In the spring of 1966, the late J. Howard Pew, oil magnate and powerful
conservative church layman, wrote an article for Reader's
Digest entitled "Should the Church `Meddle' in Civil Affairs?" To those
familiar with Pew's long and hard-fought battles to squelch liberal
programs of the National Council of Churches through his role as
chairman of that organization's National Lay Committee, it came as no
surprise to learn his answer to the question was an emphatic No!
[1]
The Christian Century responded to the "uncomfortable Pew" with a
blistering editorial accusing him of producing "more mischief with one
blow than the God-is-Dead fury produced with several."
[2]
For some time we were perplexed by the ease with which Christian Century could so
readily make bedfellows of Thomas J. J. Altizer and J. Howard Pew. But
with recent revelations of the extensiveness of the public relations
ploys of the boys at the White House and the Committee to Re-Elect the
President to make "Newspeak"
[3]
the official language of the Republic,
the Christian Century linkage now makes sense.
Both Altizer and Pew were disturbing the liberal Protestant
establishment's connivances to extend their power and influence in the
political arena. The Altizers and Hamiltons symbolized the politicized
component of the radical student counterculture. They were dangerous not
because their ideas were so radical but precisely because they were not.
When the sensational rhetoric is stripped away, it becomes clear that
they were wrestling with essentially the same difficult questions many
Christian theologians have been agonizing over for a long time. But
"ordinary Christians," laity and most clergy, should not know the
details of
the serious, sensitive, and secret talks and negotiations to bring forth
credible reinterpretations of "the Word" which were taking place behind
the closed doors of seminaries. The Altizers and Hamiltons were the
Ellsbergs and Russos leaking to the press the religious establishment's
top-secret documents.
Pew, on the other hand, symbolized the power of a vigilant judge and a
fearless press to reveal the extensiveness of the establishment's
involvement in domestic affairs. The fifteen million circulation of
Reader's Digest, along with its popularity among conservative church
people within liberal Protestantism, was more than embarrassing. Pew
threatened not only to blow the cover wide open but also to set in
motion the machinery which could ultimately topple the establishment.
Both Pew and Altizer had to be thoroughly discredited. Altizer and his
friends were labeled a "lunatic fringe" with ideas completely foreign to
anything else being thought in the seminaries. A fury of vitriolic
editorials and articles in liberal Protestant publications in effect
booed the Death-of-God boys from the stage. Then followed a shield of
silence and the would-be "movement" quickly died. The potential
investigations and probes which might have purged seminaries of all but
the most orthodox faculty were averted. Only liberals in conservative
denominations were. hurt by the fallout of the "scandal."
Pew was not so easily discredited and silenced. To be sure, liberal
Protestantism's continued efforts to plunge more deeply into the
political arena faced an inevitable destiny of discovery and resistance
from those within the ranks who had -had enough. But looking back, Pew's
single shot seems indeed to have accomplished more than his years of
efforts working "within the system." This single article now appears to
have had considerable influence in drawing the battle lines and calling
forth thousands of other influential lay persons to combat. Most of the
readers of The Christian Century probably agreed that Pew's version of
the faith was a compartmentalized, schizophrenic fantasy, but their
40,000 circulation was no match for Reader's Digest. The beginning of a
decisive battle neared; the curtailment of abuses of power approached.
If and when the full truth of Watergate is known, perhaps the most
worthy finding will be a quantum leap forward in our
understanding of man's capacity to deceive himself, to become so
completely captive of a reality he and his friends have created that
they are incapable of seeing the gravity of their thoughts and deeds.
Today, thousands of church leaders in liberal Protestantism are
participating in a massive cover-up which, in terms of the future of
moral leadership for this nation, is every bit as grave as the Watergate
scandal. Like Watergate, the religious establishment's cover-up involves
the utilization of the most sophisticated public relations techniques:
taking the offensive against those who bring bad news, rendering
inoperative programs, positions, and convictions which only yesterday
were an integral part of the institution's integrity, twisting facts to
fit newly emerging "realities," and performing radical surgery to remove
internal dissent. As they move to close ranks, they are creating a world
as unreal as the world created by the men of Watergate who shut
themselves off from all but the creation of their imaginations.
To be sure, the crimes now being committed within the structures of
liberal Protestantism are not the kind for which people are sent to
prison. They are crimes of commission, omission, impotence, and
incompetence, committed by men and women whose motives are pure and
honorable and whose loyalty is impeccable. But their misdeeds, if
unchecked, may permanently intercept a noble institution's rendezvous
with the struggle to promote human dignity and justice.
