CLINTON ST. QUARTERLY 1980. There was consensus among representatives there that whatever threatened the traditional male- dominated household (women’s liberation and child rights laws, for example) also threatened the Church, and should be resisted. So there was general agreement on what was perceived as moral issues. Their stands on fiscal and military matters, however, were based on conservative political tradion and coalition politics, not religious policy. At the conference were a number of seasoned lobbying groups and PAC’s (Political Action Committees) with well-established connections in Congress and with big-time funding sources. They expressed a willingness to help the Christians if the Christians would help them. The Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, for example, is a hard-line right-wing PAC dedicated to assisting the campaigns of hawks running against doves for seats in Congress. The combination of Christian voters and the PAC’s experience and money could make quite a difference. According to Louman and Sizemore’s pamphlet, “We have 8,000,000 unregistered Christian voters . . . All elections are controlled by the minority of eligible voters . . . Every election is close . . . In 1976 22 elections involving good conservative candidates were lost by 2% of vote.” It would be comforting if Sizemore was merely another politicized fundamentalist. However, he shows an unexpected grasp of the difference between principle and political convenience, and he is capable of making and following the finely-tuned arguments necessary for bargaining and compromise. He is unlikely to be as effective in the legislature as his opponent, but in a coalition of prairie conservatives, obstructionists, and other fundamentalists, he could easily emerge as a force to be reckoned with in Salem. And if he did well, those PAC’s in Washington are always keeping an eye out for promising young talent . . . But he tells me he isn’t ambitious. He doesn’t want to be a Senator or anything like that. And he doesn’t want to use the churches as a springboard. There are others waiting to talk to him, so I find my way out of the sanctuary back into the lobby, where a young man and woman are laughing because they each tried to sell the other $25 tickets to a Sizemore for Senate fund-raising dinner. An Audience with Pastor Dick Iverson I was welcomed warmly into his inner office with a sincere smile and firm handshake. We sat facing each other on a well-stuffed sofa and a chair. Between us was a glass and brassy coffee table sitting on a longhaired calico carpet. There was a gold-plated pitcher and two glasses on a crystal tray, and a faint aroma of apple juice. The setting was relaxed and informal, more like a living room than an office. Pastor Iverson has been involved in the ministry almost all his life. There was a brief stint in the auto industry, from 1958 to 1963, when he and his brothers ran a used-car business. Dick would fly the private plane to different cities as a buyer of group lots of cars. Then they would determine which of these could be sold to other dealerships, and the rest were sold on an individual basis. He took over the pastorship of BiBIRRBRAIN Trie VJ£ V£ G o T O F £ BLASPH &RMG - BACK ble Temple in 1965 from his father, who had been pastor of the small congregation since 1951. Church membership during his father’s ministry remained fairly steady at about 150, winning a few and losing a few each year. Since his own ministry, growth has been fairly constant at 15 to 20 per cent a year, and the church now claims over two thousand members. Growth in property has kept pace with membership. In addition to the new church itself, there is the old church down the street, used for classes by the Bible College which has about 200 students. They also have their own school — kindergarten through twelfth grade — with 350 students. Local homes have been converted into dormitories for the college students. Several local shops are owned either by the Church or church members, including a bookstore and gift shop, and two printing presses. One third of the members live within walking distance of the church. It was the move to their present building ten years ago that brought Pastor Iverson and his church into the political arena. The plans had been drawn, the land purchased, and everything was set to go except the necessary permits from city government. The local Neighborhood Association was opposed to the church’s being built, as was then-Mayor Neil Goldschmidt. Zoning laws had to be changed or overridden. “We were so naive then, we were like children when it came to dealing with City Hall,” Pastor Iverson assured me. “ They really played some games behind the scenes.” “With so much opposition, how did you ever manage to get it built?” I asked. Pastor Iverson leaned back and smiled: “ Let’s say it was just through the wisdom of God.” City Council member Connie McCready had been out to the Church before the controversy and had promised her support whenever it might be needed. However, that promise turned out to be an empty one as soon as it was apparent that the neighborhood was opposed. On the other hand, Commissioner Frank Ivancie had been helpful, and even came out to apologize to the congregation for the way the council had acted after it was all over. So when it came down to the mayoral election between the two during last May’s primary election, the Church was, of course, pretty solidly behind Ivancie. Supporting Ivancie was also a major focus of Moral Response’s earliest activity. “Goldschmidt said we’d have to get out of town, out to the suburbs, and I said to him ‘We’ll just see about that.’ Now we’re here and he’s gone, even though he might think he went up, got a promotion,” Iverson tells me with evident satisfaction. Now, a decade later, neither Pastor Iverson nor the Church can be considered politically naive. He assures me that the Church itself has no role at all to play in politics. That would, of course, violate the principle of separation of Church and State. However, the Church membership does have a clear responsibility: “ Jesus said ‘Render unto Caesar,’ and Caesar says to get involved in politics, this is a Democracy, we’re supposed to get involved.” I ask him about the relationship between the Church, himself, and Moral Response. Both Louman and Sizemore, he tells me, are elders of the Church, both are self-employed in contracting and housepainting. As elders, both have graduated from the Church’s own Bible college, and are therefore legally qualified pastors in their own right. They are oprating independently, however, and not as agents of the Church. The pastor tells me that, no, he doesn’t discourage them in their efforts, he isn’t neutral, yes, he does encourage them. But they’re acting on their own anyway. As for the fetter they wrote sent to all Portland pastors under Iverson’s name, he’s willing to stand by the opinions expressed and answer my questions about it. It’s hard to know where to begin. S ta tem en ts th a t would seem outrageous in themselves to me and most people I know are common truths to him. The idea that women and homosexuals ought to have equal rights before the law with their their straight male fellow citizens to him seems like the work of the Devil. The concept that Christians out to fight for a bigger military budget seems absurd to me. First, on the subject of Church involvement in politics, as he sees it, the State has no right to legislate morality, this would be wrong, you can’t save soul through legislation. But when the State starts getting into im- moral legislation, it’s going to get a reaction from the Church. The Church isn’t just acting then, it’s reacting: “ All these things . . . gay, sodomy . . . I don’t think the State should be involved. But suppose I was a school administrator (which he is, among other things) and somebody For hamburgers & homemade desserts 223-0287 Sat 8:00-4:00 Mon-Fri 8:00-7:00 33 NW 23rd Pl h e m e 224-2722 777-9690 Offering childbirth classes A H r m FOOTHILL 2 2 8 4 3 1- - 3 4 7 2 9 7 1 8 28 Comic by Tom Kramer
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz