Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, January 20, 1993 TAG: 9301200334
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TRY QUIET PERSUASION CLINTON DESERVES PRAYER, NOT SCORN
IN A FAREWELL address Jan. 10 at Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, President-elect Clinton asked for prayer. By biblical injunction he is entitled to have his request answered, but some Christian "leaders" are determined to send him a stone when he has asked for bread.A group of 40 pro-life leaders wrote evangelist Billy Graham, requesting that he withdraw from offering the invocation and benediction at Clinton's inaugural. "The last thing we need is for a prominent and respected Christian leader to appear publicly with [Clinton] to seemingly endorse his agenda," the statement said.
If this has a familiar ring, it should. The same criticism was directed at Jesus Christ by religious leaders of his day. They were called Pharisees then, and they were scandalized that Jesus was hanging around too many prostitutes, tax collectors and other people of low reputation, rather than enjoying their own self-righteous company.
I recall a conversation I had with Graham shortly after he returned from his 1982 trip to the Soviet Union. He had been denounced in some religious circles for going to Moscow. Some of his critics said he was giving aid and comfort to communism.
I asked him if he felt he was being used. "Of course," he said. "But I'm using them, too, to get out the gospel." Graham used his access to speak privately to the nation's highest leaders, telling them that they had nothing to fear from loosening their grip on the church. Years later, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of Russia to religious freedom vindicated his approach.
Operation Rescue leader Pat Mahoney told a news conference in Washington last week that "Dr. Graham cannot divorce himself from [Clinton's] public policies." There is no need for divorce if he was never married to those policies. Graham is a one-issue man, who in his mature years has scrupulously avoided debating even on issues on which he holds strong beliefs, promoting instead the greater agenda - the message of salvation and the life to come.
So how can Graham, or any other person who wishes to be a help to and an influence on Clinton, best achieve that goal? By quiet and humble friendship that doesn't overlook moral and policy differences, but places them on a priority list that allows for a higher purpose? Or by grandstanding at press conferences and, thus, risking the severing of all communication?
The message of the 1992 campaign has been lost on some religious leaders. Political power alone is not going to usher in the moral and spiritual revival these Americans seek and the nation needs. Those who would use the church as a platform from which to denounce the new president, and who refuse to or only reluctantly pray for him, are not only violating the Scripture in which they say they believe, but are also closing off their access to the president-elect and any hope they might have of changing Clinton's mind. Many, including George Bush, have changed their minds on abortion, but I'll bet those who influenced Bush the most used private persuasion, not public invective.
Stephen Strang, editor and publisher of "Charisma" magazine, writes in the January issue, "Too many Christians act as though they can bring in the kingdom of God through the ballot box." He calls on those who believe as he does to "start acting like the body of Christ instead of a political-action committee."
Human nature tells us we are more likely to accept criticism and instruction from those who approach us with kind and tender hearts than from the bomb throwers who hold press conferences to denounce us and consign us to political and literal hell. When Joseph presented his father Jacob to Pharoah, he blessed the Egyptian leader (Genesis 47:7), who headed a nation that was distinctly unfriendly to Jews. Jesus had contempt for religious posturing, and was more critical of religious leaders whom he said misrepresented God than he was of those whom the religious of his day believed were the greater sinners.
Does this mean that Christians and other religious conservatives should withdraw from the public arena? It does not. It means that they had better reassess their priorities and consider that it is in the small things, not the great; the weak things, not the strong; the humble, not the proud; and the prayerful, not the political, that God in history has performed his most miraculous tasks.
As Tennyson observed, "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice rise like a fountain for me night and day." So why aren't more people praying and fewer posturing? Maybe they believe criticism raises more money for their organizations than prayer. Perhaps, but do they achieve their stated objectives?
Bill Clinton's public policies should be critiqued. But he should have no doubt that even the critics of those policies hope he does the right thing, according to the standard preached at his home church, the standard in which he claims to believe. The chances of his doing the right thing are improved when he knows that people are praying for him. Los Angeles Times Syndicate