Like everyone else, the church is polarized.
In the debate over Nicaragua, truth seems as elusive as peace between the ruling Sandinistas and counterrevolutionaries (contras) backed by the Reagan administration.
Robert Leiken, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, visited the Central American nation in February. In testimony to Congress, Leiken, once a Sandinista supporter, said there is “overwhelming evidence of an … intensifying [Sandinista] campaign of intimidation, harassment, coercion, and even assassination against religious groups, opposition parties, the independent press, and trade unions.”
However, Nicaraguan church leader Gustavo Parajon visited Washington last month and, upon hearing Leiken’s comments, said, “He must have visited another country” (see interview on page 38).
Since the Sandinistas toppled dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979, conflicting reports have plagued U.S. policy makers. As the House of Representatives last month defeated Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the contras, lobbying on both sides intensified.
Among those vying for support on Capitol Hill are church leaders from the U.S. and Nicaragua. The church in both countries has figured prominently in the debate. High-ranking Nicaraguan Catholic Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo is an outspoken critic of the Sandinistas. And there have been charges of persecution of Protestant groups and individuals, including Jimmy Hassan, director of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nicaragua (CT, Feb. 7, 1986, p. 52).
Not all who oppose the Sandinistas support the contras. But for now, this is the choice the Reagan administration has placed before Congress and the nation. The President has accused the Niccaraguan government of launching “a campaign to subvert and topple its democratic neighbors.” He maintains the contras are “only asking America for the supplies and support to save their own country from communism.”
Yet the President has also said, “We have sought and still seek a negotiated peace and a democratic future in a free Nicaragua.” A last-minute compromise offered last month to the House proposed giving the Sandinistas 90 days to begin to negotiate with opponents or to respect a peace process being pursued by several Latin American countries known as the Contadora group. Nevertheless, some maintain the President’s goal is to topple Nicaragua’s government.
Discordant Views
Virtually all observers say the Sandinistas are running a totalitarian, Marxist state. A Washington Post editorial said “the question is not whether the Sandinistas are Communists of the Cuban or Soviet school. All that is now a given.” It is widely believed the Sandinistas have betrayed the goals of a genuinely democratic movement that ousted Somoza.
Much of the staunchest remaining support for the Sandinistas comes from U.S. mainline Protestant church leadership. A recent meeting of denominational social action leaders and their Washington office representatives, sponsored by IMPACT, a national ecumenical coalition, brought hundreds of lobbyists to Capitol Hill to oppose contra aid.
At an IMPACT press briefing, Robert Tiller of the American Baptist Churches said, “The Sandinistas have gone to great pains to include opposition parties in the development of the constitution there.” He added, “They may have different kinds of social and political goals than we in this country, but it is a mistake of great proportions to characterize them as totalitarian.”
Likewise, portrayals of the Sandinistas’ opponents vary. President Reagan likens the contras to America’s Founding Fathers, calling them freedom fighters. Others claim the contras are a remnant of Somoza’s violent National Guard, fighting an unpopular and doomed battle.
A newspaper advertisement with the signatures of 18 religious leaders alleges the Reagan administration “has been deceiving the public in its quest for military and so-called humanitarian aid to the contras.” It states the administration has covered up “credible reports that the contras are systematically committing human rights atrocities against innocent civilians.”
Among those who signed the ad are Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit; Joseph E. Lowery, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Avery Post, president of the United Church of Christ; Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; and Vernon Grounds, who is listed as president of Conservative Baptist Seminary (Grounds is president emeritus at Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary).
CEPAD’s View
Christians in this country hold opposing assessments of the Evangelical Council for Relief and Development (CEPAD) in Nicaragua. A major disagreement is over whether it represents the views and concerns of Nicaraguan evangelicals. Critics ofCEPADmaintain the Sandinistas have used it to achieve their political ends. Gustavo Parajon, a Harvard-trained physician and pastor of First Baptist Church in Managua, is the director of CEPAD. Last month he met with United States congressmen on the eve of a vote on President Reagan’s proposal of aid to contra soldiers. Parajon granted a private interview to CHRISTIANITY TODAY News, which is developing a pro-con debate on the Nicaragua question for a future issue.
Has CEPAD officially opposed U.S. aid to the contras?
No, but denominational leaders in the assembly feel negotiation is the solution. Obviously the United States has legitimate concerns about Latin America. But differences should be resolved by dialogue rather than war.
Why have you said the contras are making life difficult and preventing peace in Nicaragua?
The contras raid Nicaragua from their bases in Honduras and Costa Rica. People in the border areas suffer. If they give food to the contras, they get in trouble with the government army. If they give food to the army, the contras make it difficult for them. Our young people have been drafted; over 7,000 soldiers and civilians have died because of the contra war. Some of our own Baptist Christians have been murdered by contras.
What about Sandinista violations, such as harassment of Catholics and Protestants?
The state of emergency imposed last year has not changed life for the ordinary Nicaraguan. Perhaps political parties were most affected. Recently they have been allowed to resume public activites. In the Catholic church, the only problem is with the Managuan Diocese; Monsignor Obando y Bravo was on a collision course with the government long before the state of emergency. But the government is in dialogue with seven of the ten bishops in the Catholic conference. About seven evangelical pastors and leaders were called in for questioning. Reverend Boanerges Mendoza was there the longest, about 12 hours. Then all of them went home. Later Mendoza and two others were imprisoned. His church and his wife asked if we could do something, and I said we could. The government responded, and they were released.
What are your goals and how are they viewed by the Sandinistas?
Religious freedom is number one on our agenda. We want to make sure we can preach the gospel. We have carried out all our ministries so far. We’ve seen no indication activities will be curtailed. Our evangelical radio station has programs from 6 A.M. to 12 midnight. Many churches broadcast their services.
Do you have any criticisms of your government?
We have had disagreements. We would like to see pluralism and the preservation of human rights. We would also like improvement in the social and economic status of our people.
Jimmy Hassan, director of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nicaragua, said he was detained by the government for preaching the gospel and told that ideology competing with Marxism would not be tolerated (CT, Feb. 7, 1986, p. 52). How do you explain that?
What happened to him is unusual. Many are preaching the gospel and many have come to know the Lord. Recently I baptized 22 new people in my church.
How does the history of U.S.-Nicaragua relations inform the present conflict?
U.S. marines were in and out of our country from 1906 to 1932. They supported governments that would benefit U.S. economic interests; they created Somoza and his national guard. And so the political developments that took place in other Latin American countries could not take place in Nicaragua. When Somoza was ousted, the void was filled by the Sandinistas. With this background, Nicaragua’s social unrest and turmoil are inevitable.
How deeply are the Sandinistas influenced by Soviet and Cuban advisers?
There are advisers from all over the world in Nicaragua, including Americans. Nicaragua is fighting a war financed by the most powerful country in the world. What would any government do? Nicaragua has said it will abide by the Contadora process, which calls for all military advisers to leave. We have encouraged our government to participate in this process because it would limit military armies in Central America and stop cross-border support.
Explain the Contadora process.
It calls for negotiation. It was begun more than three years ago by Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and Colombia. They were concerned about conflicts in Central America and the U.S. government’s advancement of a military solution. About one year ago, four more countries, including Argentina, Brazil, and Peru, gave their support to the process.
The process presumes the Sandinistas can be molded by the will of the people and the advice of other governments. Reagan maintains the contras represent the people. Might the contras become a legitimate democratic resistance movement?
The Reagan administration formed the contras out of the core of the Somoza army. If you were bombed like I was by Somoza planes financed by your tax dollars you would understand why the contras will not succeed. Mexico is not pro-Communist. Nor Panama, Colombia, or Venezuela. Why would they say, “Let Latin Americans figure out a solution” if they are not concerned about the contras?
One Assessment
U.S. Rep. Paul Henry (R-Mich.) traveled to Nicaragua just before the March vote. He went with a group of congressmen sympathetic to Reagan’s views, but broke away from the group to meet with three people he labeled “representtatives of the religious left,” all of them American missionaries.
Henry said the missionaries were surprised to learn the Sandinistas are regarded as Marxists. “They tended to view the militarization of Nicaragua … as a defense against American-supported interventionism.” Henry said the missionaries regarded reports in the Washington Post and The New Republic as coming from “conservative organs.”
In written reflections, Henry said the missionaries’ assessment “suggested to me either a political naivete, or a strongly left-of-center orientation to the political world.” Henry was troubled by their “starkly contrasting assessment of the factual situation.”
He noted that those he met with work primarily among the dispossessed and that the missionaries are more concerned about achieving social goals than about the political consequences. In addition, he observed, “The information they receive is predominantly filtered through the government-controlled press.”
It is people such as these who are largely responsible for shaping the views of their denominations in the United States and for providing information to delegations of church people who visit Nicaragua.
Skepticism about uncritical reports of Sandinista intentions has fueled the congressional debate. This month the House is expected to debate the issue again, focusing on a Democratic alternative that calls for a delay of aid to the contras and encourages the U.S. government to pursue negotiations.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has called for free and fair elections in Nicaragua “monitored by a free press and regional observers.”
Said Lugar, “There are some skeptics who argue that it’s absurd to push for elections in Communist dictatorships.… But why should we accept such constraints? It is apparent that people in Nicaragua … want democracy, that they want elections, and that they are fighting for their very lives to obtain them.”
BETH SPRING
