The Religious Right and its Effect on Missions
by Don Wilkey Jr.
Pastor, FBC, Onalaska

It is no secret that the name of Christ has been used to promote some peculiar things in this world. The problem with this is that the misuse of the name of Christ affects what future generations think about His movement. The obvious point here is the reputation brought to the name of Jesus. Did Jesus really wish to start the Klu Klux Klan or place His stamp of approval on all the programs of the NAACP?

The identification of the Religious Right with some of its characters and organizations is going to prove a hardship for the work of the church. Methodists were stunned and their reputation questioned by their use of Methodist mission money in the defense trial of Angela Davis, theoretical revolutionist. Methodists still talk about the move even today. Those people outside the Methodist church who do not believe in the violent overthrowing of the government as Davis did, might wonder if that was the movement Jesus brought to the world. The implications are obvious. The harm brought to the mission work of the church can be fatal. Mission work is the work undertaken by the church to reach new converts and start new churches around the world. Truly mission-minded Christians care about mission work in other countries. Little do most Christians realize the harm the Religious Right is doing to mission work around the globe. Political sentiments that play well in Middle America do not sound so good to third world believers trying to reach their community with the Gospel.

The separation of church and state is essential as a mission base. Any time the church and state are linked, it affects mission work around the world.

Earlier in this work, I mentioned the CIA’s involvement in the Catholic Church in Poland. This was a direct participation of state affairs with a church. In cases like this, the church becomes identified as a bastion for the political forces who want to change power bases. Those excluded from this power base are going to be hard pressed to want to enter such a church. Some in the Roman Orthodox Church during World War II became identified with the Nazi movement. This group, know as the Iron Guard, assisted in genocide of Jews in Europe.1 The Religious Right, Birchers, and other anti-Semitic elements using the name of Christ to persecute ethnic groups will not bring honor to Jesus, the fullblooded Jew, who started the Christian Church. The harm to outreach in the name of Christ is obvious.

Recently a group of men met in a neighboring city with the goal of taking over the local government in the name of the Gospel. Though such a cause appears to be noble on the outside, it is not. It will only end in the obvious. Hostility will be created against those who use a place where many worship to take control of their state. Those rebellious against the local government will see that the natural conclusion of their rebellion is to rebel against the institution promoting the government… the church.

The Religious Right is now involved in foreign and domestic matters in the United States.2 Most American observers are more concerned over scandalous sexual affairs of TV evangelists than in their being wrapped up in foreign policy. Recall the implications of John Birch, the missionary. Birch appears to have been linked with espionage efforts in his mission work. In 1975, “Christianity Today” estimated that 10 to 25 percent of the United States-based Protestant and Catholic missionaries had given information to intelligence authorities. 3

The staggering implication of the report in “Christianity Today” is relevant to our own time. If foreign governments view American missionaries as rivals to their power, the doors will begin to shut to mission efforts in several countries. A good example of this issue is the war the United States waged with Iraq known in America as “Desert Storm.” Religious Right broadcasters like CBN and TBN publicly attacked CNN and other secular news broadcasters. The former were promoting Desert Storm as a type of Holy War in which American soldiers were doing the will of God. (Iraq did the same thing.) The linking of the church with such a cause doesn’t aid the message of churches in Arab lands. CBN and TBN attacked national networks for not being patriotic. They even accused these networks of being traitors for reporting the news from places like Baghdad.

Leaders like Randall Terry of “Operations Rescue” cause concern in America. Terry has suggested that it is a “sin against God to vote for Bill Clinton” and all Christian women should have as many children as they can.4 Terry’s views might raise a few eyebrows, but pose little threat to the mission movement. The real threat comes from organizations like Pat Robertson’s and the Swaggart Ministries. These groups are directly involved in Third World governments in the name of the Church.

Pat Robertson has been linked to the support of right-wing dictators and paramilitary forces around the world.5 Robertson has also been directly immersed in the raising of funds for Contra fighters in South America.6 Religious groups raising funds for Contra aid worked beside Oliver North in funding military organizations. California “mission organizations” raised money for contra leader Adolfo Calero.7

Pat Robertson’s dealings in Guatemala led to the raising of money for Rios Montts. Montt’s relentless killing, and even the use of torture, appeared to be justified by the Religious Right who financed his regime.8 Robertson was also involved in other South American countries and their funding.

Jerry Falwell, Robertson and many other religious groups were involved in promoting the South African Apartheid Government. Their endorsement served as an embarrassment to mission efforts to Blacks in other parts of Africa.

Similar religious activities have taken place in places like Mozambique, Cuba and Mexico. Wycliffe missionaries worked with the CIA in Southeast Asia. They were expelled from Mexico and Brazil for getting involved in covert political activities.9 Jimmy Swaggart and Bill Bright have been involved in similar operations. One might easily see the viewpoint some South Americans have about American Christianity. Mission money has been used to promote a political way of life instead of a personal relationship with Christ.

While in San Antonio at the annual Southern Baptist Convention, I witnessed firsthand how secular politics can hinder mission work. I stood outside the door of the meeting of the Resolutions Committee. The committee, dominated by the Religious Right activists, had turned down my resolution that the convention not endorse political candidates. I stood outside the meeting and witnessed a startling event. A representative from the Foreign Mission Board brushed aside efforts to keep him out of the meeting and demanded an audience with the group. The group was on the verge of presenting a resolution at the convention that would have backed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank area in the region around Israel. (If the resolution had been taken to the floor of the convention it would no doubt have passed by the endorsement from this committee.) The representative warned the committee that the passage of such a resolution would endanger the lives and the work of Christian missionaries in Arab lands. The committee reluctantly agreed to table the resolution. More recent attempts at the aiding of militant Zionists in destroying The Dome of the Rock place further strains on mission efforts in Arab lands. Political neutrality seems to be a small price to pay to carry on missions.

Political neutrality might not bring financial backing from some of the “big money bags” in the secular Right, but it will prove to be more successful than taking their money. No doubt Swaggart, Robertson, McIntire, Hargis and many others tapped a sensitive nerve from many in the business community by their political involvement.

The development of the “Christian Political Party” in Europe is yet another example of the harm brought about by such a mixture of church and state. Do some candidates think they are running against the church by opposing this group? Russ Bellant claims that Nazi elements formed a political group in Europe in 1953, calling it a Christian Democratic Union.10 It is widely reported that the church suffered in Europe for allowing Hitler to practice his policies unchecked. Fascists are like all political entities when it comes to the church. They want to use the church for political ends without really caring about the impact of the movement on the name of the church. They will then discard the church and go to other organizations they can use. Fascists in Germany thought that Christianity had failed them in the end and wanted to return Germany to German Nordic Paganism.

Opposing the Religious Right and the impact it is having on missions is a stand that needs to be taken. To wait too long is to harm the face of missions which use America as a base. As I thought of the stand that needs to be taken by Christians around the country, I recalled the words from Ed Murrow. This news commentator was one of the first men, as well as Robert McCarken of Riverside Church in New York, to publicly take on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. His words are worth repeating:

And whose fault is that? Not really his.
He didn’t create this situation of fear.
He merely, exploited it, and rather successfully.
Cassius was right: The fault, dear Brutus,
is not in our stars but in ourselves.
“Good Night — and good luck.” 11

K.M. Panikkar, in is book about Asia, claims that India was ripe for the spread of Christianity. The other religions of the region had lost ground and were about to die. He claims that the British East India Company brought such a disgrace to the Christian religion by its activities, people in India looked to other religions for answers.12 Christians need to be concerned about what group is being linked to their faith. Any group outside of the church is not worthy of the label.

In November of 1992, Texas Baptists Committed invited Keith Parks to speak at a breakfast during the annual Texas Baptist Convention. Parks, who had recently resigned as head of the Foreign Mission Board, warned that his denomination was in trouble on the mission field if it did not adhere to the doctrine of the separation of church and state.

The man selected to head the Foreign Mission Board to replace Parks was Thomas D. Elliff. Elliff declined the invitation to take on this leadership role. Elliff has written a book called America On The Edge. It is enlightening to see some of this views on church and state since he almost became the head of the largest mission organization in the world.

Elliff begins his book with a foreword by Tim Lee. Lee is an Independent Baptist who publishes “Target,” a magazine aimed at what Lee calls “today’s thinking fundamentalists.” Last fall, Lee devoted an entire issue of the magazine to attacking Bill Clinton and promoting the Republican agenda. In the issue, Lee ridiculed a decision made by Clinton at one of Lee’s revivals. The magazine also attacked Clinton for his wife’s attending a Methodist church.13 A recent issue of “Target” carriers a front page article by Dr. Joe Myers. Myers claims the separation of church and state applies to the state and not to the church’s entanglement in state affairs.14

One section in Elliff’s manuscript deals with prayer in the public schools. Elliff claims the 1962 Supreme Court decision on prayer in public schools was the downfall of America. This decision in Engel versus Vitale, is regarded by many religious liberty experts as a monumental guarantee of freedom of religion. Elliff sees otherwise. He says “The Supreme Court decision regarding prayer in the public schools was perhaps the first outright defiant statement against God that the highest court of our land ever made.”15

Elliff claims the idea of separation of church and state originates in America from a 1947 Supreme Court decision. He claims the Constitution does not contain the concept. 16 Elliff compares America to Israel in its relationship to God.17 In doing so, he promotes a type of civil religion.

The man who was almost head of the Foreign Mission Board relies heavily on David Barton for his understanding of American history. He quotes Barton frequently in his chapter on churchstate affairs. Barton resides outside of Fort Worth, Texas, attends a nondenominational church and is head of a para-church organization. Barton’s office claims they are not Reconstructionists, but his writings fit the mold of Reconstructionists views. Barton wrote a book called The Myth of Separation. Elliff quotes this work in his own manuscript. “Church and State” magazine editors were so concerned about Burton they devoted an entire edition in 1993 to the Texan.

A sampling of Barton’s views are troubling. He believes freedom of religion is only meant for Christian denominations in America. He claims, “The doctrine of separation of church and state is absurd.” Barton claims only Christians are to hold public office. He believes that Christianity is the official religion of the United States.18

The back cover of Elliff’s work concludes with endorsements from men who back his positions. James Draper, president of the Sunday School Board, said that the men who wrote the Constitution intended the United States to be a Christian Union.19 Another endorsement comes from Tim LaHaye. LaHaye is an evangelist-turned-lobbyist. LaHaye is so upset about the misguided idea of the separation of church and state, he will even form alliances with cult leader Rev. Moon. LaHaye sees the hope of America residing in the takeover of political institutions by Christians.20

Southern Baptists who are mission minded need to be concerned about exposed views of leaders who head foreign mission work. Wycliffe missionaries have been forced out of South American countries because of their political entanglements. John Birch was killed in China because he was accused of working as a secret agent. Baptists would do well to keep abreast of what takes place on the Foreign Mission Board. A leader’s views on sensitive issues like church and state are key to future mission work.

*This is a chapter from a book on the religious right that Dr. Wilkey hopes to have published. (We hope so, too!)

ENDNOTES

1. Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, The New Right, and the Republican Party, Southend Press, Boston, MA, 1991, pg. 10.

2. Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, Southend Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pg. 29.

3. “Controversy With The CIA,” Christianity Today, October 10, 1975, pg. 62.

4. Time, October 21, 1991, pg. 28.

5. Sara Diamond, pg. 76.

6. Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, Southend Press, Boston, MA, 1988, pg. 76.

7. Sara Diamond, pg. 84.

8. Ibid., pgs. 164-166.

9. Ibid., pg. 219.

10.Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, The New Riqht, and the Republican Party, pg. 36.

11.David Oshinsky, A Conspiracy so Immense, Free Press, New York, NY, 1983, pg. 399 J

12.K. M. Panikkar, Asia and western Dominance, Collier Books, U.S., 1969, pgs. 74-92.

13.Tim Lee, Ed., Target, October 1992, pg. 15.

14.Dr. Joe Myers, America Has Spoken, Target, January/February, 1993, pg. 1.

15.Thomas Elliff, America on the Edge, NCM Press, Oklahoma City, OK, 1992, pg. 67.

16.Ibid., pg 64.

17.Ibid., pg. 58.

18.David Barton, The Myth of Separation, Wallbuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1991, pgs. 43, 4, 29, 135.

19.James Dunn, Here We Stand: Separation of Church and State, May 2, 1989.

20.Sara Diamond, Spiritual Warfare, Southend Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pg. 85.

June/July 1995