Waugh: “His early books spring fromnthe liberating notion that human beingsnare mad; the war trilogy, a work ofnmaturity, draws on the meatier notionnthat the horrible thing about humannbeings is that they are sane.” An explicationnof this transformation — whichnmust be viewed against Waugh’s increasingnwithdrawal from the worldnand his deepening Catholic sensibilitynSpeaking for God or Men? byn”Prayer does not change God, but it changes himnwho prays.”n— KierkegaardnRepresenting God in Washington:nThe Role of Religious Lobbies innthe American Polity by Allen D.nHertzke, Knoxville: University ofnTennessee Press; $29.50.nFor those unaware of the growingninfluence of religious lobbies in thennation’s capital. Representing God innWashington should prove informative.nIt shows that religious lobbies of leftnand right are many and powerful, wellfundednand well-staffed. They havenlearned the ropes of Washington powernpolitics and are winning battles.nHertzke believes that the overallnimpact of the religious lobbies is good,nat least if we understand increasednreflection of the views of ordinarynpeople in public policy as “good.”nCarefully documenting his case,nHertzke argues that Americans’ viewsnon many public policy issues are tightlynconnected with their religious beliefs.nTherefore, to the extent that religiousnlobbies reflect those beliefs, they reflectnthe desires and beliefs of a large majoritynof Americans. And many of thenreligious lobbies do represent theirnconstituents’ views fairly closely, withnthe notable exception of lobbies ofnmainline Protestant churches, whichnHertzke demonstrates to be almostninvariably far to the left of their constituents.n(Even this, it turns out, is notncause for too much concern, for, “Thenestablished Protestant denominationsndo not now appear to warrant thenE. Calvin Beisner is writing a book onnChristian stewardship in Ught of thenChristian world view, scheduled fornpublication in July 1988 by CrosswaynBooks.nunqualified appellation ‘mainline’; indeed,nthe center of gravity has shifted,”ni.e., the mainline churches now representnonly a minority of America’snstrongly religious people, so their divergencenfrom their constituents’ viewsndoesn’t count for much.)nIndeed, Hertzke’s study supportsnthe view that fundamentalists andnevangelicals are right when they “arguenpersuasively that, contrary to the notionnthat they are attempting to ‘impose’ntheir values on the rest of society,nsecular values have been imposed, notnonly on them and their children but onnmost religious Americans . . . the impactnof fundamentalist mobilization innraising concerns about cultural andnmoral change has been to enhance, notndetract from, the genuine pluralism ofnAmerican political representation.”nHertzke welcomes religious politicalnZi-iTi.n— is presumably the subject ofnStannard’s next volume, and, if thisnfirst one is any indication, it shouldnprove a delight.nE. Calvin Beisnernnnactivism as healthy for the body politicnbecause it helps ensure that majoritynand minority viewpoints are heard andnintroduces religious ethical standardsninto analysis and formulation of publicnpolicy. Yet, like Tocqueville, he warnsnagainst too strictly partisan activity fornreligious groups lest “… they risknbeing discredited by historical events,nand thus may jeopardize their part innthe moral socialization of Americanncitizens.” But heeding that warningnmay be none too easy, for on the issuesndearest to the hearts of most religiousnactivists, “The Democratic Party, fornthe moment, seems institutionallynwedded to a posture that symbolicallynand substantively appears to reject thencultural conservatism of many Catholics,nevangelicals, and fundamentalists,nas well as many members of the mainlinenProtestant denominations.” Innconsequence, many religious activistsnare forced by default to support Republicans.nHertzke is aware of the growingntension this causes in the RepublicannSEPTEMBER 1988/2Sn