is the implication that they would if they could). But it did force the university to further the District’s vision of equality by requiring that it finance its gay student organization.

The attitude seems clear, if not stated baldly: “Though your doctrine—to which you are entitled—is backward and unenlightened, at least we can make you behave in a progressive and enlightened fashion.” But as constitutional scholar (and Georgetown professor) Walter Berns commented, “… what qualified an American court to pass judgment on the validity of a moral teaching?”

Though the decision applies only in the District, it raises disturbing implications.

First, if this type of judicial reasoning prevails, any religious institution will be subject to the same intrusions wherever there happens to be a local anti-discrimination law that includes provisions for homosexuals. If in Illinois, then Wheaton College. If in Virginia, then CBN University. If it becomes part of national civil rights legislation, this religion bashing could blanket the country.

Second, the decision raises the prospect that other state interests might be accorded similar treatment. The reasoning suggests that any “compelling” government interest outweighs religious interest, no matter what doctrines get trampled. What of the church that ordains no women pastors? Or the Jewish seminary that admits only Jews?

To follow the logic of the D.C. decision, religious freedom is reduced to choosing prayers or humming hymns rather than deciding whom the church can hire or what groups a religious institution can support or fund. Religious institutions can be required by law to reflect every so-called civil rights trend of the moment—at least when it comes to the provision of benefits.

With so much at stake, you would expect Georgetown to appeal to the Supreme Court. Astonishingly, it did not. The university, like a man boasting of the necktie used to hang him, proclaimed the decision a victory. Since the court required the university not to recognize the gay group, just fund it, Georgetown announced it had won an important point, and could therefore give up the fight and set about to heal and rebuild.

Besides, as Georgetown’s president wrote foggily in a 10-page letter to alumni, “The University’s presence in the delicate area of teaching is needed, but may well also appeal to those to whom it is directed both as an interference and a disputable one at that.” (Heaven forbid that the church might call sin “sin,” and thus “interfere” with anyone’s free choice.)

Maybe Georgetown just suffered from legal exhaustion; granted, it fought the case for eight years. But it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the school caved in to the pressure of “enlightened” opinion. No institution wants to risk appearing to the Washington community as a bastion of homophobia. That’s a disease as dreaded among the city’s media and political elites as AIDS.

But one thing is clear. Georgetown’s surrender in refusing to contest the court’s decision has allowed this intrusive legislation to stand for any religious institution in the nation’s capital. Landmark court decisions of this type, though not directly binding elsewhere, are often used to support legal arguments in similar cases. They provide a precedent, a model of sorts.

Georgetown contends that it stood its ground, that the court’s decision was a partial victory. A few more victories like this, and there will be precious little religious liberty left to defend.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

—Genesis 2:8

Summerville, Georgia, tucked away in the northwest corner of the state, is an unlikely environment for an artist of national standing. It is, nonetheless, the home of the Reverend Howard Finster, a visionary, a prophet—and an artist of national, even international, reputation.

As it is with prophets, Finster was seen as an oddity by his community even after fame had found him in the New York and Chicago art worlds. He had turned his two-and-a-half-acre backyard into a mysterious land someone dubbed “Paradise Garden,” explaining his method thus: “I took the pieces you threw away and put them together by night and day washed by Rain dried by sun a million pieces all in one.”

He has spent years completing a five-level Folk Art Church next to the garden. He told this author that at one point he had it checked for safety by a group of architects from the University of Georgia. When they asked for his plans, it became clear the project was mapped out in Finster’s head, not on paper. It was, nonetheless, pronounced safe. Ann Oppenhimer reports (in “Sermons in Print”) that a neighbor told him his church looked like a wedding cake. Not to be bested, Finster told her that her house looked like a peanut-butter sandwich. It was only after he went to California to appear on the “Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson, and his name was in TV Guide, that his community accepted his celebrity status.

A “Second Noah”

As it is with prophets, Finster claims to see things others don’t: “I have visions of other worlds. I been out there I seen them out there I am here as a second Noah to point the people to the world beyond.”

He reports encounters with angels and superhuman figures, all fitting into a larger matrix of vision with one overriding message: “Repent.”

The art objects themselves have a power, charm, and an investigative visual sophistication that some would say places them beyond folk art and into mainstream American art. Using any available material and weather-resistant enamel paint, he transforms surfaces with words and patterns to make his images (from animals to angels, from hell to heaven, from Elvis to Jesus) and messages clear. The range of his output reflects his fertile mind: easel painting, boxes filled with layers of painted and decorated plexiglass and mirrors that tease the eyes, assemblages of casted cement.

No Art Without The Message

Finster was, however, reportedly dropped from one Washington, D.C., gallery that got tired of him calling them “infidels.” They wanted the art without the message—but that is not possible. As Peter Morrin of Atlanta’s High Museum has said, “His paintings and constructions are not reasoned depictions contrived with creative detachment, but representations of belief. Finster fashions neither illusions nor metaphors of experience, but pressing, urgent visual exhortations to a Christian life” (in “Howard Finster in Context”). “All people are on the road of eturnety no one can turn back Get ready to meet Jesus Christ face to face,” declaims a sign on the side of his studio.

Finster sees his studio as a great fountainhead from which his message and visions flow. And flow they do. The Talking Heads rock group collected his work for years, and they had him design an album cover. After it went gold, The Atlanta Journal/Constitution reports Howard as saying, “That’s 35 million messages.” As he wrote on The Great Wild Duck, a piece he did in 1984 (numbered as 3000 and 238 works of art), “Begening here in Georgia to the four winds of this earth from my last work of art to my craddle of birth. It will take a life time working day and night to reach the comers of this dark world with my little light.” As of August 1987, he had made “6000.775 work of our time,” and I have an eight-foot Jesus figure that is not numbered.

A Witness To Redemption

Howard Finster’s significance for Christian viewers (as well as for the larger community of mankind) is centered on Paradise Garden, the harbinger of his message of repentance. The thousands of objects he has scattered throughout the world can best be seen as fragments radiating from this essential core of his vision.

Walking past the ducks and chickens among the free-form concrete boulders and rusting piles of our industrial castaways, ordered and transformed by a visionary mind, one cannot help thinking of the garden eastward in Eden. To encounter oneself in the mirror fragments in a rickety shed is to be reminded how far we have fallen. Still, the transformation of trash, which is Paradise Garden, is witness to the possibility of redemption. As the trash can next to the church reminds us, “Jesus Saves.”

Despite his apparent craziness, Howard Finster proclaims a sane message: that we have come from somewhere, that we are going somewhere, and that we are not alone. Often he allows us to see these facts thorough the temporal use of space travel. He is an eternal child playing among the starts: “Through the scattered clouds I hear his voice, I know his wonderful call, when I reach the ceiling of gravity near the floor of space above, where every star is shinning bright, in the deep blue sky above … I can take a leap ten thousand miles and swing on the vines of grace, on my way to the City of Gold, skipping along through space …” (from Howard Finster’s Vision of 1982).

Howard Finster’s Paradise Garden is a signpost pointing the way to other worlds. It both looks back to the Garden of Eden and forward to a city and a garden promised by God: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7).

Now 71, Finster is slowing down—but only by his standards. He still works night and day. “My life has been a living sacrifice for you all I have no retirement,” he tells us. His compulsion continues to be fed by knowing “… some will close their curtains some will pull down shades some will hear my mesage and they will have it made.”

By Edward C. Knippers, Jr., an artist living in Arlington, Virginia.

The Words Always Come First

Author E. Margaret Clarkson has gathered nearly 70 years of her hymn texts into A Singing Heart (Hope Publishing Co.). These texts are used widely and include “We Come, O Christ, to Thee,” “The Battle Is the Lord’s,” and “So Send I You.” Her 1982 text “God of the Ages” placed first in a ct hymn contest and is included in many new hymnal editions.

In her writing, the Canadian Clarkson insists on simplicity. Having taught in grades 3–8 (with choirs to grade 10), she learned that a “teacher has to streamline and make it hum.” She wants her words to have impact “on the first bounce,” with “wide, deep, high, thoughts in simple language.” Her desire for simplicity goes so far as to “wonder why the Good Lord made the Scriptures so difficult.”

In a sense, it was simplicity that temporarily stopped Margaret Clarkson from writing: she ceased writing hymns in 1960 when “mindless ditties” became popular. Not until the generation of the sixties began “discovering great hymns” was she willing to resume her efforts. Now she feels her best hymns are those she has written since 1973—when she “realized hymn writing is a ministry.” Her personal favorites are “God of Creation, All-Powerful,” “The World Is Hushed in Wonder,” “Lord of Our Dawning,” “In Hope Our Hearts Rejoice,” and “Rejoicing in Hope We Wait for Our King.”

The Making Of Fine Hymns

A Singing Heart begins with a series of essays that reveal both the technique of this hymnodist and her insights on what makes a fine hymn.

Clarkson is one female writer who shuns “inclusivist” language—for its “irregular and distorting rhythms.… Certainly ‘humanity’ has rhymes—‘urbanity,’ ‘profanity,’ ‘insanity,’ and so on. Gilbert and Sullivan had a ball with such inanities—but they were not writing hymns,” she writes. Other essays reveal an equally personal and opinionated approach. Even Clarkson’s prose has a lilt and a bite!

The essays reveal a philosophy of work and a rationale for thoughtful (but simple) hymnody:

Write hymns that praise. Write doctrine. Avoid extraneous thoughts. Write a last stanza that cannot be omitted. If a writer needs inspiration, she suggests he or she should “cut down and split a tree by manual labor.”

The body of the book is the hymn collection. (There is no music included, but common tunes are suggested for many of the texts.) An interesting footnote follows a revised version of her hymn “So Send I You.” The early version, which was popularized by John W. Peterson’s setting, dwelt on the “difficulties and privations of the mission call.” In the new version the author has rejected that text in favor of one that is more biblical and positive, one that takes triumph and glory into account as well.

For Clarkson, words always come first. A tune should “illuminate the text”; too many “confuse it,” she insists. When asked about a complex hymn such as “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise” (not one of hers), she said, “A good tune can make a hymn accessible even if it is fairly involved theologically.”

Clarkson prefers pre-existent tunes for her hymns. Is that a distraction? No: “The type of tune I choose transcends its text; my hymns transcend the tunes.” Indeed.

By Richard J. Stanislaw, professor of music and vice-president for academic affairs at Taylor University.

The Medium Is The Problem

Unplugging the Plug-In Drug, by Marie Winn (Penguin Books, 206 pages; $7.95, paper). Reviewed by Quentin J. Schultze, professor of communication, Calvin College, and author of Television: Manna from Hollywood?

Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the people. Marie Winn credited television with the same dubious distinction in her first book on the subject, The Plug-In Drug, and now offers a cure for the habit in Unplugging the Plug-In Drug.

In her earlier book, Winn reviewed considerable evidence that showed television is addictive and makes people passive. The result is what novelist Jerzy Kosinski (Being There) called a “nation of videots.”

We are to thank Winn for shifting the focus of public discussion from the content of TV programs to the medium itself. The Christian community has frequently complained about sex and violence, while largely ignoring the impact of the medium on families, schools, and the nation.

As Winn argues, TV competes with other activities for our precious time. All of life is affected: play, sex, study, political participation. Although Winn does not address the issue, believers might also consider the impact of television viewing on our prayer life. Is there time for God in the average home where the set is on over seven hours a day? And what of the effect of TV on the quality of church fellowship?

National surveys are quite revealing. If Americans had more free time, they say they would most like to spend it with friends and relatives. How do they actually spend their available time? Watching the tube.

Tv “Turn-Offs”

Unplugging the Plug-In Drug is a handbook for schools and families that want to kick the TV habit. It’s a book so loaded with common sense that one wonders why anyone had to write it. The book is engaging and readable, thanks largely to the hundreds of excerpts from interviews with, and diaries of, people who have kicked the habit. Winn offers both advice and encouragement based on successful and unsuccessful “No TV Weeks” held in schools and homes around the country.

Winn cautions families about scheduling a Turn-Off during school vacations, high-stress periods, and special sports events, such as the World Series and the Super Bowl. She encourages families to load up on library books and other reading material before turning off the set. Winn also suggests that families decide in advance on a reward that they will share after a successful Turn-Off.

The book provides teachers and school administrators with helpful guidelines for organizing classroom TV Turn-Offs. Winn offers techniques for getting parents involved and motivating students. And she includes a list of classroom activities, such as interviewing people who grew up before the advent of television and charting family viewing habits.

Winn writes with evangelistic determination. She hopes to convict people of their TV sins and get them on the road to video sanctification. After reading pages of testimonies from happy converts, it is hard not to join her church.

Crash Diet

If Winn’s book has any major flaw, it is in the thesis that a “Turn-Off” is the best way to untangle TV from our lives. Dieters sometimes starve themselves for a few days, only to put on pounds later. Winn rightly admits that a “No-TV Week” is only a forum for increasing awareness of the problem and motivating people to do something about it. But her book lacks what humankind needs in a fallen world: a world view and lifestyle with the Creator at the center.

Winn offers few ideas about what to do when the set goes black. Reading is high on her agenda—it should be. But there are many more avenues to be explored. What about volunteer work and Christian service? What about worship and celebration? What about prayer and meditation?

In the TV age, even anti-TV campaigns can resemble the wrap-it-up-in-one-half-hour world of show business. Sanctification is a lifelong process. Revivals may get us on the right spiritual highway, but without ongoing support and encouragement the car will soon run out of gas.

Winn never suggests it, but I wonder if the church is not the ideal institution for fostering the balanced and edifying use of television. Or is TV viewing too “personal” for most local congregations to risk pronouncing the lordship of Jesus Christ over it? A courageous church will find Winn’s book an excellent place to begin.

Plymouth Rock Revisited

The New England Soul, by Harry Stout (Oxford University Press, 398 pp.; $32.50, cloth) and Worldly Saints, by Leland Ryken (Zondervan, 281 pp.; $18.95, cloth), reviewed by James Laney, pastor of New Life Church in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

H. L. Mencken provided the modern definition of Puritans as people who have a deep, foreboding fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. Two books have appeared recently that go a long way toward revising that stereotype: The New England Soul by Harry Stout, a straightforward and readable account of the early American Puritans; and Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken, a highly informative survey of English and American Puritan ideals.

Stout, a professor of American religious history at Yale University, offers a thorough study of the interaction of the preacher, the preached word, and the larger society in Colonial New England. What emerges is a portrait of the American Puritans as intense and godly Christians, eclipsing their current reputation as killjoys best noted for their scarlet letters and witch hunts.

Stout, however, is not the pioneer of such a re-evaluation. In the 1930s and 1940s, Perry Miller of Harvard set forth a perception of the Puritans that diverged widely from the prevailing view. Miller, however, has not been widely read. With his book, Stout has built upon Miller’s foundation while fashioning a story more accessible to the general reader.

Miller discovered in the minds of the first Puritan settlers profound conceptions about their role as the “redeemer nation.” Moreover, it appeared that these conceptions were, over time, so deeply woven into the American mind that to this day they inform, often unconsciously, a national dream of messianic destiny.

Preacher As Power Broker

Stout’s book, subtitled Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England, introduces five generations of preachers who bear the burden of bringing this dream to fruition. In the beginning, these men were the pre-eminent power brokers of their day, wielding an influence even more pervasive than today’s modern media. They had come with a calling and a purpose in mind; they were intent on seeing it achieved. Passing the torch to the next generation was not easy and was never a complete success, but the original message and vision of a redeemer nation proved malleable and powerful through the rapidly changing circumstances leading to the Revolutionary generation.

Stout tells a good story. Besides presenting careful research, he has drawn on a good imagination to bring the past alive. As we follow the narrative from first landing to First Continental Congress, the roots of the nation begin to appear. Meanings for America emerge, ones that prevail to this day, though dressed in garments quite different from those of the first days of “a city set on a hill.” We see the impact of New England’s religious culture on the evolving American republic. We learn that for New Englanders the Revolution was “first and foremost a battle to preserve their historic identity and messianic destiny.” We watch the common people emerge from a world based on deference and fixed hierarchical relationships to become America’s most distinctive asset.

And we learn that, contrary to the current scholarly assessment, there was not a secular drift among the ministers from the first generation to the fifth. “However much social theories and political circumstances might change, the demands of the gospel remained fixed for fifth generation ministers.”

An Identity Of Destiny

In all, the Puritan history is a story of the interplay of power, piety, and liberty: how social roles changed and how these words took on new meanings. The story comes to light because Stout has taken the time to read thousands of the unpublished sermons of the period, as well as the published ones that until now formed the basis for interpreting the Puritan experiment on these shores. Such a story—and the need to understand it—is relevant today. The interplay of power, piety, and liberty is still an underlying dynamic of our American society.

If Miller, and now Stout, are correct, there is a sense of destiny for America. From the beginning, it has been woven into our national identity. Ignoring its roots leads us astray. Embracing its ideas without knowledge creates havoc. Proper understanding of the beginnings of our nation can only enhance the work of those in all walks of life who now labor to chart the future course of this nation.

Puritan Sampler

For a general introduction to Puritan thought, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were provides an excellent starting point. Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College, offers a sampling of Puritan ideals and aphorisms on a wide range of topics.

Ryken has pulled representative excerpts from the writings of the mainstream Puritans and gives the reader a balanced and honest presentation of what they stood for, including both strengths and weaknesses. More important, he also explores what their ideas can mean to a modern believer.

The layout of the book is well suited to its purposes. For the main part, it is organized by topics: how the Puritans perceived personal concerns such as work, marriage and sex, money, the family; religious concerns such as the church and worship, the Bible, and preaching; and social concerns such as education and social action.

Ryken makes it clear to the reader that this approach is merely a convenient way to gain a better understanding of the Puritan stance. In reality, the Puritans did not compartmentalize their lives. For them, Christ unified all aspects of living.

This unified view of Christian living is one of the hallmarks of Puritanism. Ryken seeks to resurrect it and set it in context so that today’s reader might partake of such a rich legacy, and perhaps incorporate it into his or her own daily living. Of equal importance are the failures of Puritanism, some of which Ryken enumerates as warnings to all sincere and zealous believers.

Each chapter ends with a brief summary and a list of suggested reading on the topic at hand. It is an unpretentious study, obviously grown out of Ryken’s deep love and admiration of the Puritans and what they represent.

That Ryken is an English professor and not a theologian or historian is evident. Although he handles historical and theological aspects of the Puritans quite well, it is his appreciation of language and the arts that enhances this work. The captions under the illustrations, for instance, are far more perceptive than what normally fills such space.

No Room For Critics

Anyone who reads this book will gain a proper introduction to, and, no doubt, a healthy appreciation of, the Puritans. It should be kept in mind, however, that as inspiring as the Puritans can be (witness J. I. Packer’s excellent foreword), there were some deeper weaknesses in their position than those highlighted in this book. The shortcomings of the Puritans that Ryken discusses are surface manifestations of their underlying failure to comprehend fully and experience the work of the Holy Spirit. There were those in their midst, on both sides of the Atlantic, who perceived this inadequacy and sought to address it. The mainline Puritans did not, however, receive their critics at all; rather, they harried them out of the congregation.

In retrospect we can understand, without excusing, such behavior. The Puritan divines had devoted ample space in their writings to discussions of grace and the Holy Spirit and felt they had afforded such doctrines a balanced place in their view of godly living. At the same time, however, these Puritans were, without knowing it, a transitional people seeking to keep alive the medieval world view of order and unity in the midst of an emerging modern outlook of tolerance and independence.

Their critics, on the other hand, were unwittingly tossing aside the medieval and embracing the modern as they sought to accelerate spiritual renewal. Ryken points out that holding apparent opposites in tension was a Puritan strength. And the Puritans succeeded in keeping a well-tensioned balance in many areas of their lives. But the historical shift from medieval to modern was simply too monumental and shattering for them to integrate successfully.

The nobility of these men and women is that they tried. The Puritan legacy is rich and instructive. Those now known as Congregationalists and Presbyterians can most directly trace their ancestry back to these godly forebears. And Quakers have their roots in the more radical wing of the Puritan movement. But with Worldly Saints, Christians of all persuasions have a tool that provides ready access to the vast treasures of Puritan thought.

entertainment

Christian marketing agent Tim Penland and Universal Pictures are at odds over whether or not a soon-to-be-released motion picture is blasphemous. A Martin Scorsese-directed film, The Last Temptation of Christ is based on the Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name. According to Penland, the script he reviewed includes scenes that portray Jesus fantasizing over Mary Magdalene and engaging in homosexual activity with one of his disciples.

Penland was initially contacted earlier this year by Universal to help promote the film in the Christian community. “My role in this from the beginning was to help Universal build a bridge with the Christian community,” says Penland, who performed a similar service for Warner Brothers’ The Mission. However, he knew from the beginning the film might be blasphemous. The first script he read included several objectionable parts. “I marked 80 of the 120 pages as being troublesome,” he says.

Still, Penland addressed the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) earlier this year and assured them Universal would deliver a film that affirmed Christian faith. “I knew the chances were high that I was being used, but I was hoping to develop genuine dialogue between Christians and Hollywood,” says Penland. At that time he also indicated he would resign if he learned the movie was blasphemous (CT, Mar. 4, 1988, p. 43).

Bailing Out

By June 12, Penland was convinced Universal was not keeping its end of the bargain. He resigned his consulting role with them, citing a “bootlegged manuscript” and Universal’s changing of a screening for Christian leaders. “I received a copy of a new script from Reverend Donald Wildmon of the National Federation for Decency and I could see my worst fears were being realized,” says Penland. “I told them the script would offend Christians and urged them to let a group of Christian leaders preview it. When they kept putting the screening off, I knew it was time to pull out.”

Simon Kornblitt, vice-president of marketing for Universal, denies Penland’s accusations and maintains the film, due for release at the end of the summer, will affirm Christian faith. “To our knowledge, the script released by Reverend Wildmon is an old script. We told Mr. Penland it was not the current script, but he has chosen to resign over this issue. As for the screening, we have simply had to postpone it because production of the film is behind schedule. We have scheduled a July 12 special screening for the Christian leaders Mr. Penland recommended, and even that date requires that we interrupt production.”

Penland had originally recommended five Christian leaders to preview the film: Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, California pastors Jack Hayford and Lloyd John Ogilvie, Wildmon, and popular author James Dobson.

According to Universal, they are proceeding with the same plan Penland recommended. “I find it surprising Mr. Penland would agree to work on a project that he initially found so awful, and then back out,” says Kornblitt, noting that Universal paid Penland “a significant amount” for his services.

Penland claims he has been used and regrets working on the project. “I was a babe in the woods, and I regret my role in recommending the project to the Christian community,” says Penland.

special report

It was an improbable scenario: an American clergyman preaching an evangelistic sermon in the Soviet Union amid the gilded trappings of a staid Russian Orthodox cathedral; a bearded prelate in golden robes and miter standing approvingly at his side; and Soviet government leaders, Roman Catholic cardinals, and liberal Protestant leaders of the World Council of Churches sprinkled among the thousands fortunate enough to be shoehorned inside.

It happened during last month’s millennial celebration of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose estimated 70 million adherents make it the largest Orthodox body in the world. The event, featuring evangelist Billy Graham at Saint Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev, capsulized some of the dramatic changes apparently taking place both in the church and in Soviet church-and-state relationships.

Seasoned Soviet Union watchers, however, warn that the atmosphere is volatile. They say the few improvements could vaporize overnight, especially if hard-liners succeed in derailing Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts at reform through glasnost (openness).

Trying To Forget The Past

Russian Orthodoxy traces its roots to 988, when Prince Vladimir, ruler of the Kievan Rus’ and a convert to Christianity, had his subjects baptized in the Dnieper River near what is today Kiev (pop. 3 million) in Ukraine.

In tsarist times, the Russian Orthodox Church was the state church; by the early 1900s it had more than 70,000 parish churches. But heavy persecution followed the Communist revolution of 1917. Thousands of Orthodox clergy and lay leaders were killed or died in labor camps; monasteries, seminaries, and most of the churches were closed. Stalin ordered a reprieve during World War II to gain the support of the church against the Nazis, but Nikita Khrushchev reignited the fires of persecution in 1959. More than half of the remaining 17,000 or so churches were closed.

Under laws passed in 1929, the church still has no legal standing as a separate entity but is divided into parish associations that govern local worship. In legal matters, the church must be represented by the Council for Religious Affairs (CRA,) the government body that regulates churches. The CRA exercises its control through its 100-staff headquarters in Moscow, regional offices, and local “representatives.”

Under Gorbachev, new officials were appointed to lead the CRA’s Moscow headquarters. Churchmen say this is an improvement, but that local representatives continue to pose problems for rural churches.

Reasons To Celebrate

The Orthodox celebrations began last month with a sobor, a church-wide deliberative council (the first since 1971) that brought together 272 ranking clerics from 67 dioceses in the Soviet Union and 9 abroad. Presided over by Patriarch Pimen, the ailing leader of Russian Orthodoxy, it was held at a church complex in Zagorsk, about 50 miles north of Moscow. Among the reports: There are now 6,893 parishes, 60 of them opened this year, with 67,674 priests and 723 deacons. Mention was made of the need for more Bibles, prayer books, and other literature, including church periodicals.

Joining the celebrations were 490 religious leaders and dignitaries from 90 countries. They were invited to attend the sobor’s opening and closing sessions.

An important action was the reinstatement of power to parish priests to administer their work. Previously, they were little more than paid employees of government-controlled parish councils.

Outbursts of applause greeted the June 7 announcement that the Ukrainian government was returning to the church a portion of the Caves, site of Orthodox catacombs in Kiev.

Attracting most press attention were the Roman Catholic delegations, led by ten cardinals, representing both the Vatican and the church. On their agenda were matters involving the welfare of Catholic minorities in the former Baltic states and elsewhere in the Soviet Union, along with the status of nearly 5 million Catholic Uniates in Ukraine, who make up the second-largest denomination in the country but whose existence and activities have been declared illegal. Two of the underground bishops, clad in black robes, and several priests met with Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, the Vatican secretary of state, and other high-ranking Catholics at the Sovetskaya Hotel in Moscow. Sources said the government is amenable to working out something acceptable to Rome, but Orthodox leaders, especially in Ukraine, stiffly resist the notion of legalizing the Eastern-rite Catholics.

An Evangelist In Moscow

Graham, the most prominent evangelical taking part in the celebrations, preached to overflow crowds at Baptist and Orthodox churches in both Moscow and Kiev. The crowd at Saint Vladimir Cathedral, estimated by Orthodox officials at between 12,000 and 15,000, was his largest in three preaching visits to the Soviet Union. Another large crowd greeted him at Yamskaya Street Baptist Church.

The evangelist, who met with high-ranking government officials and controversial church activists alike, told reporters he was pleased by the changes he found since his visits in 1982 and 1984, and he expressed hope for further improvements. Some new policies, including relaxed restrictions on Bibles and other literature imports, were among reforms he had suggested in letters and private meetings with officials in his earlier visits, he said. He added that he is still pressing for greater opportunities for Soviet Baptists, including the right for them to build and operate a seminary.

Helping to fuel the fires of perestroika (restructuring)—and the church cause—are movies like Repentance, produced by filmmaker Tengiz Abuladze of Soviet Georgia. Languishing on censors’ shelves for four years, it was kept alive by video versions circulated discreetly among the nation’s avant-garde. Upon seeing it, Gorbachev ordered it released, and millions have seen the film. It exposes the horrors under Stalin and many past lies, comes close to indicting even the Leninist foundations of Soviet society, and concludes with the suggestion that the answers Soviets are seeking might be found within Christianity and the church.

That is one of the reasons, said several youths in interviews, why growing numbers of young adults have been showing up at church services.

By Edward E. Plowman in Moscow.

DENOMINATION REPORT

The route to San Antonio from Houston is less than four hours by car, but in terms of Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) history, the journey took a decade.

Beginning with the 1979 SBC meeting in Houston and ending June 14–16 at the so-called second battle of the Alamo in San Antonio, SBC conservatives completed a ten-year campaign to regain control of their 14.7 million-member denomination.

In a contest considered by rival factions in the convention to be a watershed, conservatives got almost everything they wanted. However, their candidate for the SBC presidency, Jerry Vines, a Jacksonville, Florida, pastor, won by one of the narrowest margins in SBC history: 50.5 percent—15,804 votes—over the moderates’ choice, Richard Jackson, a Phoenix, Arizona, pastor, who gained 15,112 votes, or 48.3 percent. It was not a stunning mandate for either side.

Theologically, the candidates were indistinguishable. Both are inerrantists: people who believe the Bible is without error. However, conservatives believe the Bible is without error in matters of science, history, faith, and revelation. Moderates believe the Bible must be understood in the context of its historical setting and the limited world views of its writers.

During the 1970s, conservatives began suspecting the moderate point of view was being taught in certain SBC seminaries. Their alarms helped set attendance records at conventions in recent years, though the turnout of 32,436 messengers in San Antonio was lower than projected. In addition to the moderate-conservative struggle, Baptists went to San Antonio concerned about a drop in baptisms during the previous year and the lowest gain in denominational growth since 1937.

Non-Baptist Baptists?

Next to the presidency, the vote that galled moderates the most was a resolution based on Hebrews 13:17 that put limitations on a classic Protestant concept, “the priesthood of the believer,” which assigns equal authority to clergy and laity. The convention declared that “misunderstanding and abuse” of the doctrine had undermined the authority of pastors over their congregations.

This prompted sharp protests from moderates, who charged it betrayed a principle of the Reformation, which rejected clerical domination by the Roman Catholic Church. Frustrated, 200 moderates marched to the Alamo site, about one block away from the convention center, and tore up copies of the resolution.

“This was the most non-Baptist, most heretical resolution ever adopted by a Southern Baptist Convention,” said Randall Lolley, who last October resigned his presidency of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, because of pressure from conservatives.

“We’re moving more toward where the Catholic has been” said Winfred Moore, moderate leader from Amarillo, Texas. “That wouldn’t sell very well in the panhandle of Texas.”

Like falling dominoes, other conservative resolutions passed one by one:

• The convention approved a 1988–89 budget of $145.6 million, up $5.6 million from this year’s, which included increases for all church agencies except the controversial Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. When conservatives moved to cut $48,000—about 11 percent of the budget—from the Joint Committee, which is a Washington-based church-state watchdog, moderates made a motion to restore the funds plus grant the Joint Committee a 4.25 percent budget increase. The motion failed and the budget was cut. Conservatives have long been unhappy with the Joint Committee because of its refusal to back public-school prayer and because its director, James Dunn, once served on the board of People for the American Way.

• A moderate-backed minority report was defeated that would have substituted a slate of moderate candidates to serve on 20 Southern Baptist seminary and organization boards in place of the more conservative lineup proposed by the Committee on Nominations. Through a succession of conservative presidents beginning in 1979, conservatives have gradually brought this vast network of denominational operations under their control. A slate of 140 mostly conservative trustees was approved in San Antonio.

• Southern Baptists adopted their most stinging condemnation of homosexuality, calling it “a perversion of divine standards” and a “violation of nature and natural affections.” It blamed homosexuality for the spread of AIDS and called it a “deviant behavior [that] has wrought havoc in the lives of millions.”

Deep Divisions

The SBC Peace Committee, set up in 1985 to settle the prolonged denominational conflict, was disbanded in spite of the tensions that still remain. Committee chairman Charles Fuller criticized moderates and conservatives for disregarding the committee’s request to cease politicking.

Texans dominated the convention, beginning the night before the presidential election when a conservative candidate, Ralph Smith of Austin, overwhelmingly defeated his moderate challenger, Paul Powell of Tyler, for the presidency of the Pastor’s Conference. George Bush was to have addressed the pastors, but insiders said he was disinvited by the conservatives for fear of political ramifications. That same night, W. A. Criswell of Dallas, the elder statesman of Baptist conservatives, lashed out at the SBC television special on him aired this spring and said that moderates were liberals in disguise. “However,” he said as moderates seethed, “a skunk by another name still stinks.”

John Bisagno, pastor of the 20,000-member First Baptist Church of Houston, saw little progress coming out of Vines’s election. The SBC, he said, “is divided more than ever. It’s more polarized and entrenched than it’s ever been.” Two months earlier, Bisagno pled for a compromise candidate to be selected as president. This fell on deaf ears because many suspected that Bisagno had himself in mind. “I planted a seed,” Bisagno said. “Maybe it’ll happen later.”

However, minutes after the presidential vote, a grinning Paige Patterson, who is president of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies in Dallas and a conservative leader, informed reporters that the future looks bright for Southern Baptists. “The course correction has been complete,” he said. “Controversies don’t go on forever.”

Moderates predict the fragmentation will continue, and Winfred Moore says moderates will once again try to topple the conservatives when the SBC meets next year in Las Vegas. Chances are, he said, that a neutral candidate would not do the trick. “My grandfather used to tell me there isn’t anything in the middle of the road cept a yellow line and dead possums.”

By Julia Duin in San Antonio.

North American Scene

gay rights

Gays Force Publisher Out

A newspaper publisher in Dayton, Ohio, was fired recently because he refused to allow his paper to accept advertising from a local homosexual group. The action prompted widespread demonstrations of support for the publisher from the Dayton Christian community.

Dennis Shere, who served as publisher of the Dayton Daily News, had previously banned advertising for escort services, and severely restricted advertising for adult movie theaters. But when homosexuals demonstrated to protest his ban of their advertisement, David E. Easterly, president of Cox Newspapers Chain, decided Shere had gone too far.

“In this case, Dennis discriminated against a group of people,” said Easterly. “He has every right to judge the content of an ad, but we cannot ban certain people from advertising.”

Shere believes homosexual activity is “contrary to the lifestyle God has ordained and society upholds,” and that running the ad would suggest the newspaper promotes unacceptable behavior.

Shere was given the option of remaining as publisher if he would change his position. “My conscience and concern for this community would not allow me to compromise on this issue,” he said.

MEDICAL ETHICS

Doctors Weigh Euthanasia

A recent survey found that Catholic physicians in Colorado are less willing to aid in euthanasia than their Protestant or Jewish colleagues. Among physicians who have cared for patients whom they believed were candidates for euthanasia, 48 percent of Catholic doctors said they would administer a lethal drug in such cases if it were legal, according to a study by the Center for Health Ethics and Policy of the University of Colorado at Denver. Fifty-eight percent of Protestant doctors and 62 percent of Jewish doctors said they would.

Four percent of the 2,218 doctors who responded (all 7,095 Colorado physicians were sent questionnaires) said they have assisted patients in stockpiling lethal doses of medication, aware that it might be used to commit suicide.

“Euthanasia is being practiced by decent professionals and supported by the affected patients,” said Fredrick Adams, an ethicist and one of the study’s researchers. “Yet, it is opposed by large numbers of good people.”

TELEVANGELISM

Fire Levels Tv Station

A Christian television station founded by Pentecostal evangelist Lester Sumrall sustained more than $3 million in damage in a fire last month. Yet within seven hours the South Bend, Indiana, station was back on the air using equipment stored at another church as well as other equipment loaned by local CBS and NBC affiliates.

“We are especially thankful that everyone who was at the studios got out of the building safely and that there were no injuries,” said Steven Sumrall, son of the evangelist and president of LeSEA Broadcasting. Firefighters from 21 companies fought the middle-of-the-night blaze. The elder Sumrall was en route to South Bend from Poland where his ministry is distributing 70 tons of food.

The station’s annual telethon was scheduled to begin the day of the fire. It went on the air as scheduled.

ECUMENISM

No Injuries At “Gathering”

Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals set aside their differences to meet in Arlington, Texas, for a “Gathering of Christians.” The 1,500 participants explored one another’s worship styles and cultural distinctions in an attempt to break down barriers that have traditionally separated the Christian faith.

“The fact that evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and members of the National Council of Churches’ (NCC) communions are here together is something to celebrate,” said Robert W. Neff, who chaired the special NCC panel that called for the Gathering three years ago.

Expressions of worship in music, dance, and sermons were offered from groups and individuals representing a cross section of Christian belief. Eastern College President Roberta Hestenes reminded participants that “the cross is God’s power for our powerlessness,” while sociologist Anthony Campolo warned against the misuse of power. “Nothing is more dangerous than religious people who exercise power and claim they are doing it for God,” he said.

NCC General Secretary Arie Brouwer commented on Texas as the site for such a gathering: “It was big enough for the Holy Spirit to blow through.”

PEOPLE AND EVENTS

Briefly Noted

Died: Daniel Fuchs, 76, chairman of the board of Chosen People Ministries, formerly the American Board of Missions to the Jews. Fuchs, who served with Chosen People Ministries for over 50 years, helped pioneer the use of mass media to reach Jews with the gospel. Under his leadership, the ministry launched Jews for Jesus.

Olive Bertha Smith, one of the most-celebrated Southern Baptist missionaries, barely five months before her one-hundredth birthday. “Miss Bertha” served for 42 years in China and Taiwan, enduring wars, revolution, imprisonment, and poverty. After retirement in 1958, she began a nearly 30-year career as a speaker and conference leader.

World Scene

GREAT BRITAIN

Christians Stage Faith March

More than 55,000 Christians—twice the number expected—marched through London to demonstrate their faith in Christ. The May 21 “March for Jesus” began with a rally, then proceeded along a route past Parliament, Buckingham Palace, and Downing Street.

“God exceeded all our expectations, numerically and spiritually,” said Gerald Coates of the Pioneer Team, one of the march’s sponsoring organizations. “This day has given a lift to the spiritual state of the capital and the nation,” added British musician Graham Kendrick.

According to the organizers, the sole purpose of the march was to affirm faith in Christ. “It was literally a march proclaiming what Christians are for,” noted press officer Colin Moreton.

At 10 Downing Street, residence of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, organizers delivered a letter to Thatcher, pledging to continue working with the poor, the elderly, and AIDS victims.

Joining The Pioneer Team in planning the event were Ichthus Christian Fellowship and Youth With a Mission.

MIDDLE EAST

Israel Deports Awad

Mubarak Awad, the Palestinian-American Christian who has advocated nonviolent resistance to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank (CT, June 17, 1988, p. 72), was deported from Israel June 13. He says he will return to his homeland, however, even if it means converting to Judaism. Under the Israeli Law of Return, all Jews, including converted Jews, have the right to immigrate to Israel.

“If everything failed, I am willing to change my religion to become a Jew to prove that I want to go back to Jerusalem,” Awad told reporters at a June 14 press conference, adding that such a “conversion” would be no more than a political maneuver.

Awad is a naturalized American citizen born in Jerusalem. He and his wife, Ruth, attended the Friends Meeting (Quakers) in Ramallah, a city on the West Bank. Prior to being deported, he was held in jail without bond for 40 days after being arrested on an expired visa charge.

Before trying to find a rabbi who would help him in a conversion to Judaism, Awad will meet with congressional officials in Washington, D.C., to convince the U.S. to pressure Israel into allowing him to return.

WORLD HEALTH

Nations Address Aids

After five days in Stockholm discussing ways to combat AIDS, the 7,500 persons who gathered from around the world stood in silent tribute to the victims of the disease. “We owe a debt to our patients, our most important teachers,” Dr. Anthony J. Pinching, an AIDS expert, told the New York Times.

The meeting, considered the largest international gathering held on AIDS, produced no breakthroughs in treatment or cure. Instead, it focused on ways to consolidate the large amount of data accumulated since the first AIDS case was diagnosed in 1981. “This Stockholm conference stands as a symbol of the global will to solve the HIV/AIDS problems,” said Gertrude Sigurdsen, Swedish Health Minister.

A Belgian AIDS expert reported he has found what may be a third human AIDS virus. Most of the world’s AIDS cases are attributed to either HIV-1 or HIV-2. If further tests confirm the virus as a third strain, new AIDS tests might need to be developed to detect it.

NICARAGUA

Pastor Works For Peace

In spite of the on-again, off-again nature of peace talks in Nicaragua, a number of churches and individual Christians are trying to reconcile segments of that fractured Central American nation. United Methodist missionary Paul Jeffrey, in a report to the Religious News Service, says some of these efforts have met with success.

For example, Pedro Pablo Castillo, a former pastor from Managua, has been working with imprisoned national guardsmen of the former military dictator, Anastasio Somoza. A former lieutenant in Somoza’s regime, Castillo says about 1,500 prisoners have become Christians as a result of his efforts.

Other religious leaders are working through the local “peace committees” in rural areas. The commissions, organized in 1987 after the historic peace accord was signed by five Central American presidents, ceased to function later that year. With the signing of a cease-fire earlier this year, Baptist pastor Gustavo Parajón, one of four clergy members of a National Reconciliation Commission, challenged churches to reactivate the commissions. Earlier this year Parajón reported that 18 commissions had persuaded both sides to make concessions.

HAITI

Churches Face Voodoo

Christians in Haiti are not sure how the recent military coup will affect their work, but one thing is certain: They do not need another challenge. In addition to being the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, about 40 percent of Haiti’s population practices voodoo.

After dictator Jean Claude Duvalier was ousted in 1986, a National Council of Reconciliation tried running the country. One of its actions was to grant voodoo official recognition. This allowed voodoo to be included in religious instruction in secondary schools.

According to a report issued by the World Evangelical Fellowship, evangelical pastors in Haiti have faced various forms of intimidation from voodoo practitioners during the past several months. Several have received threats by mail. One found gasoline and matches next to his car, along with a note warning him to stop opposing voodoo.

Evangelicals have been targeted because they insist that converts renounce all spiritist practices.

EDUCATION

The role of religion in American public schools has been a volatile issue in recent days, pitting educators, parents, and religious groups against one another in emotional controversies. Now an unlikely coalition has published a pamphlet saying religion belongs in school.

Entitled “Religion in the Public Schools Curriculum: Questions and Answers,” the brochure offers guidelines for teaching religion in public schools, asserting that such activity is clearly protected by the Constitution.

Better Than Yelling

Fourteen national religious and educational groups came together to produce the small pamphlet, including groups that often take opposing sides in religion-and-public-school conflicts: National Council of Churches, American Federation of Teachers, Christian Legal Society, National Association of Evangelicals, and National Education Association.

“This publication demonstrates that people with widely divergent views about many other issues can and do agree that study about religion in public schools, when done properly, is both constitutionally permissible and educationally sound,” said Charles Haynes, project director for Americans United Research Foundation, the group that organized the effort.

James Dunn, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, another sponsoring group, said the project shows there is “a better way to deal with religion in public schools than simply to yell at each other and threaten a lawsuit.”

Areas Of Agreement

The sponsors of the pamphlet found agreement in several areas. First, the brochure says the 1960 Supreme Court decision that banned school prayer did not prohibit teaching about religion. “Failure to understand even the basic symbols, practices, and concepts of the various religions makes much of history, literature, art, and contemporary life unintelligible,” the brochure says.

The pamphlet also outlines what schools may do to teach about religion without crossing the line to religious indoctrination: be academic, not devotional; strive for awareness of religion, but do not press for acceptance of any one religion; sponsor the study, but not the practice, of religion.

Some of the more controversial aspects of the issue are also addressed. For example, the pamphlet emphasizes that while the Supreme Court has struck down laws requiring that creation science be taught in science classes, the Court has said a variety of scientific theories about origins can be appropriately taught. “Though science instruction may not endorse or promote religious doctrine, the account of creation found in various scriptures may be discussed in a religious studies class or in any course that considers religious explanations for the origin of life,” the brochure says.

The coalition is distributing the pamphlet to parents, teachers, and school boards across the nation, and reports that reception of the guidelines has been very favorable. Christian Educators’ Association International (CEAI) is hailing the pamphlet as something greatly needed in the public schools. “Right now, there is such misinformation about including religion in schools that there is a chilling effect upon teachers,” said CEAI Executive Director Forrest Turpen. “A booklet of this type is very beneficial because it will free up teachers so that they might be able to include aspects of how religion is part of our society.”

Concerned Women for America (CWA,) a group that has entered several religion-and-school debates, welcomed the pamphlet as “a step in the right direction,” but would like to have seen less caution, CWA spokeswoman Rebecca Hagelin said, “I think it will comfort people who are running scared from the [American Civil Liberties Union], but it doesn’t go far enough in saying what teachers can legally do in regard to religion in the classroom.”

NATIONAL ELECTIONS

This month, Democrats meeting in Atlanta will hammer out the platform that will carry them into the November elections. And Republicans will get their chance next month when they meet for their convention in New Orleans. Recalling their strength in the 1980 and 1984 campaigns, Christians from a variety of perspectives have been attempting to get both parties to consider their platform concerns.

The Republican Connection

Representatives of several Christian groups testified at a Republican-sponsored platform-committee hearing in Kansas City, Missouri, last month. Robert Dugan, director of the National Association of Evangelicals’ Washington Office on Public Affairs, highlighted six principles his group would like to see incorporated into platform planks: the retention of religious liberty in this nation, recognition of God in public life, the protection of life as sacred, the provision of justice for all, restoration of traditional values to education and legislation, and the preservation of the traditional family.

Similar themes were stressed in testimony by Jerry Falwell, chairman of the Moral Majority; Chicago television executive Jerry Rose, representing the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB;) and Elizabeth Kepley of Concerned Women for America (CWA.)

Testimony was also offered from groups that want the Republicans to move away from their conservative positions of the past two elections. Randall Moody of Republicans for Choice urged the party to “eliminate” platform planks supporting a constitutional ban on abortion.

For the first time, Republicans took the testimony of an official representative of the homosexual community. John Thomas of the Human Rights Campaign Fund urged the GOP to “recognize [the gay community] as part of the pluralistic society … Republicans champion.”

Such appearances highlighted speculation that the influence of the Religious Right on the Republican platform may be waning. But at a press conference, Republican National Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf denied suggestions from reporters that his party would move toward a more moderate platform. Noting that “many problems in this nation have changed” in the past eight years, he added, “We want to take the fundamental philosophy [from 1980 and 1984] … and come up with approaches to apply to the problems.”

The Democrats’ Dilemma

Several conservative religious groups that testified before the Republicans were denied the opportunity to give oral testimony before the Democrats, due to changes in the party’s platform process, NAE, CWA, and the Family Research Council all submitted written testimony to the Democrats after their requests to give oral testimony were refused. Observers say denying multiple special interests the opportunity to give oral testimony was devised to help erase the image of the Democratic party as the “special interests’ party” and to defuse some of the party’s more controversial stands.

The NRB’s Rose said he was not aware that his group could submit written testimony and felt “very excluded” by the Democrats. “It’s almost as if they have written off the evangelicals.”

Family Research Council Executive Director Jerry Regier said he was “rather surprised and disappointed” about the way the Democrats conducted their platform process. “We are providing written input, but I’m not very optimistic [about its impact] given the fact that they wouldn’t allow us any verbal input,” he said.

A spokesman for the Democratic Platform Committee declined to comment on why more religious representatives were not allowed to make personal appearances, but he insisted all written submissions were made part of the official consideration of the committee.

Vying For The Family

Throughout the platform process, both parties have been paying much attention to family issues. The Democrats devoted one forum to the American family, discussing long-term health care, child care, drugs, and housing. At the forum, Michigan’s governor, James Blanchard, said his party can pick up where the Republicans have failed on the issue. “We have a good record on family issues,” he said. But Frank Monohan, of the United States Catholic Conference (USCC), urged the Democrats to change their stand on abortion and support “legal protection for the lives of the unborn.”

The Republicans also concentrated on family issues during their domestic-policy hearing in Kansas City. Representatives from a variety of groups, including many religious groups, appeared before the committee to urge the GOP to adopt planks on various family issues.

Education Secretary William Bennett encouraged the Republicans to maintain the momentum on “kids’ ” issues. “Democratic proposals put families to one side, seeming to accept as inevitable the declining importance and role of the family,” he said. “The Republican party needs to stand foursquare for children and for the family as the institution central to the care of children.”

Hoping to take advantage of the current attention to the family and promote a more conservative vision in both parties, a coalition of profamily groups is sponsoring Family Forum 88 conferences just before both political conventions this summer. Conference coordinator Patrick Fagan said the theme “2020 Vision” emphasizes their goal of “setting a positive long-range agenda, beginning the radical shift from being a reactive, defensive movement into an offensive, positive movement.”

Fagan said the cosponsors of the conferences, including several Christian groups, want to be sure that politicians and the grassroots are not “confused” by all of the profamily rhetoric on both sides. “What we want to see is government supporting the family, but not supplanting it,” he said.

By Kim A. Lawton in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Missouri.