28 / CHRONICLESnParty. “The electoral efforts of fundamentalistnleaders on behalf of conservativenRepublican candidates and theirnsuccess in moving the white born-againnconstituency into the Republican foldnhave, paradoxically, created tensionnwithin the previously staid GOP . . .nbetween the blue blood Republicannestablishment . . . and the conservativenreligious populists. … In the calculationsnof fundamentalist leadersnthe Republican party needs thenevangelicals and fundamentalists, andnnot just their numbers but their fervornand superior grassroots organizations,nin order to become the new majoritynparty. . . . Said one leader, off the record:n’We told them to have candidatesnembrace the Christian agenda. But thenNRCC instead told their candidates tonstay away from the Christian Right.nStupid advice. The only chance thenRepublicans will have is if we take overnthe party.’ Thus one of the mostnfascinating consequences of the electoralnefforts of Christian fundamentalists,nas we see here, is that the Republicannparty is now experiencing an internalncontentiousness historically characteristicnof the New Deal Democraticncoalition.” This is a phenomenonnwhose future will be fascinating tonwatch. If conservative Christian activistsnbecome disillusioned with the RepublicannParty and conclude that it isnusing them without paying them backnby pushing their agenda, might thenDemocratic Party become the srnallnthird party, far to the left, with thenRepublican Party in the middle andnsome new Christian conservative partyn— in substance if not in name — to thenright?nOne welcome attribute of religiousninterest groups, according to Hertzke,nis that they seem to defy the traditionalnview of interest groups as exclusivelynself-serving. For disciples of One whoninsisted that they follow Him in a life ofnsacrificial service to others, ultimatenself-interest is defined as self-denial.nThis makes for exceptionally effectivenThe Fourth Annual Erasmus LecturenBIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONnm CRISISnOn the Question of the Foundations andnApproaches of Exegesis TodaynbynJoseph Cardinal RatzingernPrefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.nPresident of the InternationalnTheological Commission and PontificalnBiblical Commission.nTo order your copy of BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIOri IMnCRISIS send $2.50 (includes postage and handling)nwith the coupon below to: The Rockford Institute /n934 North Main Street / Rockford, Illinois 61103.nn Please send my copy of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’sn”BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN CRISIS.”nD Enclosed is my check or money order for $2.50nMamenAddressnCity _ State. Zip.nMail to: Tiie Rockford Institute / 934 M. Main St. / Roclrford, IL 61103nTE890nnnworkers — one reason why the impactnof some religious groups far outweighsntheir numbers. But self-denial mightnalso explain a phenomenon thatnHertzke does not address: the propensitynof some religious activists to espousensocialist economic theories andnpolicies, oblivious to their detrimentalneconomic impact. Like their older secularnliberal counterparts who have forgottennthat it is charity to give one’snown money but theft to give another’s,nthey have confused voluntary selfdenialnwith imposed deprivation.nHertzke hints at, but does not explore,na curious inconsistency in thenlobbying approaches of the mainlinenchurch leaders. They justify their divergencenfrom constituents’ views asn”speaking prophetically.” But whosen”mouthpiece” (the root sense ofn”prophet”) do they think they are? Notntheir lay members’, and their rejectionnof the inspiration of Scripture rules outnclaims to being a “mouthpiece” ofnGod. Indeed, they sound more fundamentalist,nbut without theological underpinnings,nthan fundamentalist lobbyistsnthemselves, who, Hertzke pointsnout, have learned to speak in terms ofnclassical human rights rather than divinendecrees. No wonder one anonymousnlegislative director said thatnmainline lobbyists are “… shadowsnof a religious past, echoes withoutnauthority. Secular liberals would agreenwith everything they stand for, but thennagging question: why are they religiousnat all? Why bother? Does thisnpolicy flow out of a profound, transcendentalnsense — or as a hasty additionnto liberal politics[?]”nThough Hertzke does not revealnclear preference, evangelicals, fundamentalists,nand conservatives will findnmore to celebrate in Representing Godnin Washington than their counterparts.n”The consensus [among experiencednWashington lobbyists] seems to be that,nwhile fundamentalist groups havenshaped the congressional agenda inncertain respects . . . their real power isnnascent.” Mainliners’ influence isnwaning. Repeatedly Hertzke showsnthat polling data indicate that thenAmerican public leans far more towardnthe positions of evangelicals and fundamentalistsnon social and economic issuesnthan toward mainliners andnliberals.n