Ronald Reagan declared 1983 “the year of the Bible.” CT ran long excerpts of his speech and assessed his accomplishments in his first term.
It is time to ask what impact Reagan has had on the issues so important to evangelical Christians. On specifics, Reagan is likely to come up short, since many campaign promises that put him in office remain unfulfilled, including school prayer and antiabortion legislation, while concern over his handling of welfare issues and national defense has deepened.
But in ways that cannot be precisely measured, Reagan’s presence in the White House may produce some long-term benefits for the nation. His rhetoric, with its God-centered world view, helps counteract the rampant secularism that would shove religion to the margins of life. In Washington, D.C., Christians in government are making decisions based on their faith. That development alone promises to reestablish moral perspectives in Washington’s policy-shaping networks. …
The legislative scorecard keepers are likely to remain disgruntled, but—win or lose on specifics—people with a Judeo-Christian outlook are involved for the long haul, and the environment in Washington is fertile soil in which to cultivate their growth.
CT reported that “Reagan made a forthright pitch for evangelical allegiance” at a National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) meeting, urging them “to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.” Evangelical leaders did not all agree.
The nuclear issue … gave NAE officials a welcome chance to articulate their centrist position—not sold out to the profreeze Left nor aligned with the Religious Right, which backs administration defense policies. The 3.5 million-member group includes pacifist churches such as Mennonites and Brethren in its fold and remains committed to operating by consensus. …
Applause from the enthusiastic audience interrupted Reagan about 18 times during his 32-minute address, which touched on abortion, school prayer, tuition tax credits, and parental notifications for teen contraceptive users. NAE neutrality was clearly telegraphed by Gay. Seated onstage while Reagan spoke, Gay did not applaud the freeze remarks. He estimates that no less than one-quarter of NAE’s members are total pacifists or nuclear pacifists, and says “even if it were only 10 percent, we would have no right to quash that important corrective.”
In the pews, evangelicals were similarly divided on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Most evangelicals approve of President Ronald Reagan’s promilitary policies on nuclear arms, yet they would support a nuclear freeze if the conditions were right. These somewhat contradictory results appear in a new Gallup poll commissioned by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
Overall, evangelicals gave answers similar to those of the general public, with one notable exception: on several key questions, between one-fourth and one-third of the evangelicals registered “no opinion.” This is about 10 percentage points higher than the public at large.
As the president promoted conservative ideas of free market economics, evangelicals also debated. CT asked an evangelical in the US Justice department to weigh in with a review of political philosopher Michael Novak’s book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.
The views of evangelicals concerning the relationship between Christianity and capitalism could hardly be more diverse. On the Right are views such as those expressed by the Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation in a “Free Enterprise Seminar” that came very close to equating “our Christian heritage” and “our free enterprise system.”
At the other end of the spectrum are outspoken evangelical academicians and church leaders who couch their anticapitalistic views in equally religious language. These Left-leaning evangelicals point to the materialism and neglect of the poor and disadvantaged as compelling indicators of the unchristian condition of our current economic order.
Clearly, both cannot be correct. … As a conservative, my own vision for the church and society necessarily is rooted in the Right, but I am uneasy when the Right seeks to baptize conservative politics (to which I subscribe) as “biblical.” Perhaps my position on the Right in a subtly defined niche that is “betwixt and between” is the reason I am so enthusiastic about Michael Novak’s new book. … He argues persuasively that democratic capitalism is the economic and political system most compatible with Christianity.
Evangelicals were not divided or ambivalent about abortion. But in 1983, some were wrestling with the best way to oppose abortion. In a three-part series on abortion’s impact on American life, a Baptist teacher argued that “prolife rhetoric is not enough.”
I base my prolife views on the belief that that heartbeat belongs to a human being, with rights to birth and life. And I believe no one should be deprived of life without due process of law. So I hate what abortion-on-demand does to a helpless child, and to the mother and perhaps the father, too.
This raises a critical question, though. What, by contrast, will be the effects of a prolife alternative? Clearly it will affect the child by guaranteeing him birth. But what then? … We must prepare to deal with the consequences of our commitment.
If right-to-life legislation passes, thousands of babies will annually be born who otherwise would have been aborted. How many? The National Center for Health Statistics has estimated that there are about 1.25 million abortions in the U.S. annually.
Other pro-life Christians were wondering what they were supposed to do if politics was not enough. CT devoted many pages to discussions of civil disobedience, asking, “When should Christians stand against the law?”
Judge Randall J. Heckman … is a highly regarded probate judge in Grand Rapids, Michigan. As befits his office, he has a solid reputation as a man of law and order. He is also a committed evangelical who not only loves his country, but also seeks to obey Christ and live by Scripture. Last November a 13-year-old girl five months pregnant came before his court, demanding her legal right to abort because she did not want her child. Judge Heckman refused her petition. …
As a result Judge Heckman himself must now appear before the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission because of a complaint filed by NOW (the National Organization for Women). The commission has the authority to relieve him of his duties as judge, and he awaits its decision.
He defends his disobedience to the law: “The idea of judges putting themselves above the law should be repugnant to all citizens. … [But what if] a judge is required by law to order Jewish people to concentration camps or gas chambers because the law says that Jews are nonpersons? What if a judge, sitting on a case involving a runaway slave, disagrees with the Supreme Court’s 1856 decision in which black slaves were ruled to be nothing more than chattels?
“Can the judges in these cases escape moral culpability either by obeying the law and saying they were ‘just following orders,’ or by disqualifying themselves so that other judges without their scruples can issue the unjust decrees?” Judge Heckman believes that, if a judge deliberately gives the case to another judge, he remains “a knowing and willing part of the ultimate injustice.”
Another test case arose in Nebraska, where a Baptist pastor refused to obtain a license legally required to run a private school. He went to jail, and his supporters protested.
Protesting is new for twentieth-century fundamentalists. Blacks, feminists, and antiwar demonstrators all learned two decades ago the skills of protest—marches, sit-ins, boycotts. But most fundamentalists rallied for law and order when blacks took to the streets; they are still opposed to feminism; and they believe the Vietnam War was a mistake only in that it was not fought intensely enough to be won. These conservative Christians are learning about protest quickly … yet civil disobedience, however mild it may have been at Louisville, was no easy thing for the fundamentalists. …
Scripture would advise us … not to take civil disobedience lightly. It must be undertaken only with caution, prayer, and the counsel of the church. It is an act of gravity since it is, in a sense, law breaking. But it is law breaking of a unique kind, an activity that affirms law in general while violating law in the particular case.
CT regular Philip Yancey said evangelicals should learn from Mahatma Gandhi.
Much of Gandhi’s life seems baffling, alien, and incomprehensible to the average Westerner. And yet Gandhi insisted with his prescient voice that civilization must look to the East and not to the West for its ultimate solutions. The Christian church, birthed in the East but formulated and structured in the West, shares many of the crises of Western civilization as a whole.
For perspective, perhaps we need to step back and listen to this enigmatic figure who, although not a Christian, adapted many Christian principles to a modern context. Christian saints before him had followed these same beliefs, but we have grown so accustomed to our Christian saints that we no longer hear their message clearly. When a sound is too loud, sometimes we can discern it better in its echo.
A regional director of World Vision and former legislative assistant for an evangelical senator reminded CT readers that —and sometimes against them.
Our prayers for and against governmental leaders are at the heart of our dual citizenship in the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. We frequently place too much emphasis on our earthly loyalties, especially as we read the numerous passages in the New Testament about submission to kings and rulers. We would do well to read these passages more carefully. For example, a phrase in one such passage speaks very emphatically about our prior obedience to God: “Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:16, NIV). …
Our heavenly citizenship compels us to pray for those in authority—not just for their wisdom, prosperity, and longevity, but that they will practice justice and righteousness. Although our prayers begin in the positive, we may in some cases need to begin praying against the ruler, if God so directs. This is the ultimate act of patriotism: caring enough about the people whom God loves to be willing to pray for their deliverance from one so controlled by evil that submission to God is only a remote possibility.
Amid all the political struggles in 1983, CT reminded readers of the importance of evangelism and proclaiming the gospel through Christian life. The president of Multnomah School of the Bible wrote an article called “Lifestyle Evangelism: Winning through Winsomeness.”
God’s evangelistic strategy is beauty. Evangelism starts with the beauty of God, and it also involves a beautiful bride, the church. God desires that through our lives the world will see his beauty. …
When an individual, a family, or a corporate body of believers is moving together toward wholeness (holiness), a credible lifestyle emerges, and the potential for effective witness increases dramatically. Because this is true, evangelism is a way of living beautifully, and of opening one’s web of relationships to the nonbeliever.
American evangelicals were also reminded of the dire situation of Christians in other parts of the world. CT published an article on the struggles of Hebrew-speaking Christians in Israel and reported how American attention to believers suffering in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union could make a difference.
With his trial just four hours away, a young Romanian Baptist, loan Teodosiu, sat in his cell—waiting. A spokesman for the Committee for the Defense of Religious Freedom in Romania, Teodosiu had been arrested on December 16, 1981. His “crime”: disseminating information about state persecution of Romanian believers. Charged with treason, he waited, expecting a harsh sentence.
The seconds ticked by. Suddenly, the door to his cell swung open and several guards burst in. Thoughts of an eleventh-hour interrogation flashed through his mind. He braced himself for the ordeal. Instead, he heard one of the guards shout, “Come with us! You’ve been released!”
“Released?” Teodosiu asked incredulously. Indeed, he had been released, and all charges against him were dropped. What Teodosiu didn’t know was that halfway around the world, in the United States, action had been taken on his behalf. People aware of his situation had circulated petitions and written to their congressmen. They, in turn, had written to the Romanian Minister of Internal Affairs. It was this concerted pressure that resulted in Teodosiu’s eleventh-hour freedom. …
Christians in the West do have the power to help suffering Christians in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Using letters, petitions, mass media, and other methods at our disposal, we can protest peacefully on their behalf.
The post In ‘the Year of the Bible,’ Evangelicals Debate Politics, Civil Disobedience appeared first on Christianity Today.
