The debate intensifies between mainline religious leaders and their critics.
There is widespread agreement that believers should help safeguard religious liberties. But there is far less of a consensus about how that should be accomplished.
During a two-day conference at the U.S. State Department, a number of groups that advocate international religious freedom discussed ways to coordinate their efforts more effectively. Domestic church politics kept surfacing, however, threatening to distance mainline ecumenical groups even further from critics in the evangelical community.
The conference was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in cooperation with the U.S. State Department and the Jacques Maritain Center of the University of Notre Dame. The National Council of Churches (NCC), the World Council of Churches, and the U.S. Catholic Conference were not officially represented, and their absence provoked considerable discussion at the conference.
Richard John Neuhaus, a conference speaker and an IRD board member, said the NCC was “begged and implored” to participate. But Dwain C. Epps, director of international affairs for the NCC’s Division of Church and Society, said the council “had not been approached at any stage with regard to planning, sponsorship, or setting an agenda for such a meeting.” For that reason, among others, the NCC did not send representatives and declined invitations to speak.
In a letter to Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary for human rights at the U.S. State Department, NCC general secretary Arie Brouwer cited a schedule conflict that prevented him from attending the conference. He added that he was annoyed that his name had been used on a tentative schedule that was distributed two weeks before he was contacted by conference organizers.
Brouwer warned that the conference’s close association with a government agency was a “fundamental flaw.… Would it not be more appropriate for religious bodies to hold a conference on religious liberty completely free from any co-sponsoring arrangement with an agency of the state?”
Others who attended the meeting, however, did not see a conflict between church and state. Robert Maddox, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said the conference constituted “an acceptable use of the public square.”
Presentations by international human rights experts covered Third World nations, Soviet bloc countries, and U.S. allies such as South Africa and the Philippines, where violations of religious freedom occur. Throughout the conference, religious freedom was presented as the premier human rights concern. If these freedoms are eroded by government action, most conference speakers suggested, international relations with those governments should hinge on those rights being restored. In a session at the White House, President Reagan told the conferees, “I believe that the most essential element of our defense of freedom is our insistence on speaking out for the cause of religious liberty. I would like to see this country rededicate itself wholeheartedly to this cause.”
Much of the conference debate focused on the condition of believers in the Soviet Union and how they can best be helped by Christians in the free world. Michael Bourdeaux, head of England’s Keston College, which monitors the plight of dissident believers, concluded that the officially atheistic Soviet government is fighting a losing battle against religious belief. “Marxism/Leninism has had to make concessions to religion in practice,” he said, “but has never gone back on its commitment to eradicate it [religion] as soon as possible by indoctrination and legislation supplemented by varying doses of illegal persecution.
“Religion is [viewed as] a problem—like corruption, bad harvests, and drunkenness—to be tackled and eliminated,” Bourdeaux said. “If [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev proves to be an efficient executive of this dogma, this can only be bad news for the church.” The principal danger, Bourdeaux indicated, is that skillful Soviet public relations efforts will make it appear that more religious freedom is permitted and even that attitudes at the top are changing, while in fact persecution intensifies.
That possibility worries Bourdeaux and others who stay in touch with unregistered churches, individual dissidents, and groups that defy Soviet dictates because of their faith. A different tack toward the Soviet Union is taken by the NCC, which sponsored a trip there by 276 delegates in 1983. Identifying closely with the officially approved Russian Orthodox Church, the council advocates dialogue rather than confrontation.
Critics of the NCC charge that the difference is more than just tactical; they say it is ideological as well. Several participants at the recent religious liberties conference said the NCC agenda has more to do with attaining world peace than with concern for fellow believers within the body of Christ worldwide.
Bob Pickus, of the World Without War Council, said the NCC’s actions are spurred by its “profound concern for peace and [its] profound misreading of how it is to be achieved.” IRD board member David Jessup said the strategy of mainline church leaders is one of appeasement and bridge building to Soviet citizens, who in turn should put pressure on their government to work for peace. However, he disagreed with that approach.
“Such an argument has a powerful appeal, especially among U.S. churchgoers,” Jessup said. “In reply, we must point out that we have as our ultimate purpose the expansion of religious freedom. Only if churches are truly independent of government can they bring pressure to bear.”
Provost Charles A. Perry, of Washington (Episcopal) Cathedral, was a member of the NCC delegation to the Soviet Union. By expressing “a degree of solidarity” with Russian Orthodox believers and their church hierarchy, he said, the Orthodox church gains notice and standing among Soviet people.
Because there is no underground Orthodox church, Perry said it is in the best interest of Soviet believers for American Christians to “deal with the structures as they exist.” He said he sees two equally important tasks: “lifting up instances of religious persecution and staying in touch with the leadership of the church there,” even if some of its officials are co-opted by the state.
Many participants at the religious liberties conference were eager to agree on a course of action, and Jessup suggested a speakers’ tour of the United States. The NAE and AJC plan to mobilize their local affiliates to organize regional meetings on the issue of religious liberty. Others called for the creation of a U.S. equivalent of Keston College, but Bourdeaux said that is not necessary.
“We need to distribute the information that is already available rather than have a second group do the same research,” he said. Bourdeaux said he has approached 25 U.S. colleges—including Christian schools—and found “just no interest at all” in setting up an information bank on religious freedom issues.
