CLINTON ST. QUARTERLY As anyone who reads a daily newspaper knows, a new coalition has burst onto the national political scene . . . a strange brew of fundamentalist Christianity and ultraConservative politics that has announced as its primary goal the formation of a “ Christian Republic” here in the U.S.A. Their rhetoric is loud and strident, and these evangelical new-rightists bill themselves with names like “ The Moral Majority” and “ Moral Rearmament.” The emergence of such a movement in American politics probably has our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. The separation of church and state was of such importance to them that it was written into the Bill of Rights, that concept is being seriously challenged by a movement that encompasses faith healing, evangelism, charity and godliness along with stands on abortion, homosexuality, Darwinism and the military budget. The Bible and the flag, the sword and the Cross are symbols of the movement, and fear is its lifeblood: fear of the wrath of God, international Communism, new sexual attitudes, the economy and the breakdown of the traditional family. The ballot box is seen as a convenient means of preemptive retaliation. Portland is no stranger to this phenomenon, which involves several local churches, their pastors, quasiindependent political action committees and politicians themselves. The CSQ takes a look at one local congregation — Bible Temple Church in northeast Portland — as a prominent manifestation of this remarkable development. It Started in a Duck Blind It was winter 1979. Bill Sizemore and Jack Louman were sitting in a duck blind, waiting for some ducks to fly by so they could shoot them. While they were waiting, the subject arose of the severe moral decay and unrighteousness this great country has fallen into. As they got deeper and deeper into the matter, it become obvious that firm action had to be taken, and soon. They resolved then and there to join together in a mutual effort to stand up to the growing permissiveness, homosexuality, and sin that was already rearing its ugly head all over America, from the lowest to the highest places. They beat a hasty retreat from the duck blind back to Bible Temple Church where, with Pastor Dick Iverson’s blessing, Moral Response was born. They began operations in an office they rented down the block and across the street from the church. From the beginning, care was taken to avoid any activities which might appear to outsiders as actual direct involvement of the church itself in Moral Response’s tireless efforts in the complex task of weaving together elements of Fundamentalist Christianity, National Supremacy, and Sexual Intolerance in’o an effective political organization. Moral Response registered as a political action committee shortly before the May 980 primary election. Sizemore and Louman hastily put together a newsletter which they distributed to 15,000 Portland-area Christians, giving their endorsements. In making these endorsements, the two were helped immeasurably by the work of the Portland Town Council, a local gay rights organization. Sizemore and Louman simply took the results of a Town Council poll of candidates and offered them to their own constituency in reverse . . . those the Town Council endorsed, Moral Response condemned. These “ borrowed” endorsements were used by others of the Cause, like Don Baker of Hinson Memorial Church who included them in a letter to Portland area ministers. In addition to homosexuality, candidates’ stands on abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment were paramount in determining endorsements by Moral Response. They state: “ The directors of Moral Response are Christians but we do not base our political suppo rt on religious grounds. Nor do we intend to use politics to force our religious convictions on others . . . [abortion and gay rights] are moral and social issues that deserve the concern of all good men regardless of religious convictions. The very basis of our society and culture is at stake in these times. They very concept of ‘family’ is in danger. There is time to act if we do it now . . . . ” The recommendations and endorsements for the May primary clearly reflected an extremely conservative o r ien ta t ion . On the Republican ballot for president, they “ Prefer Ronald Reagan, a more conservative candidate than Bush. Reagan opposes the ERA and abortion. Phillip Crane is more or less out of the running . . . ” On the Democratic side they had “ No preference. We suggest you write in if you do not favor one of the candidates. Note: we strongly favor Reagan from all choices offered.” Things have changed a lot since the last Presidential election, when Jimmy Carter swept the fundamentalist vote with little more than a Bible and a grin, his ignorance of complex issues and lack of experience in Washington being his main qualifications for the office. The fundamentalists and their leaders may have a shoit memory for such things, but the lesson has not been lost to Reagan and his advisors or the many politicians and candidates courting the Bible Vote. On the local ballots, Moral Response has some clear preferences and some tough decisions. In the mayoral race, Sizemore and Louman joined with Christian conservatives city-wide in support of Frank Ivancie. In fact, five days before the election their flyer was distributed through a luncheon meeting of pastors at North’s Chuck Wagon near the Gateway district in Northeast Portland. Ivancie was the headliner, awkwardly making all those gestures successful politicians make on TV. They refered to him as “ an extremely experienced and effective man of high moral fiber,” while all they had to say about his main opponent Connie McCready was that she was endorsed by Portland Town Council. They reserved one of their harshest judgments for the State Representative from Northwest Portland, Vera Katz (they managed to misspell her name all three times they used it, twice as Vera Kate and once as Verakatz): “ Vera Kate is a liberal who should be unseated at almost any cost.” They also set their guns on Senator Bob Packwood: “ Bob Packwood is one of the worst liberals in the U.S. Senate, favoring abortion, gay rights, and the ERA..The only chance of defeating him is if Christians, conservatives and moralists unite behind one candidate. Brenda Jose has the support of Moral Majority and the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress.” In many races candidates who did not agree with Moral Response’s stands on issues were unopposed. In these cases the recommendation was for no vote or write-in. The Republican position for State Senate District #10 was one of many with no candidate listed. The Democratic incumbent, Jim Gardner, had received the Portland Town Council’s endorsement and was unopposed on the Democratic ballot in the primary. This is Bible Temple Church’s home district. After the primary, Sizemore himself filed for the position and is now running against Gardner in the November election. Big Odds Sizemore has drawn a particularly tough candidate in Gardner. Despite having served only two sessions since his election in 1978 to fill the unexpired term of Betty Roberts, he has turned in some handy achievements. He won the election as a newcomer to the political arena with 75% of the vote, the highest margin in all the Senate races. During his two sessions in office he has been chosen by Willamette Week as the outstanding senator from the Portland area, and he walked away with the Oregonian’s poll of fellow legislators as overall outstanding colleague. These awards have come mainly from his work in the Senate Revenue Committee and the Legislative Conference Committee on Tax Relief. He was a chief architect of the tax relief package which statewide voters approved by a 91% margin, and is one of those responsible for an amendment limiting property tax assessments for homeowners, an issue dear to the hearts of his Eastside suburban constituency. But Sizemore is undaunted by all this. In a 14-page letter he and Louman sent to Portland-area pastors under Pastor Iverson’s name and distributed at the Chuck Wagon gathering), they claim: “ Big odds have never been a concern for God and His faithful ambassadors.” There follows what looks like a lineup from a Biblical sports column: “ 1. Gen 18-23-33 — God believes there is enough potential for redemption and restoration if there is as few as 10 righteous men. 2. Moses vs Egyptians 3. Elijah at Mt Carmel 4. Gideon’s 300 vs 120,000 5. David vs Goliath 6. 12 NT [New Testament] Apostles vs the WORLD!!” Sizemore and Louman are easy to find. They teach a class on Thursday nights in the Church gymnasium on Current Issues: Church & Politics. This class isn’t mandatory, but it does manage to draw close to 200 to its first meeting. I arrive late, and go to the gymnasium, where there’s a class on Old Testament genealogy and convents going on. The politics class has been moved to the main sanctuary, to make use o f the projector and screen. I walk in just after the film starts. I t ’s titled Wake Up America, starring a Southern preacher named James Robison, and it features interviews with prominent ex-generals and politicians on the alarming state of the moral climate and defense budget. It also shows us a 195O’s-style map of the world with all the Communist countries flashing red like a giant cancer. After the film I elbow past the past the crowd of worshipers and students wishing to express their appreciation and renewed committment to the Cause due to the movie. Everyone hopes it can be shown again after evening service on Sunday. Louman is passing out free tickets to an upcoming film on abortion to be shown at the Coliseum. Sizemore is happy to talk to me despite the throng. I mention the role of churches in politics today and he’s ready, with loads of verbal ammunition. He’s careful to make the distinction between the role of churches — none — and the role of the church-goers — plenty. If they don’t make this distinction, the IRS is likely to make it for them. As Sizemore points out in the letter to the pastors: “ Church leaders can more clearly and effectively address relevant issues if they understand well their freedoms and limitations within the framework of church-state separa tion ‘law s ,’ especially as the IRS applies them to tax-exempt status.” He then establishes the scare line used in the “ literature” and the movement generally: this country is falling apart and the root cause is moral decay, and the only way it’s going to be turned around is if good, moral men get involved and do something about it. There is no shortage of issues for Christians to get involved in, either. From the letter comes: “ NOTE THE FOLLOWING LIST OF ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE CHURCH NOW ! abortion-gay rights (sodomy) — legalization of marijuana — euthanasia and infanticide — Equal Rights Amendment — sex education-government control of private schools-equal coverage of the creation theory with evolution — child rights laws — pornography — prayer in the schools — drafting of women. This is not to say that other issues far more complicated are not relevant to the Church such as defense spending, the SALT agreements, balancing the budget, nuclear energy, etc., but the above-named issues are the ones the Church has a clear Scriptural responsibility and authority to address.” I’m curious about the Scriptural line on, for example, legalization of marijuana. He has not one, but three answers, though none rely too heavily on the Bible: the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians and clergy would condemn it, the body is the temple and whatever harms the temple harms God, and besides they would oppose marijuana simply on the basis of the subculture that surrounds it. I know some Biblical references which could apply to defense spending and arms limitations, such as Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: fo r they shall be called the children o f God. But that’s not the sort of reference Sizemore was talking about. What he’s thinking about is the Duty of America, as a Christian nation, to oppose the spread of World Communism. Over the last 100 years, 95% of all missionaries, and nearly 100% of their funding, have come from America. If America became a Communist country, all that would be lost. Besides, there’s a good solid answer rooted in the principles of political compromise. Strange Bedfellows Much of the current political movement among fundamentalists grew out of their participation in the White House Conference on the Family in Washington, D.C. in the spring of Su Steve A tu eu 27
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz