Chapter 12
Political Spears? Or
Plowshares?
January, 1990. We were just beginning to talk seriously about the so-called "peace dividend" of domestic economic development and programs for the poor. Expensive military defense projects were being scaled back. The arms race was winding down. U.S.-Soviet relations were basking in long-awaited warmth following the cold war thaw. Political swords were being beaten into economic plowshares.
January, 1991. The War in the Gulf exploded. All thinking about the political and economic future was exchanged for military strategy. Plowshares were fashioned into Patriot missiles.
Suddenly the peace dividend seemed a lot farther down the road than we had hoped, and when we weren't thinking about the horrors of war we were pondering the economics of war. Who would pay for our high-tech, multi-million dollar display of military might?
One thing was sure when the smoke started clearing over Iraq: the battle for political ascendancy and world influence would be closely tied to economic well-being.
And private initiative will have to carry a larger share of responsibility
Page 138
for global well-being. This will need to happen "in combination with more intelligent, imaginative and flexible government policies that tie social services to incentives for self-help," suggests Henry Grunwald.
The United States may need to take the lead, he continues, to "partially reinvent capitalism — and do a more imaginative job of it than the heavily welfare-statist economies of Europe."1
Futurists agree that to manage emerging global issues, corporations must play a larger role. They will take over governing functions and provide more services in a society that is growing ever more privatized and individualized. The basic shift will be away from central government to individual and local empowerment.2
"Democracy is entering its decisive decades," writes Alvin Toffler. "For we are at the end of the age of mass-democracy — and that is the only kind the industrial world has ever known . . . In any system, democratic or not, there needs to be some congruence between the way a people make wealth and the way they govern themselves. If the political and economic systems are widely dissimilar, one will eventually destroy the other."3
In light of the new "knowledge-based economy," Toffler reasons, we should brace for a "historic struggle to remake our political institutions, bringing them into congruence with the revolutionary post-mass-production economy."4
This "historic struggle" doesn't at all sound like the "End of History" essay written by Francis Fukuyama, deputy director of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff. His provocative article argued that with the collapse of Marxism we have come to the end of history. Democratic free enterprise is catching on world-wide, the ultimate goal of both industrial and semi-industrial nations.
Evangelist and church statesman Leighton Ford summarized Fukuyama's treatise: "The battle over ideology has ended. The idea of liberal democracy has won. It's only a matter of time until democracy extends to every part of the world. In that sense history is over."5
Ford noted that Fukuyama, almost off-handedly, admitted that two other forces "might possibly still compete for the hearts and minds of the world: nationalism and fundamentalist religion."
Only a few months after publication of Fukuyama's essay, the two forces
Page 139
he all but dismissed came together, igniting a major war in the Middle East.
Beyond the conflict over oil and the global economy, Ford observed, "Religion and nationalism become the vehicles: the pride, passion and fears of the human spirit."6
But just where are these vehicles likely to take us?
Nationalism, Regionalism, and Religion
The struggle between Jews and Arabs has roots in nationalism and stems from the ancient rivalry between Abraham's two sons: Ishmael, born to his servant woman, Hagar; and Isaac, born to his wife, Sarah.
In Israel, national identity is an explosive issue, intensified by large-scale immigration. In a post-Communist Soviet Union, statism in the Baltics and ethnic regionalism elsewhere have sprouted as dangerous political scions. Nationalist uprisings have emerged in other Eastern European countries as well. And ultra-nationalism is spreading in Japan.7
Toffler sees a "resurgence of flag-waving xenophobia" — a hatred of foreigners — in the United States. A growing nationalist backlash is being fed by, among other things, fears that America is in economic and military decline.8 Anti-immigration sentiment simmers, particularly against Mexicans and Central Americans. Japan-bashing is popular. And religious zealots, breathing fire and theocracy, are committed to taking over America's institutions and levers of political control.
"Governments controlled or heavily influenced by extremists who put their particular brand of religion, ecology, or nationalism ahead of democratic values do not stay democratic long." Toffler warns.9
As the decade wears on, we will see in this country less nationalism and a growing emphasis on state, regional, and local politics. Analysts say that growing urban problems and the need for greater regional planning will start the shift away from federal efforts. In his 1991 State of the Union address, President Bush spoke about a shift of responsibility — and financial burden — to the states.
Oliver S. Thomas, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, urges the churches to improve local promotion of
Page 140
moral and social views in the 1990s. The shift needs to be toward city councils, school boards, and state legislatures. The reason for that strategy, Thomas says, is that the arena for church-state issues is moving out of the federal courts.
"Churches are going to have to become more intentional about state and local organizing. We can't just have an office here in Washington, D.C. and be a key player in church-state issues," said Thomas, an expert on church participation in the political arena.
According to Thomas, religion in the schools — including text-books, the evolution-creation debate, school prayer, values and sex education, and contraceptives and family planning — will all be at the heart of the 1990's dialogue on how churches should minister. Other agenda items include counseling, screening child-care workers, and providing social services.10
Church, State, and the Kingdom and the Power
Although the U.S. government shunts responsibility to local jurisdiction, that will not stop legislators from becoming increasingly regulation-minded. This will apply not only to business and industry, but to religious organizations as well.
A key factor for all religious groups will be accountability, especially as it relates to income gathering and reporting and to licensing and operation of child-care facilities and church-related schools. Medical treatment will be mandatory even for seriously ill or injured members of groups that reject traditional medical care on religious grounds.
Government surveillance activities may be legally executed within churches — reminiscent of monitoring congregations that harbored Central American refugees during the 1980's church sanctuary movement. The rationale for snooping could be that it is in the best interest of national security to tighten immigration policy and squelch political dissent.
Furthermore, the control of intangibles — "ideas, culture, images, theories, scientific formulae, computer software — will assume greater and greater political attention in all countries as piracy, counterfeiting, theft, and technological espionage threaten increasingly vital private and national interests," Toffler forecasts.11
Page 141
Christian organizations will likely be under more pressure to comply with laws against gender and racial-discrimination practices, particularly regarding employment.12 Church organizations may even have difficulty maintaining the requirement of like faith for hiring anyone except ordained personnel. And legally enforcing church discipline may prove problematic.
Other signs indicate Christianity is moving toward a minority status in the United States and other First-World countries. By 2001, predicts religion futurist Sam Dunn of Seattle Pacific University, there will be no preferential tax treatment for churches; religious chaplaincies will be eliminated; religious grounds for conscientious objections will not be recognized by law; and advocacy of religion in publicly funded institutions will not be allowed.
"In short," Dunn lamented in The Futurist magazine, "the special status of the church in the eyes of the government will be all but eliminated."13
"Intolerance" is not too strong a word to describe what is already happening in some court cases against the free expression or exercise of religion.
George Barna thinks vast sums will be spent lobbying legislators on Capitol Hill to make churches accountable to the government. He suggests that churches "band together" to respond to these likely attacks and inform their legislators about their concerns.
The Supreme Court will be backlogged with a "prolific caseload of constitutional challenges," and "thousands of lawsuits: will be lodged in the 1990s against clergy, church staff (especially family and psychological counselors), and even lay leaders, Barna fears.
How can we stay on guard? Barna suggests lots of liability insurance; maybe even an attorney on the church staff to offer preventive counsel!14
At the same time, analysts see a moderate-to-conservative U.S. Supreme Court prevailing into at least the early years of the coming century — perhaps in tension with a more liberal Congress, state-house leaders, and civil-rights activists.
The separation of church and state has traditionally been considered a bar to the government's directly paying churches to do such things as feed the hungry, house the homeless, counsel substance abusers, conduct sex education classes, and the like. But because of
Page 142
a lack of government resources, the religious community will be pressed to move into a three-way partnership with government and private enterprise to provide needed services.
As an example, in 1992 a public school opened in the facilities of Central Lutheran Church in Minneapolis — a three-way partnership of the Minneapolis public school system, several corporations, and the congregation.
Oliver Thomas expressed "grave concerns about the possible impact of close partnerships where money from the state is flowing into the church.
"This is a major issue of social welfare and religious education, and the degree to which the government can support it will be in the forefront," Thomas said.15
The potential conflicts are numerous. For example, can the government work in partnership with the church to fund religious day care without the church having to remove all religious content and symbols?
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, head of the Holyland Fellowship of Christians and Jews in Chicago, predicts that "There are going to be all kinds of strange bedfellows who differ on a host of issues [but they will be] coming together" on issues such as violence, abortion, and school prayer. Eckstein also foresees evangelical Christians uniting in "a call for a more moral and sacred society that is not naked in the public square" — a reference to Richard John Neuhaus's book The Naked Public Square, which speaks about the absence of moral leadership in civic life.16
One group that wants to mobilize conservative religious groups into a united army during the closing years of this century is the Coalition on Revival. Founded by Jay Grimstead in 1982, its chief theoretician is Reconstructionist theologian R.J. Rushdoony of Vallecito, California.
Fred Clarkson describes the group as "a secretive, theo-political movement that seeks to bridge theological gaps among conservative Christians and foster religious and political unity." The coalition's goal is to establish its vision of the kingdom of God in America.17
Some consider COR the standard-bearer for Reconstruction (or Kingdom or Dominion) theology, which sees Old Testament law as pertaining to correct governing of modern society. COR is also
Page 143
perceived as the refocused successor to the "failed" Christian right of the 1980s, the political movement frequently associated with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's run for the presidency.
Some supporters have backed away because of its radicalism, but COR and its National Coordinating Council (NCC), the political and action arm formed in 1990, could be a force to reckon with in the next few years. The NCC advocates the abolition of public schools, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Reserve by 2000. It also seeks to "Christianize all aspects of life from the arts and sciences to banking and the news media," according to its twenty-four-point platform. And it proposes setting up a "kingdom" counterculture that includes a "Christian" court system.
According to Church and State magazine, the NCC plan also calls for a grassroots effort to elect "their kind" of Christians to county boards of supervisors and sheriff's offices, who, once in power, will establish county militias.18
In the years ahead "a significant minority of Christians will attempt to impose religious and/or moral ideas on society, and . . . a few Christian Reconstructionists will attempt to gain converts to Christian theocracy," says Samuel Dunn. But these efforts, he adds, "will not bear fruit."19
Polls About the Polls
In November of 1990 the religious right had virtually no impact on major elections and no new clergy were elected. In addition, on five referenda where religion was considered to be a key factor, voting results were seen as a defeat for the religious groups and considered a victory for proponents of church-state separation.20
According to Dunn, most citizens believe the state shouldn't prefer one religion over another. But the religious affiliation of voters had been — and will continue to be — one of the most accurate, and underrated, political thermometers and indicators of how people vote.
As examples, black Protestants, white Catholics, and Jews are more likely than white Protestants to support increased federal spending on domestic social problems. Catholics and black Protestants are the strongest supporters of unions. White evangelical Protestants
Page 144
are the most conservative group in the country on social issues. Except on abortion, Catholics are more liberal than white Protestants on almost every public issue.21
The pressure for social change in a liberal, or "progressive," direction, concluded George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli in The People's Religion, "comes primarily from those who are not white Protestants; pressure for social change in a conservative direction comes from white evangelical Protestants. White non-evangelical Protestants are often pulled between the two; when it comes to specific issues, they most often seem to be influenced in the liberal direction."22
Yet mainline Protestant and Catholic leaders at the highest levels tend to be far to the left on economic issues. Leaders of mainline Protestantism, which has historically set the tone for American society, were "liberal on every dimension," said social scientist S. Robert Lichter.23
This has serious implications for the future of these denominations because, as Gallup and other surveys show, white Protestant "pew people" are fairly conservative — much more so than their denominational bigwigs.
When it comes to denominational political affiliations — which appear to have been relatively stable since 1984 — Catholics, Jews, and Baptists are the most Democratic, while mainline Protestant denominations are the most Republican. In 1988, Baptists comprised the most Democratic Protestant group, while American Jews topped all religious groups in the Democratic category. Presbyterians were the most heavily Republican denomination.24 Mormons are also strongly Republican, with about 50 percent claiming allegiance to that party.25
American Jews are considerably more liberal and politically active than the rest of the population. A Gallup survey for The Times Mirror Corporation also found that the most politically active Americans — both Republicans and Democrats — are more likely than other Americans to be highly religious.26
In the decade ahead this activism will be tapped by astute religious leaders who have the ability to effectively marshal causes and campaigns.
According to an Associated Press poll in November of 1990,
Page 145
three-quarters of Americans believe that the clergy should speak out on social issues and public policy. But 58 percent said clergy shouldn't endorse political candidates. And they overwhelmingly reject ministers as presidential candidates; in fact, in another poll they rejected all direct clergy involvement in politics by a 3-to-2 margin.27
But the chances are good that Americans will vote for a strongly committed, openly Christian (but nonclergy) candidate for president.
The religious representation of Congress, meanwhile, appears to be shifting, with a growth in "nontraditional" Protestant groups. This reflects a corresponding increase among the electorate. A total of thirty members in the House and Senate in 1990 said they were "Protestant," but did not identify with a particular denomination.28
Relatively more Roman Catholics, Jews, and Mormons were elected to Congress in 1990, and fewer Methodists, Presbyterians, and United Church of Christ members. Baptists gained and Episcopalians declined. The forty-one Jewish members and thirteen Mormons were record highs. Only about 60 percent of members newly elected to Congress were "traditional" Protestants, broadly defined — a significant change from 77 percent in 1960.29
Voter Constituency
What else can we learn about voters who will put presidents, governors, mayors, and legislators into office as we cross into the third millennium?
As every politician knows, the most powerful voting bloc is persons age fifty-five to seventy-four because they are more likely to go to the polls than any other age group.
Elders and boomers will comprise an increasing share of the electorate in the next decades, so politicians will be listening to the needs of these folks. And to the voice of the Gray Panthers (founded by the Presbyterian Church) and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). With nearly 30 million members, the AARP is twice as large as the AFL-CIO and has signed up about 25 percent of all U.S. registered voters. Most AARP members are white and middle-class — the very constituency whose allegiance will be fiercely fought for in the coming bid for political primacy.30
Page 146
The authors of Lifetrends expect more intergenerational political coalitions to form in the next fifteen to twenty years, as well as coalitions speaking up for the great numbers of disabled Americans.31
Well-educated and well-off boomers and seniors are likely to spend more of their free time in social and political activism. Barna lists issues such as abortion, AIDS discrimination, racial injustice, gay rights, environmental abuse, nuclear power, pornography, drug abuse, and drunk driving. Product boycotting, letters to television producers and network executives, stockholder protests, and stock divestments from companies perceived to have objectionable racial, environmental, or military-defense policies are also apt to escalate in the approaching century.32
"Whereas one out of three adults had participated in some protest in 1990, more than half of all adults will have done so by 2000," Barna estimates. He adds that referenda will be more common as "boomers seek to take control over more of the public decision-making apparatus" in order to effect laws and policies they favor.33
Since boomers lean toward a "progressive" stance on many political issues, this may tilt in favor of what has traditionally been a Democratic vote.
Minority Power in the Precincts
And don't forget the minority segments of our population: Hispanic numbers are growing five times as fast as the rest of America and will carry increasing clout at the ballot box. An ethnically mixed society is likely to favor the Democrats, if present alignments persist.
Blacks, Latinos, and Asians will capture more seats and political offices in the 1990s and beyond. That will be especially true in the largest cities, where a majority of minority mayors will be in office by 2001. Racial crossover voting will be more common.34
This is also the decade of women in politics, says pollster Mervin Field. They got a fast start out of the gate. In 1990, record numbers of women entered political races, topping the rush in 1972 when trying to pass the Equal Rights Amendment gave women the incentive to run.35 And by the first presidential election of the next century, 53 percent of voters will be women.36
Page 147
Therefore, women may again find themselves at home in the House — and the Senate. Maybe even as Chief at the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue.
"Cleaning up messes has long been relegated to women's work," says Time writer Margaret Carlson. So have other issues now at the top of the political agenda, "like worrying over the young, the aged, the sick and the environment. Survey's show that women are perceived to be better than men on these issues, as well as to have higher ethical standards and greater honesty." Says Colorado's Democratic Congress woman Pat Schroeder: "Our stereotype is finally in."37
Yet, figuring out what the electorate wants is getting tougher all the time. Political reporter David Yepsen says that 30 to 40 percent of the voters don't decide how they'll vote until the last few days before an election.38
Political analyst George Grant, who is considered a Reconstructionist, thinks the views of many voters aren't adequately expressed by the two major parties. "A plethora" of small new parties is likely in the near future, Grant told World magazine. "Historically, in the American political experience third parties — new parties — are very real options. And they can suddenly take on national proportions."39
Spiritual Politics: an Oxymoron?
In this changing milieu, the church of Jesus Christ — which is truly transnational, multiracial, intergenerational, and cross-cultural — will have a decisive role to play. Its task is to make "world Christians," helping them to understand the complex, interrelating forces of economics, politics, culture, and religion.
It would be tragic if bitter political divisions between liberal and conservative people of God were to undermine religion's essential role in laying a moral foundation for society. If religious values are relegated to the sidelines, power struggles of special interest groups will prevail over common morality. And the church's prophetic voice will be lost.
But, conversely, if spirituality is properly political, says Glenn Tinder, politics will be properly spiritual. If politics is seen as entirely secular, it "loses its moral structure and purpose and turns into an
Page 148
affair of group interest and personal ambition . . . carried out purely for the sake of power and privilege," Tinder says.40 He then points out that in the Christian view,
while every individual is exalted, society is not. On the contrary, every society is placed in question, for a society is a mere worldly order and a mere human creation and can never do justice to the glory of the human beings within it. The exaltation of the individual reveals the baseness of society. It follows that our political obligations are indeterminate and equivocal.41
But while Christianity "implies skepticism concerning political ideals and plans" it also has faith "that the universe under the impetus of grace is moving toward radical re-creation." And this, Tinder affirms, "gives a distinctive cast to the Christian conception of political action and social progress . . . If we turn away from transcendence, from God, what will deliver us from a politically fatal fear and faintheartedness?" he asks.42
If we divide the spiritual from the political, all that remains for us to do is fashion swords, spears, missiles, and finally destroy ourselves.
But according to the Old Testament prophet Micah, God will someday judge between the peoples and "they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."43
