Preparing for Prayer Book 2006

Clergy quickly learn this law: Most worshippers want to sit in familiar pew, open a familiar book and hear the familiar words of a familiar service.

Words such as: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Or this: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. ..."

Empires and churches have been torn asunder by minute changes in these kinds of texts, because changing people's prayers changes their faith. The faithful get up in arms when asked to change what they say while on their knees.

So Marge Christie wasn't surprised to find anger in the evaluation forms collected after the Episcopal Diocese of Newark began testing a bold new Mass. Even members of one of Christendom's trendiest flocks have linguistic lines they find hard to cross. Nevertheless, seeds planted in places such as Newark have a way of bearing fruit nationwide.

"Our desire goal was to cause people to stop and think about the words they use in worship and THAT we certainly accomplished," said Christie, co-chair on the Task Force on Prayer Book Revision. "I hate this particular phrase, but we pushed the envelope."

The most obvious changes centered on references to God as "Father" or "Lord," words that many consider rooted in patriarchal power structures. This led to changes in texts that even Easter worshippers can say with their eyes closed. Thus, the new Lord's Prayer left the title the same, but began with: "O God in heaven, Mother and Father of us all, hallowed be your name."

Participants rejected this language by a ratio of 4-to-1 or more, said Christie. Thus, the second draft offered a safer substitute: "O God in heaven, holy is your name." The "Affirmation of Faith" -- which replaced the Nicene Creed -- used similar imagery: "We believe in God, Source of all life, of sun and moon, of water and earth, of male and female. ..."

The bottom line: drafters of the new rite edited and revised centuries of Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican tradition, said the academic dean of the most evangelical Episcopal seminary.

"They can say they've left in a form of the Trinity, but it's somebody else's Trinity. It's a depersonalized Trinity that has nothing to do with Christianity's Father, Son and Holy Spirit," said Father Stephen Noll of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. "You can't just choose some other words and plug them in. ... You end up with something that has some of the form of Christian liturgy, but its substance is actually Unitarian or some sort of Christianized pantheism."

Another fundamental change was the weakening or omitting of references to repentance and the doctrine that Jesus was crucified to atone for mankind's sins. Too much of the language in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer had assumed the "pattern of asking or begging for God's forgiveness," said Father Wade Renn, the other task force co-chair, in a diocesan newspaper interview.

Future prayer books, he said, may need to include CD-ROM discs containing alternative rites reflecting many styles of worship and theological viewpoints. There is, noted Renn, a "feminist vernacular, traditional vernacular, gay and lesbian vernacular, Anglo-Catholic vernacular, low-church vernacular and so on."

The Newark rites have, for now, been shelved and a report sent to national liturgists who are considering requests for a 2006 prayer book. Some insiders believe this would be premature and say that next July's General Convention should merely sanction more trial rites -- a kind of theological "local option" resolution.

"Maybe it can't be 2006. Maybe it has to be 2012," said Christie. "But these kinds of changes are coming and they need to be made at the national level. ... The key is that we have to get to work on this right now. No one thinks this will be easy."

There's More to Religious Liberty than Worship

While making her early rounds, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has let everyone know that she's concerned about religious persecution.

As the State Department released its 1996 human rights reports, she noted that "religious persecution and intolerance" are "plagues that from ancient times have fomented war and deep-seated resentment. In too many countries -- from Sudan to Vietnam to Iran -- this form of repression persists. In a few, including China, it has increased. Whatever your culture, whatever your creed, the right to worship is basic."

During last week's first meeting of her religious freedom advisory committee, Albright added: "The right to profess and practice one's religion is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ... The principle is the same whether our specific focus is on the harassment of Christians, the persecution of Jews, the denial of rights to the Baha'is or the Buddhists, or violence against Islam."

So far, so good. But it will be harder to speak out in Beijing than inside the Beltway and many diplomats balk when it comes time to link sacred rites with corporate rights. Also, there is more to religious liberty than worship. People also have the right to proclaim their faith, to proselytize, to be politically active and to obey a pope. This is especially true in lands such as China, where believers are forced to "profess" their faith by registering with Communist authorities and "practice" their faith by bending the knee in government-sanctioned sanctuaries.

Meanwhile, the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad faces its own challenges. Many Capitol Hill conservatives are furious because the 20-member panel includes only two evangelical Christians, along with leaders and academics from Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism, liberal Protestantism, Islam, the Baha'is and other traditions. Also, the White House instructed the panel to address broad issues such as "toleration" and "reconciliation," even though it was formed in response to highly specific cases of persecution of evangelicals and Catholics. Above all, ask the critics, can the state department be trusted to investigate its own policies?

Debates about the panel's membership highlight another fact about "religious freedom" -- these words are hard to define. Often, it's hard to say where efforts to defend a nation's cultural heritage stop and "religious persecution" begins. One faith's concept of evangelism will almost certainly be heresy to shepherds whose sheep are being evangelized.

After its first meeting, the advisory committee released a statement that alluded to this tension: "The significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. Nevertheless, it is the duty of states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect religious freedom."

Meanwhile, clashes continue in the Balkans. Reports from China indicate that Washington, D.C., politicos may soon be discussing Chinese martyrs, as well as Chinese entrepreneurs, arms merchants, software pirates and spies. Still, events in other parts of the world have received little ink. In the Sudan, the government has burned Christian villages, kidnapped children as slaves and tortured worshipers and clergy. Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that nine Coptic Christians died when Muslim extremists sprayed a church youth group with machine guns. In Kuwait, Reuters reported that a prominent convert to Christianity named Robert Hussein has reverted to Islam, after receiving what many saw as a death sentence. In Pakistan, a thousand Christian families fled when rioters looted homes and burned churches.

It would be wrong to blame this bloody litany on Islam or any other specific religion, stressed a conservative Jewish activist. Persecution has more to do with renegades, militants and dictators than with doctrine.

"We patronize Islam when we say, `Oh, we know who those people are. We know what they are like. They are into killing and murdering, into persecution.' They are not -- the thugs are," said Michael Horowitz, of the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. "In that battle for the soul of Islam, vulnerable Christians are the battleground. Protecting them protects all in those parts of the world struggling to define whether they stay in the dark ages ... or enter the 21st century."

Adultery: Grace or Gossip?

The distressed parishioner had a sad, even pathetic, story to tell, one the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy had heard before.

The man confessed that he was an adulterer, but that wasn't the worst part of his predicament. His boss had heard about the affair and fired him, starting a chain reaction that struck his wife and two children.

Both the husband and his wife wanted to try save the marriage, said Gaddy, in a case study in his new book, "Adultery & Grace: The Ultimate Scandal." But with the husband's sudden unemployment, she was forced into the job market. Along with the crushing blow of his infidelity, this stress weakened her already fragile health. The children's educational plans were in jeopardy. Now, the husband needed to know if his pastor could help with their most pressing concerns -- money for marriage counseling and groceries.

Friends pleaded with the employer on behalf of the wife and children. Gaddy remembers the response: "They're not my problem. He should have thought of what he was doing to his family before he started screwing around."

The boss wanted to punish the adulterer, but crushed a family. Worst of all, said Gaddy, this approach often serves as a death sentence for weakened marriages, creating more broken homes. Truth is, many people relate to adulterers and their families with a mean-spiritedness that is just as sinful as acts of adultery.

Most Americans have a "love-hate relationship with adultery and adulterers," said the Baptist writer and ethicist, who currently leads Northminster Church in Monroe, La. "People flock to movies to drool over stories of heroes and heroines caught in adulterous relations. Scores of readers go through stacks of romance novels detailing extramarital erotica. Tell these same individuals about two people they know ... in an adulterous relationship, however, and watch out for a severe response of righteous indignation mixed with moral outrage."

A similar tension exists in churches. Most religious people act as if adultery is the worst of all possible sins, a scarlet- letter offense that's impossible to forget or forgive. Yet clergy rarely, if ever, use the pulpit to offer advice on how people can avoid adultery or recover from this sin. Few churches dare to offer programs that help save broken marriages.

Yes, a few liberal churches have even made news by saying that sex outside of marriage is not always sinful. But it may be even more newsworthy that so many conservative churches have become timid or silent. The result is a worse-case scenario. Instead of guidance, churches offer gossip; instead of proclaiming the need for repentance, forgiveness and restoration, most church leaders, by their silence, promote secrecy, vindictiveness and divorce.

The silence may be linked to darker truths about church life in this era of high divorce rates in pulpits and pews. Gaddy noted that numerous studies indicate "religious people who regularly worship in a church or synagogue are as prone to marital infidelity as the rest of the population. Their views on sexuality reveal a conservatism not shared by society at large, but their behavior differs little from the social norm."

The first step to healing is for religious leaders to talk openly about the multigenerational havoc that adultery causes in the lives of husbands, wives and children, said Gaddy. After breaking the silence, clergy can discuss practical ways that the church can people recover from adultery.

In one encounter with a woman caught in adultery, noted Gaddy, Jesus delivered a delicately balanced message. He did not condemn her, but his final words were clear: "Go, and sin no more." The church must deliver a similar message, and then its deeds must match its words. The goal is to save souls and then save marriages.

"Either you believe in grace and redemption or you don't," said Gaddy. "I believe that adultery has become, for the modern church, the ultimate test of this reality. ... I am convinced the church can denounce sin, while also being aggressive about telling people about forgiveness and grace."

The Architect of American Catholicism

As Cardinal Joseph Bernardin entered the Loyola University Cancer Center he found his path blocked by a mass of news crews.

The Chicago cardinal faced surgery for pancreatic cancer and this crisis came on the heels of another media storm, when he was accused of sexual abuse. Thus, America's best-known Catholic prelate paused for yet another impromptu press conference.

"One of the first questions asked was, `Cardinal, which did you find more difficult or more traumatic - the false accusation or the diagnosis of cancer?' I immediately said, `The false accusation,'" recalled Bernardin, describing the 1995 scene in a posthumously published memoir. "They asked me to explain, so I told them that the accusation had been the result of evil. It was an attack on my integrity. .But cancer is an illness. It doesn't involve moral evil."

Bernardin completed "The Gift of Peace" only two weeks before his death on Nov. 14. It begins with former seminarian Steven Cook's accusation of sexual abuse. However, Bernardin said he quickly realized that Cook - who has since died of AIDS - wasn't to blame, because "certain critics of mine" used him as a pawn. In this story, the forces of "moral evil" are represented by Catholic traditionalists out to "get" a progressive cardinal.

While Bernardin did not name names, he included enough details to point reporters toward Father Charles Fiore of Lodi, Wis. The outspoken Dominican priest has publicly acknowledged he was the target of the cardinal's accusations, while denying that his one conversation with Cook had anything to do with bringing charges against Bernardin.

"Only two people know what Steven Cook and I discussed on Nov. 10, 1993: Steven Cook and I. Cook is dead," said Fiore, in The Wanderer, a conservative Catholic newspaper. The bottom line: Bernardin didn't like people openly raising questions about his theological beliefs and private life, said Fiore.

Ironically, "The Gift of Peace" offers little evidence of peace among American Catholics. While some hail Bernardin as a great peacemaker; others insist that he chanted, "Peace, peace; when there is no peace." Conservatives say he built his career on media events in which those who defend centuries of doctrine were pressured to dialogue, and then compromise, with dissidents who reject the Catholic faith.

"Bernardin was the favorite prelate of those who despise the idea of prelacy. He was the hero of those who view the entire Catholic ecclesiastical system as sinister," said conservative historian James Hitchcock of St. Louis University. "In fact, the more people liked Cardinal Bernardin, and praised his role as a great reconciler, the more likely they were to be critical of traditional Catholic doctrine, the authority of Rome and, especially, the current pope."

In 1968, Bernardin became the first general secretary of the National Conference of Catholic bishops and later was elected its president. In this era, he built a powerful bureaucracy that traditionalists said resembled the National Council of Churches or a left- wing think tank. Then Bernardin guided the writing of "The Challenge of Peace," a national pastoral letter that challenged the morality of nuclear weapons and put him on the cover of Time. Shortly after becoming Chicago's cardinal, he delivered his 1983 "seamless garment" sermon linking abortion with other social issues, such as the death penalty, nuclear war and welfare.

Conservatives were outraged, saying that this offered politicians a theological smoke screen, at the strategic moment when the pro-life movement had its best chance to affect national policies. This wound never healed.

"The real issue between Fiore and the cardinal was abortion," said Father Andrew Greeley, a controversial writer and sociologist. "Sex abuse was simply something to skewer him on." In general, conservatives "thought he was not hard line enough on abortion. It was not enough to oppose abortion. You had to do it their way."

Meanwhile, many progressives say that Bernardin was, at times, too cautious in pushing for change or perhaps too loyal to Rome. This obscures the fact that he changed the very structure of Catholic life in this country, said Hitchcock.

"The key is whether we are Roman Catholics or, as the press now likes to say, 'American Catholics,'" he said. "Well, Cardinal Bernardin was not the symbolic leader of this so-called American Catholic church. He was its architect."

George Lucas, the Force and God

A long time ago, in a movie multiplex not so far away, a child looked up and asked: "Mom, Dad, is the Force the same thing as God?"

Children have been asking that question for 20 years. The simple answer is "yes." But this raises another question: Which god or God is at the center of the "Star Wars" universe?

The trilogy's creator was well aware that his work invaded turf traditionally reserved for parents, priests and preachers. George Lucas wrote "Star Wars" shortly after the cultural revolution of the '60s. He sensed a spiritual void.

"I wanted it to be a traditional moral study, to have some sort of palpable precepts in it that children could understand," said Lucas, in a recent New Yorker interview. "There is always a lesson to be learned. ... Traditionally, we get them from church, the family, art and in the modern world we get them from the media -- from movies."

Lucas set out to create a modern mythology to teach right and wrong. The result was a fusion of "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" and Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces," of Arthurian legends and Japanese samurai epics, of Carlos Castaneda's "Tales of Power" and the Narnia tales of C.S. Lewis. Along the way, Lucas sold $1.3 billion worth of tickets and "Star Wars" merchandise sales have topped $4 billion. Now, a revamped "Star Wars" is back in theaters, to be followed by its sequels, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Return of the Jedi." A trilogy of "prequels" is set to begin in 1999.

The impact of Lucas' work has led some researchers to speak in terms of a "Star Wars" generation. A modern preacher who wants to discuss self sacrifice will be understood by more people if he refers to the death of Jedi knight Obi Wan Kenobi, rather than that of St. Stephen.

"It was natural that my generation would latch on to these stories," said Jason Ruspini, webmaster of the unofficial "Star Wars Home Page," one of nearly 1,000 "Star Wars" Internet sites. "They were much more attractive and appropriate than the ancient myths of Judeo-Christian theology. How could these draconian and antiquated stories possibly compete with the majesty and scope of the Star Wars universe?"

Lucas grew up in the 1950s in Modesto, Calif., reading comics, escaping to movies and watching TV. Although he attended a Methodist church with his family, biographer Dale Pollock notes that he was turned off by the "self-serving piety" of Sunday school. Lucas also visited the housekeeper's German Lutheran congregation, where he was impressed by the elaborate rituals.

Traces of these experiences are woven into his work. "The message of `Star Wars' is religious: God isn't dead, he's there if you want him to be," writes Pollock, in his book "Skywalking." Lucas puts it this way: "The laws really are in yourself."

The faith in "Star Wars" is hard to label. The Force is defined as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us." It contains both good and evil. Jedi master Yoda clearly teaches a form of Buddhism. Yet the Lucas liturgy also proclaims "May the Force be with you," a variation on the Christian phrase "May the Lord be with you." The plot includes other symbols and themes from biblical faith. Lucas has embraced both "passive Oriental philosophies and the Judeo- Christian ethic of responsibility and self-sacrifice," according to Pollock.

Thus, some Christians hail "Star Wars" as evidence of a cultural search for moral absolutes. On the World Wide Web, others use the films as glowing icons that teach Eastern philosophy. Welcome to the theological mall.

At the end of Pollock's book, Lucas acknowledges that, by setting his goals so high, he is asking to be judged by very high standards. The creator of "Star Wars" explains that one of his least favorite fantasies is about what will happen when he dies. Perhaps, he said, he will come face to face with God and hear these words: "You've had your chance and you blew it. Get out."

Truth is Marching?

As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton spent many of his Sunday mornings in the choir at Little Rock's Immanuel Baptist Church.

Thus, President Clinton beamed with pride as his choir mates performed the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" after his second inaugural address. The anthem was so familiar that many in this elite congregation may have missed its ironic message.

"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat," sang the choir, within shouting distance of the U.S. Supreme Court. "He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat. ... Our God is marching on."

Inaugurations are the holy days of what historians call "civil religion," which blends references to God and country into a vague, lowest-common-denominator faith. Julia Ward Howe's hymn remains popular at events of this kind, even though it includes explicit references to Christ, God's wrath, the crucifixion and other sensitive subjects. In one verse the men repeatedly sing, without apology: "Truth is marching."

Suffice it to say that people have gotten into trouble for singing much tamer songs at graduation ceremonies and other public rites. Today, the very concept of truth is controversial.

Moments before the choir sang, President Clinton warned against the dangers of religious extremism. The wrong kind of faith leads directly to division and conflict, he said. "The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future. ... Will we all come together, or come apart?"

While focusing initially on racism, the president clearly had other targets in mind -- all critics of cultural and moral pluralism. It was hard to miss this shot at the Religious Right.

"Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction are no different," he said. "These forces have nearly destroyed our nation in the past. They plague us still. ... We cannot, we will not, succumb to the dark impulses that lurk in the far regions of the soul everywhere. We shall overcome them. And we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another."

Despite that touch of optimism, there is little evidence in the polls that America's conflicts will end any time soon on issues ranging from late-term abortions to physician-assisted suicide, from tax-funded safe-sex programs to legislation attempting to define the meaning of marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to provide secular answers to the kinds of sacred questions that for centuries belonged to theologians. People on both sides of the philosophical aisle agree that the court crossed a crucial line in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision on abortion rights.

"Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," said the court. It then defined "liberty" in the broadest possible language and tied this new definition to the 14th Amendment. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," said the court.

Many asked if this made it unconstitutional to say that any actions are "right" and others "wrong." What if individuals decide that euthanasia, polygamy, infanticide or cocaine is essential to their concepts of "existence," "meaning" or selfhood? What if government enforcement of an individual's liberty leads to actions that threaten or injure others?

Evangelical activist Charles Colson pointedly asked if the court had shredded the nation's social contract. It is highly likely that Colson, and others, will be asked to march onto Capitol Hill during the next four years and argue their case in public.

"People of different beliefs -br from Christians to atheists to New Agers -br may disagree vehemently over the meaning of life; yet we can all agree to stop when the traffic signal is red," he argued, in Christianity Today. "The distinction between private belief and public philosophy is crucial if we are to maintain public order. But it is precisely this distinction that Casey denied. It simply ... transferred the most fundamental decisions about life and death to the purely private realm."

Carl Sagan: TV Evangelist

While he often played the role of scientific high priest, the late Carl Sagan didn't own a set of liturgical vestments.

Thus, he wore his academic regalia as he ascended into the pulpit of New York's Cathedral of St. John the Divine on Oct. 3, 1993, the Feast of St. Francis. The rite for the day -- the ``Missa Gaia (Earth Mass)'' -- included taped cries of wolves and whales and a procession featuring an elephant, a camel, a vulture, a swarm of bees and a bowl of blue-green algae. Musicians sang praises to Ra, Ausar and other gods, as well as to Jehovah.

The astronomer was right at home, weaving threads of science into a mystical litany -- while remaining light years from theism.

"Life fills every nook and cranny of our planet's surface," said Sagan. "There are bacteria in the upper air, jumping spiders at the tops of the highest mountains, sulfur-metabolizing worms in the deep ocean trenches and heat-loving microbes kilometers below the surface of the land. Almost all of these beings are in intimate contact. They eat and drink one another, breathe each other's waste gases, inhabit one another's bodies. ... They have generated a web of mutual dependence and interaction that embraces the planet."

After his death on Dec. 20, Sagan was praised for his work as director of Cornell University's Laboratory for Planetary Studies, as a Pulitzer Prize- winning author and as an apologist for science on public television. He was the rare intellectual who could trade gags with Johnny Carson.

Truth is, Sagan was a talented "TV evangelist," said Robert C. Newman, who, while he has a Cornell doctorate in astrophysics, teaches at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pa. Sagan even opened his most famous programs with an unbeliever's creed: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

"Now, by Sagan's own definition of the methodology of science, this is not a scientific statement. This is a religious statement," said Newman, in a 1981 lecture at Cornell. Sagan could not have researched everything in the past and it's impossible to do lab work in the future. Thus, "the Cosmos is all that is," must be considered a "faith statement," said Newman.

After the Mass at St. John the Divine, I asked Sagan whether his religious views had evolved in recent years. Was he, perhaps, trying to create a kind of modern deism or some fusion of science and Eastern spirituality?

Sagan said that while some of his images may have changed, he continued to reject the notion of a transcendent God that existed outside the world, universe or cosmos.

"I remain inexorably opposed to any kind of revealed religion and reject any talk of a personal god," said Sagan, while posing for news crews with clergy on the cathedral steps. "But millions of people believe in a god that is not that kind of god." Using the classic image of a divine watchmaker, he added: "Some might say, for example, that there is some kind of force or power in the watch -- a set of laws, perhaps. Then the watch creates itself. I'm more comfortable with that kind of language."

In his novel, "Contact," Sagan was very specific about which religions can embrace this concept, and which cannot. In a debate with a Christian, his protagonist explains why she rejects belief in the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"When I say I'm an agnostic, I only mean that the evidence isn't in," says astronomer Eleanor Arroway, who will be played by actress Jodie Foster in an upcoming Hollywood movie. "There isn't compelling evidence that God exists -- at least your kind of god -- and there isn't compelling evidence that he doesn't." By the end of the book, Sagan's heroine accepts that the universe was "made on purpose" and contains evidence of an "artist's signature."

At that point, said Newman, Sagan may have been "dabbling with the concept of a god. ... He may even have been moving toward some form of pantheism. It's hard to tell. What we do know is that he remained totally opposed to the God of the Bible."

Jimmy Carter and the Politics of Sin

In the beginning there was candidate Jimmy Carter, facing waves of reporters demanding an answer to the urgent question: What exactly is a "born-again Christian?"

Most political insiders were shocked to learn that millions of evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, charismatics and even some people in historic-church pews fit under this theological umbrella. Most of these folks even planned to vote.

There were more plot twists ahead. The born-again crowd wasn't well organized -- yet. Also, many evangelicals didn't want this particular Southern Baptist in the White House, while others cheered him on. It was all very complex and most journalists acted as if the Martians had landed. The earth moved.

"When I ran in 1976 ... the Moral Majority, so called, Jerry Falwell and them, were not even known. I mean, it was a tiny little movement," said Carter. "Somebody told me, once when I was on the campaign trail, that there was a fellow named Jerry Falwell who was criticizing my Christian beliefs. I didn't know who he was."

Soon, Falwell was on the cover of Time and the media had discovered the Religious Right. Meanwhile, many on the left asked how Carter could mix evangelicalism and politics. Many on the right said his faith wasn't influencing his politics enough.

Today, these debates rage on. While Carter remains a strong supporter of church-state separation, he said he never has understood how anyone can expect politicians to make this kind of division at the personal level. This issue is at the heart of "Living Faith," the former president's introspective new book.

"You can't separate one's own religious faith from your experiences if you're a classroom teacher, or if you're a medical doctor, or if you're a lawyer, or if you have a job in a grocery store," he said. "I never have found any serious disharmony between my own religious faith, which has fluctuated during my lifetime in its sincerity or fervency, ... (and) with my responsibilities as a senator, or governor or president."

Nevertheless, Carter's 11th book contains many references to the religious tensions that shaped his years in the White House and afterwards -- from his chat with Playboy about sexual temptation to theological lessons learned in Middle East diplomacy. He also discusses his agonizing internal debates over abortion, his military career and other issues of life and death.

It will surprise no one that "Living Faith" includes many criticisms of the Religious Right. Obviously, Carter said he doesn't mind that Christians have become more politically active. But he does worry that some evangelical superstars appear to have become more interested in government policies than in asking people to repent of their sins. For example, many act as if homosexuality is the single greatest problem facing America, while avoiding sins -- statistically -- affect many more people in church pews.

For example, writes Carter, "almost all Protestants, including those allied with the Christian Right, will now acknowledge divorce as an acceptable choice for unhappy couples, and they rarely speak out against `fornication' or adultery, although Jesus repeatedly condemned these acts." He notes that the church has fallen silent on other lifestyle issues that threaten millions, such as "smoking, improper diet, lack of exercise, sexual promiscuity, carelessness with firearms and driving while intoxicated."

It may actually be easier for religious leaders to avoid clarity today than it is for politicians -- who are finding it harder and harder to hide. Carter found it especially ironic that Pat Robertson choose to publicly address some of the moral and ethical issues in his own life when he ran for president in 1988. Apparently, no such clarifications were needed when he was merely a powerful Christian broadcaster and educator.

It's important for Christians to be active in the public square, said Carter. But it's even more important for believers to face tough issues in their private lives.

"We are all," stressed Carter, "inclined as human beings to condemn people who commit sins of which we are not guilty. That's human nature."n the beginning there was candidate Jimmy Carter, facing waves of reporters demanding an answer to the urgent question: What exactly is a "born-again Christian?"

Most political insiders were shocked to learn that millions of evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, charismatics and even some people in historic-church pews fit under this theological umbrella. Most of these folks even planned to vote.

There were more plot twists ahead. The born-again crowd wasn't well organized -- yet. Also, many evangelicals didn't want this particular Southern Baptist in the White House, while others cheered him on. It was all very complex and most journalists acted as if the Martians had landed. The earth moved.

It's important for Christians to be active in the public square, said Carter. But it's even more important for believers to face tough issues in their private lives.

"We are all," stressed Carter, "inclined as human beings to condemn people who commit sins of which we are not guilty. That's human nature."

Oil, Blood, Money and Ink

Moments after celebrating the 70th anniversary of the first Chinese bishops consecrated in Rome, John Paul II delivered an emotional message to his suffering flock in China.

The underground church is a "precious pearl," he said, in a Dec. 3 broadcast into China on Manila's Radio Veritas. The pope praised the 6 million or more who refuse to surrender and join "a church that corresponds neither to the will of Christ, nor to the Catholic faith."

This was a clear reference to China's state-run Catholic Patriotic Association and the latest sign that John Paul won't surrender in China or Hong Kong. Still, his words drew little media attention. Few U.S. publications have much room, today, for international news and religion news remains a low priority. Thus, it would be hard to name a subject with less journalistic sex appeal than religion news on the other side of the world.

Meanwhile, China is cracking down -- closing many secret parishes and jailing clergy, including at least four bishops. Last fall, reports circulated about more attacks on China's 60 million or more underground evangelicals, while officials circulated a wanted list of 4,000 illegal pastors.

"It's hard to get precise numbers. ... But all the reports agree: more Christians are in jail in China because of their faith than in any other nation in the world," said Jeff Taylor of Compass Direct, a news service that covers global religious issues.

Recently, he noted, his Hong Kong reporter showed a Chinese leader a Far East Economic Review cover that said "God is Back." The Beijing official replied, off the record: "If God had the face of a 70-year-old man, we wouldn't care if he was back. But he has the face of millions of 20-year-olds, so we are very worried."

The China crisis was one of many in 1996. Christians were slaughtered in Indonesia and East Timor, where Catholic Bishop Carlos Filip Ximenes Belo was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet another Protestant leader was murdered in Iran. The slave trade continued in Sudan. Terrorists kept killing Catholic priests in Algeria. In Kuwait, Christians remained in hiding.

The oil keeps flowing from many of these nations, mixed with blood. Markets are growing, and so are the graveyards. What this story needs is a political hook to yank it into the headlines.

Last year, a coalition of religious conservatives and human rights activists convinced Congress to hold hearings on religious persecution. This year, the subject may surface in confirmation hearings for Secretary of State-nominee Madeline Albright. Also, Republicans may ask about the persecution of Christians in China and Indonesia, while digging into White House fundraising efforts among that region's amoral entrepreneurs.

But words are no longer enough, said conservative Jewish activist Michael Horowitz. It's time to pass laws similar to those used against the former Soviet Union in the 1980s. Clues to the shape of this legislation can be seen in a 1996 "Statement of Conscience" by the National Association of Evangelicals, which called for:

-- "Public acknowledgment of today's widespread and mounting anti-Christian persecution," including a presidential address, the appointment of a White House advisor on the issue and detailed rules for U.S. diplomats on how to deal with persecution claims.

-- "More fully documented and less politically edited" reports from the State Department's Human Rights Bureau. Human rights officers could, for example, be required to research claims of persecution, rather than choosing an "option of silence" in their annual reports.

-- Cessation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's "indifferent," "occasionally hostile" and often unreported handling of asylum petitions by refugees fleeing religious persecution.

-- And, finally, the "termination of non-humanitarian foreign assistance to countries that fail to take vigorous action to end anti-Christian or other religious persecution."

"We're not talking about utopia," said Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. "In the 1980s, no one could stand up and vote in favor of persecuting Soviet Jews. That's what has to happen now, if we're going to stop China and these other regimes from murdering and torturing Christians."