abstract: their task, in the current configuration of interest-group politics, is to put together a coalition of enough generally supportive interest groups to equal 51% of the voting public. Thus, their job is to do as little for us as is necessary to ensure our support in the next election

Skip Navigation

by John Fielding III

It is now January, and the events surrounding the Ephrata conference are now just a memory. Of course, the events were instructive on certain issues.

The first was that secular humanist organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), headed by a man that may only loosely be denominated a "clergyman," continue to exploit the ignorance of the American people for gain, a fact not altogether surprising for those of us in political work.

The second is that the secularists rely on their prostitutes, the mass media, to do their dirty work for them. Without the laziness or complicity of the Associated Press, a press release published by AU remains the raving of the village atheist.

The third, and perhaps more surprising issue, was the reaction of Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer and U.S. Congressman Joe Pitts. I do not know Mr. Pitts, having only met him once for any extended period at a meeting in 1994, during which I dared to call into question the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act's position as the pinnacle of pro-life success in a state that has been described as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between." You see, Mr. Pitts was the prime mover of the bill and did not take kindly to my intimation that laurels rested upon too heavily become easily bruised and, anyway, "what have you done for us lately?" We met briefly during the campaign of 2002 during which Mr. Pitts had no opposition to speak of. He won, proving once again that he is at least better than nothing. He showed no sign of recognizing the small rain cloud that had rained on his parade in 1994, which was fine. I for one was willing to bury the hatchet. Until this latest.

Sam Rohrer, on the other hand, is one of Berks County's own. His actions are also the most instructive, for me, anyway. I had a brief opportunity to speak to Sam about his cancellation of his appearance at the National Reform Association conference under pressure from Americans United for Separation. Now, Sam attends one of the larger evangelical churches in the Reading, Pennsylvania area. Since he is, therefore, a Christian brother as well as one of the more conservative state legislators, I was frankly a little put out that he was stampeded by Americans United for Separation into his cancellation without first bothering to speak to Bill Einwechter, then acting President, about what the organization believed.

Sam gave me a short explanation that indicated that the AU action had caught him flat-footed and, anyway, he did not agree with the National Reform Association's theology. While I have resolved to meet with Sam to get a more detailed explanation of his inability to ask us what we believed before pulling out of the conference, fact is Sam already knows what we believe. He has known Bill Einwechter and me for years and reads The Christian Statesman regularly.

To an extent neither Sam nor Joe can be blamed. The NRA should have known better than to expect support from politicians. Politicians, as a general group, are not cultural leaders but cultural followers. As such, their task, in the current configuration of interest-group politics, is to put together a coalition of enough generally supportive interest groups to equal 51% of the voting public. Thus, their job is to do as little for us as is necessary to ensure our support in the next election. When the support of one group could possibly alienate another group, the politician must count numbers. While politicians seek our support, it is expecting a bit much to expect theirs, apparently. While some politicians are better in this regard than others, and Sam and Joe fit in this better category, it was apparently too much to expect in this instance.

The reason why is the theology of most Christian politicians. If they do not agree with the theology of the National Reform Association, all they are really saying is that they do not believe that Christians have a distinct role in politics and in culture. The National Reform Association's statement of purpose, which can be found on the back cover of any copy of the Statesman, lays out three basic principles of Christian participation in government. In saying that they disagree with the "theology" of the National Reform Association, with what, precisely, do they disagree? That Jesus does not rule the nations? That we should not confess Him as such in our documents? That the civil ruler is not "duty-bound to govern according to the express will of God?" That civil government should not "be conformed to the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments?" Sam Rohrer has had Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court appear in Berks County as part of his "Common Sense" lecture series. Chief Justice Moore gained notoriety as the judge that posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. He is now being sued by AU, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center for placing a large privately-funded stone rendition of the Ten Commandments in the capitol rotunda in Birmingham.

If the politicians disagree with our theology, what theology do they espouse that causes them to support Justice Moore? Why the big fuss over an irrelevant law code from the Old Testament, the "Word of God Emeritus"? While stating that the Ten Commandments constitute a cultural, historical, and legal artifact of American civilization may provide a legally defensible position in federal court, it probably does not really represent the beliefs of those supporting Justice Moore. But why not? To the dispensational denizens of most evangelical churches, a cultural artifact is all that the Old Testament represents. As with the issues of school prayer and gambling, the posting of the Ten Commandments has been reduced to a symbol of a Christian cultural dominance that no longer exists. If dispensational evangelical and fundamentalist churches are fighting a rearguard cultural action, one can hardly expect any better from Christian politicians arising from that cultural milieu. Having subscribed to a theology of cultural defeat in their churches, one can only expect those Christian politicians to scrabble to maintain the marginal existence prescribed for them by their cultural masters.

So we really do understand where Sam and Joe are coming from. One of the house organs of the secular humanist cultural hegemony said, "Jump!" and they asked, "How high?" Americans United for Separation says that the National Reform Association exists beyond the pale of "reasonable discourse," and Sam and Joe, never wanting to be less than "reasonable" as defined by the secular humanist culture, must settle for marginal existence as "secular humanist lite."

As President of the National Reform Association and as an activist within the Berks County Republican Party, I expect to generally support Sam and Joe in their minor efforts to arrest the slide of the United States into the cultural abyss. I will never make the mistake, however, of expecting them to reciprocate. That would require theological and cultural leadership that they are unable to provide.

John Fielding (M.A., M.Div., J.D.) is the new president of the National Reform Association. He is active in politics and practices law in Berks County, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at fielding@talon.net.

back to top