Representatives of two evangelical groups with different perspectives on Nicaragua met last month to discuss plans for a possible joint trip to that Central American country in June.
Vernon Grounds, president of Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA), invited Ed Robb, his counterpart at the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), to consider a joint fact-finding tour of Nicaragua, IRD’s board was expected to approve the trip this month.
No details were available about the duration or complete scope of the trip. Among the delegates likely to go are ESA’s board chairman, Ronald Sider; executive director, Bill Kallio; and Grounds. From IRD, research director Kerry Ptacek, board member David Jessup, and Robb would go. Two more representatives from each group may be tapped as well, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary professor Richard Lovelace, who serves on the boards of both organizations, would accompany them.
Controversy over U.S. policy toward Nicaragua has deepened since the Sandinista revolution overthrew dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979. The Reagan administration has supported the “contras,” forces that oppose the Sandinista regime. That position has pitted Reagan against Christian groups that are sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
A similar difference of opinion has separated IRD and ESA. “Generally speaking, IRD tends to affirm Reagan administration concerns for freedom, especially religious freedom, and criticism of the Sandinista government as being on a tilt toward Marxist totalitarianism,” Lovelace said. In contrast, he said, the ESA board “tends to line up with Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians in Nicaragua who have some degree of positive affirmation for the revolution.”
Obtaining reliable information about what is happening in Nicaragua has been a chronic problem, leading to division among Christians. Reports are contradictory: churches appear to be growing, yet there are reports of persecution. Sandinista spokesmen defend their stated commitment to religious freedom and other civil rights, yet press censorship and intimidation against minorities, such as the Miskito Indians, occur. The Catholic church, which includes 80 percent of the Christians in Nicaragua, has seen the government taunt and expel some of its priests. Yet the Catholic church remains a powerful force within Nicaraguan public life.
Because there is no clear picture of the treatment individuals and institutions like the church receive, IRD and ESA say an opportunity to “cross-examine” Nicaraguan church leaders would be helpful. “We are not going with the idea of coming to a conclusion on the political situation,” said the ESA’s Kallio. “We can still disagree on that, but gain a deeper understanding and agreement on the condition of the church.”
The delegation would meet with CEPAD, an evangelical organization in Nicaragua that supports the ruling Sandinistas. Also, they would hear from evangelicals who are not part of CEPAD, as well as Catholic church leaders.
Both ESA and IRD welcome an opportunity for a free exchange of ideas. Ptacek said common ground emerged during meetings with ESA because both organizations are more interested in arriving at the truth than promoting a particular agenda.
One remaining concern is whether evangelicals in Nicaragua who are critical of the Sandinistas will feel they can speak freely to the visitors. “If our delegation comes out with any critical statements [after the trip], it could be inferred that the criticism came from evangelical pastors we spoke with, and that may endanger them,” Ptacek said.
IRD has petitioned mainline Protestant churches to withdraw any financial or other support they may provide to the Nicaraguan government “until it is proved that the churches of Nicaragua are safe and free.” The organization has published extensive interviews with critics of the Sandinistas as well as The Barren Fig Tree, a booklet asserting that the roots of the revolution were betrayed by people with a totalitarian agenda who seized power.
IRD has raised questions about CEPAD and its leader, Gustavo Parajon, suggesting that both are uncritical apologists for the Nicaraguan government. Parajon is a close friend of ESA chairman Sider, so some IRD participants were wary of Sider’s involvement in the proposed trip. But resistance crumbled at last month’s meeting after Sider clarified his personal political views. Said Ptacek: “Sider made his anti-Communism very clear.”
ESA executive director Kallio explained the purpose of his organization’s efforts related to Nicaragua. “Our goal is simply to be sure we can use whatever resources we have in this country to support and reinforce church growth in Nicaragua and use any influence we have to remove whatever undermines it,” he said. In November, ESA started a prayer network for concerns in Central America. In ESA Update, the organization explained the purpose of the project: “We know that innocent people are being killed daily in Nicaragua. We will pray daily for peace. We also know that there are restrictions on freedom in Nicaragua. We will pray daily for freedom.”
Even if IRD and ESA don’t visit Nicaragua together, Ptacek said meetings between the two groups would continue. “A great deal of progress has been made in talking about common values,” he said.
Presbyterians Are Forming A Ministry To Gays
The issue of homosexuality is likely to grab a large share of the spotlight at the 197th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) this June in Indianapolis. At that meeting, a group of evangelicals that opposes homosexual practice will petition for recognition as a “Chapter 9” organization. Such groups exist in the 3.1 million-member denomination “to conduct special tasks of witness, service, nurture, or other appropriate endeavors.”
The proposed organization—as yet unnamed—will address the subject of sexual wholeness, said Hal Schell, the group’s chief organizer. He said the group initially will attempt to counter the influence of Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC), a 10-year-old Chapter 9 organization.
Schell said the idea for a group to address sexual wholeness took root at the Presbyterian Congress on Renewal held earlier this year in Dallas. “Our purpose is to minister to the repentant homosexual,” he said, listing as qualifications for membership in the group “healed homosexuals, those in the process of being healed, and concerned pastors and laypersons who believe the church is a caring community.” Schell coordinates a ministry to homosexuals at College Hill Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati.
Jane Adams Spahr, co-moderator of the progay PLGC, said she was “concerned and saddened” by the formation of a group that will oppose homosexual practice. “Gay and lesbian people are whole people,” she said. “We don’t need healing from our sexual orientation. What we need is to be accepted and loved for who we are.” Spahr said, however, that PLGC would not try to prevent the new organization from gaining Chapter 9 status.
More than 30 of some 12,000 congregations in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have expressed support for gay ordination, according to PLGC communications secretary James Anderson. He charged that those who oppose gay ordination have a “sin fixation” on the issue of homosexuality.
Anderson said Christians ought not to interpret the Bible as condemning homosexuality. “Biblical writers had no understanding of the concept of sexual orientation,” he said. “They just assumed everyone was heterosexual and that anybody who engaged in homosexual activity was perverse. When your orientation is homosexual, it’s perverse to engage in heterosexual activities.”
Anderson maintains that conservatives in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by and large suffer from homophobia—a fear of or contempt for homosexuals. “They do everything they can to kick us out of the church,” he said, “and this is a scandal to the gospel.”
Before the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was formed by the 1983 merger of the United Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., both constituent bodies barred the ordination of “unrepentant, self-affirming, practicing homosexuals.” Last month, the denomination’s highest governing body, the Permanent Judicial Commission, ruled against a congregation in Buffalo, New York, that had announced it would ordain practicing homosexuals as elders or deacons.
In 1978, the United Presbyterian Church determined in a resolution that “homosexuality is not God’s wish for humanity.” The resolution also stated that there is no place “within the Christian faith for … homophobia.”
Matthew Welde, executive director of Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns, an evangelical Chapter 9 organization, said there needs to be “deep introspection on the part of evangelicals to ascertain whether there are pockets of homophobia.” He said evangelicals also must take “an unyielding stand as advocates of traditional biblical sexuality. We must say to the homosexual, ‘We love you too much to let you persist in your sin.’ ”
Supreme Court Upholds Appeals Court Ruling Allowing Crèche On Public Land
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court issued two split rulings last month based on 4-to-4 decisions. One ruling upheld the display on public land of a privately owned nativity scene in Scarsdale, New York. The other ruling let stand a lower court’s rejection of an Oklahoma law permitting school boards to dismiss avowedly homosexual teachers.
In each decision, a 4-to-4 tie came as a result of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.’s absence from the high court following surgery in January.
The Oklahoma law, passed in 1978, gave school boards the option of firing teachers who advocated homosexual activity and created a “risk that such conduct will come to the attention of school children or school employees.” The law was challenged by the National Gay Task Force, which claimed it impeded the rights of teachers to express their views.
After the Supreme Court last month upheld the lower court decision, both sides declared victory. An Oklahoma board of education spokesman said he expects a new state law to be developed to meet the specific objections raised by the lower court.
In the other 4-to-4 ruling, the high court let stand an appeals court decision allowing a citizens committee to display a crèche in a public park in Scarsdale, New York. From 1957 to 1980, the Scarsdale Crèche Committee, made up of representatives of local Catholic and Protestant churches, received permission from the village’s board of trustees to display the nativity scene. However, after a growing number of citizens objected to the display, the trustees denied the committee’s request in 1981 and 1982.
Crèche opponents said displaying the nativity scene on public property showed favoritism toward the Christian faith and insensitivity toward those with other beliefs. The matter was taken to a federal district court, which upheld the trustees’ actions. The district court said the village had a “compelling state interest” in avoiding any possible violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishing a religion.
The crèche committee—and another group whose nativity scene request had been denied—argued that their right to free speech was being violated. They took the case to a federal appellate court and won a reversal of the district court ruling. The appeals court judges relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s majority opinion last year in a Pawtucket, Rhode Island, nativity scene case (CT, April 6, 1984, p. 68). That decision upheld the constitutionality of a municipally owned crèche displayed on private property. The appeals court concluded that if Pawtucket’s crèche—purchased, erected, sponsored, and displayed by the city—did not advance religion excessively, then the Scarsdale nativity scene advanced religion even more negligibly.
Scarsdale’s attorneys had warned that if the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ruling, the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment would be “stretched” in such a way that municipalities will be compelled to “make places in parks and other public forums, not only for religious symbols, but for things like swastikas and vulgar signs.” Attorneys for the crèche supporters dismissed that scenario as “forensic hyperbole.” In their brief to the high court, they said the Pawtucket decision by extension proved that the Scarsdale crèche falls within the bounds of the establishment clause.
The crèche case reached the Supreme Court on the heels of last summer’s debate in Congress over the federal Equal Access Act. Similarities between the two are striking. The Equal Access Act compels public high schools to grant a meeting place for voluntary, student-led religious meetings on the same basis that meeting space is granted for nonreligious student groups.
During debate in Congress, opponents of the measure expressed fears that it would force school administrators to grant classroom space to a litany of cults and bizarre groups because space could not be denied on religious grounds. Supporters of the law said such scare scenarios were designed to scuttle the measure. At this point neither side knows whose prediction is more accurate, since not enough time has elapsed to gauge any negative consequences of the law.
Proposed Federal Budget Threatens Benefits Granted To Nonprofit Organizations
Budget and tax simplification proposals before Congress could force some churches and religious organizations into a severe financial squeeze. Nonprofit groups that mail publications or conduct fund-raising campaigns by mail could see their postal rates more than double by October if a section of President Reagan’s budget proposal remains intact.
The section affecting postal rates already has the approval of the Senate Budget Committee. However, it may be altered during full Senate debate, and it faces a tough challenge in the House of Representatives.
In addition, the rules governing retirement plans for employees of charitable organizations may change substantially if certain provisions in the U.S. Treasury Department’s tax simplification proposal become law. Incentives for saving through payroll deduction plans that are matched by employer contributions, as well as voluntary payroll deduction plans, are likely to be dismantled or modified. In addition, employee access to money saved in tax-sheltered annuities would be strictly limited.
A third budgetary blow to religious groups could come about through restrictions on the tax deductibility of charitable contributions (CT, Jan. 18, 1985, p. 44). While tax breaks are not the chief motivation for charitable giving, they have been identified as a key factor determining the size of a financial gift.
Postal Subsidy
The budget submitted by Reagan this year does not include funds to subsidize nonprofit second-class mail. As a result, “the postal situation facing the religious press is potentially devastating,” Edgar R. Trexler, editor of The Lutheran magazine, told members of a House subcommittee. Trexler represented 800 major religious periodicals that are affiliated with Associated Church Press, American Jewish Press Association, Catholic Press Association, Southern Baptist Press Association, and Evangelical Press Association.
Under current law, the portion of the postal subsidy that covers direct costs is being phased out over a period of 16 years, ending in 1986. The President’s budget creates “a new set of rules while the game is still going on,” Trexler said, and this will catch many publishers off guard. Reagan’s budget also recommends that the rest of the nonprofit subsidy, appropriated by Congress to cover overhead and other costs incurred by the U.S. Postal Service, be eliminated from the federal budget and charged to the Postal Service. The Senate Budget Committee already has approved that proposal.
If the proposal passes Congress, the Postal Service would be faced with the dilemma of assigning the added cost to either nonprofit mailers or those involved in profit-making ventures. The added costs almost certainly would be passed along directly to nonprofit mailers. Those changes could take place as early as October.
Trexler said the annual cost of mailing 21 issues of The Lutheran would increase by $290,526—“more than the total amount The Lutheran pays each year for salaries and benefits for its entire editorial staff.”
John Stapert, editor and publisher of The Church Herald, said the added postal costs would be “disastrous for publishers who have sold subscriptions and advertising into the future based on current rates.” Stapert said The Church Herald’s costs would increase by 109 percent, effectively putting the magazine out of business.
“Obviously it’s going to be a blow,” said William Petersen, publisher of Eternity magazine and several national newsletters. “We would try to pass along as much [cost] as we can to the reader. But the question is, will subscribers be willing to pay a higher cost for the same product?”
The current postal subsidy appropriation amounts to $801 million in fiscal year 1985 and $981 million for fiscal year 1986. It is one of many provisions in the federal budget that Congress will consider cutting because of overriding pressure to decrease the federal budget deficit.
The Senate budget committee is receiving mail opposed to postal rate increases. “Given the volume of mail,” said a committee spokeswoman, “someone somewhere will offer an amendment to it when it comes to the floor” for Senate debate.
Retirement Plans
Changes may be in store as well for benefits and retirement plans available to employees of nonprofit organizations. Congress is considering several tax simplification plans, one of which came from the U.S. Treasury Department. It is not known yet how strongly Reagan supports it, but tax analysts and lobbyists are girding for an effective White House lobbying effort on behalf of whatever options Reagan wants.
In order to promote tax simplification, the Treasury Department would impose heavy penalties on money withdrawn from tax-sheltered annuities (TSAS) before age 59½ and after age 70. Contributions to all “defined contributions plans” would be limited to 15 percent of an employee’s income per year. (Such plans primarily are used by small organizations to guarantee that a certain percentage of salary is set aside for retirement.) The 15-percent limit would include contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA’s), which may be liberalized so that $2,500 can be deposited each year by an employee, along with $2,500 for a nonworking spouse. Overall, the plan would seek to promote individual initiative for retirement rather than reliance on incentive programs such as plans in which an employer provides matching contributions for deposits withheld from an employee’s paycheck.
Charles W. Cammack, a New York consultant who designs retirement programs for numerous nonprofit organizations, is critical of the Treasury Department proposal. “The problem [with the proposal] is a complete misunderstanding of why people save,” he said. Retirement programs requiring active participation, such as an IRA, will attract only about 15 percent of a given group of taxpayers, Cammack said. But when an employer is willing to subsidize a retirement plan through un taxed payroll deductions or direct payments, 80 percent will participate.
Cammack warns that if people do not take the initiative to save, the Treasury Department’s plan could backfire. If people reach retirement without sufficient savings, he said, “all they can do is go back to the government. We could wind up doubling the size of the very government we’re trying to cut.”
According to Focus, a newsletter published by Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, tax benefits for retirement plans are the single largest “subsidy” in the federal budget, so the need for revenue to balance the budget places such plans irresistibly in the limelight.
Charitable Contributions
In addition, the Treasury Department’s proposal may precipitate a drop in charitable contributions. The proposal would allow no tax deductions until an individual’s charitable giving surpasses 2 percent of his annual income. It also would prevent people who do not itemize deductions from receiving a tax deduction for charitable contributions. In addition, the proposal would restructure tax brackets so the tax benefit for wealthy donors would be substantially decreased. No capital gains deductions would be allowed on property or investments, so major gifts of land and assets could diminish.
According to a report prepared for Independent Sector, an advocacy organization for private philanthropic groups, giving to religious organizations would total $43.76 billion in 1985 under current law. If the Treasury Department’s proposal is enacted, that amount would drop to $35.8 billion.
