Sharing My Story

In 1979 Francis Schaeffer co-authored with C. Everett Koop
another blockbuster book entitled “Whatever Happened
to the Human Race?” This book gave a thorought critique
of the anti-life culture that had been developing in the
wake of the Roe v. Wade decision six years earlier in 1973.
It stressed the evil of abortion but also emphasized the
slippery slope attendant issues of euthanasia and infanticide.
This book was also accompanied with a film series and
like “How Should We Then Live” received wide distribution
in evangelical congregations including my San Bernardino church.

While evangelical Christians had loathed the Roe v. Wade
decision as a body it had largely done nothing about it
during the 1970s. The Roman Catholics were doing most
of the heavy lifting in taking a stand for life issues during
the 1970s. Schaeffer’s and Koop’s book and film series were
intrumental in educationing the Evangelical church on
the seriousness of these issues. Since my encounter with
the pro-life table in 1970 at my college I had for the most
part put this issue on the back burner of my mind. I’m sure
a lot of other Christians had done the same thing. The
Republican party in the late 1970s and early 1980s was
taken over by cultural and social conservatives that
embedded a strong pro-life stand within the party platform.

During the Fall of 1976 while the Presidential
election was being played out between Gerald
Ford and Jimmy Carter my church hosted a
special event. Dr. Francis Schaeffer had published
a book tht year called “How Should We Then Live?”
Francis Schaeffer had become the foremost evangelical
cultural apologist of the second half of the twentieth
century. I had read some of his books previous to
this one. This book was accompanied by a film series
with the same name produced and directed by his son,
Franky Schaeffer. The film series was being shown in
my San Bernardino church, Faith Bible Church.

The book and the film series showed the rise and decline
of Christian influence within Western culture. This
book and film series showed how philosophy,
science, religious thought, politics and the arts
had shaped our culture and society over the past
2000 years. It was an ambiteous attempt to synthesize
this information in a form that the average laymen
could began to grasp the currents of history. Having
taken Humanities classes in college much of this
material was familar but the perspective was different.
In Schaeffer’s view history wasn’t just a series of unrelated
events but there was a flow to history that is ultimately
determined by divine will.

Perhaps the greatest thing about Francis Schaeffer’s
analysis of history was the idea that we Christians
should not let culture and society be determined only
by secular forces and thinking. The church’s role was not
only the proclamation of the gospel but to be salt and light
to preserve our culture and society.

1976 proved to be a pivotal year for my life
in terms of political activism. I had already
committed this period of my life to spiritual
awakening through my work with Campus
Crusade. 1976 was the bi-centennial year for
the United States and also a presidential
election year.

It didn’t seem likely that President Ford
could be elected (especially after his pardon
of former President Nixon). Ronald Reagan,
then former two-term California governor,
decided to run for the Republican nomination
against the two year incumbent Gerald Ford.
I had been following Reagan’s career over the
years since “the Speech” in 1964 for Barry
Goldwater. I came to the conclusion that
Reagan was not just a “dumb actor” but that
he was an intelligent, articulate man of
conservative principle and action. While
I thought it would be an uphill fight for
Reagan to wrestle the nomination away
from Ford I felt that Reagan was the
better man for the job.

Another Campus Crusade staff member
and then housemate, Steve Bradshaw
and I decided to do some volunteer work
for the the Reagan candidacy.
We showed up at the Reagan for President
headquarters in San Bernardino in the spring
of 1976 and were put to work doing office tasks
like stuffing campaign mailers and manning
the telephone banks. The telephoning consisted
of calling Republican voters (California at that
time was a closed primary) and asking them if
they needed information on Reagan and
encouraging them to vote in the primary.
Reagan won the primary in California which
was very gratifying to this neophyte political
volunteer. I realized Reagan had a long way to
go to secure the nomination.

I thought that if Reagan at least won 800 delegates
that that would send a real message to the
Republican establishment. At the convention
Reagan got over 1000 delegates but not enough
to overcome narrow Ford’s lead. While I was
disappointed I realized it was not Reagan’s time.
In the end Ford lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The mid-1970s proved to be another period of change
for our country with the resignation of President Nixon,
the final collaspe of South Vietnam and the sense of
American retreat from the advance of Soviet communism
and the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion.
After a year as a committed student with Campus Crusade
I accepted an invitation to join their staff and was assigned
to their headquarters staff in Southern California. I arrived
there in November 1971.

Shortly after I coming to San Bernardino I had rather amusing
incident happen. I joined the local YMCA to use their weight
room for exercise. One of the denizens of the weight room
was a young man probably 19 or 20 who I shall call James.
James was not in real great shape physically however he had
an agenda. He was an ardent evangelist for the conspiracy theory
of history. He talked and talked insistently and constantly about
the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the
Trilateral Commission (Barry Goldwater wrote some interesting
things about these groups in the previous mentioned memior,
With No Apologies). In his eyes these entities formed a shadow
super government that was attempting to take over the world.
They were financed by the super rich big business families like
Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and others.
John got to be a pain as he wanted an audience even if it was
just you to listen to his theorizing about world conspiracies.
It was irritating because I (and others) was there to exercise
not to be a captive audience. I later came to realize that James
was enamored with what the John Birch Society was promulgating
at the time.

I do believed in evil spiritual influences whose goal is human
destruction and at that time an international Communist
conspiracy. While I grant that the super rich do exert
trememdous power in the affairs of many governments
I couldn’t accept the idea of an grand interlocking design
by the super rich to control both the Capitalist West,
the Communist East and the Third World. Eventually
I was able to get back to “plumping iron” in peace.

The factors of seeing the “signs of the times,”
the examples of Christians like Richard
Wurmbrand and many others and the
realization that redemptive work of Christ
in individual lives will ultimately lead to
a better world were strong factors in my
thinking when I joined the staff of Campus
Crusade in 1971.

I hasten to point out that Campus Crusade
at that time did not advocate a specific end
times teaching (even though Hal Lindsay
was a CCC staff member in the 1960s).
Nor did they over emphasize the idea of
Christian faith being a cure all for all of
the world’s ills. They emphasized very
strongly the obedience to Christ’s command
to his disciples in the Great Commission.
This Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20)
to preach and teach Christ’s message was
given to all Christians of all generations
and ages and the Apostles being the first
to hear it and eventually to carry it out.

This was one way how my Christian faith
and my interest in politics and current
events crossed and influenced each other.

After my graduation from college in the
summer of 1970 I decided to do take post
graduate courses and also work as a student
volunteer with the local Campus Crusade
ministry on my college campus. That was
an exciting, exhilarating year. The goal of
the CCC movement was to actually reach
to entire campus of 9000 students for Christ.

The structure of the Campus Crusade campus
organization was a system of cell or “Action”
groups that served as forums for discipleship
and evangelism. A “Master Action” group
formulated the plan of evangelism for the
daughter Action Groups. Evangelism proceeded
on several formats. One was the mass meeting
speaker. We had Josh McDowell, fiery Christian
orator, apologist and debater on campus for
several days. He spoke on the Christian perspective
to the Sexual Revolution and other revelent topics.
Andre Kole, master illusionist turned out a large
crowd as he performed top notch magic illusions
and spoke about the difference between worlds
of illusion and the occult and the reality of Christ.
Small group presentations to Men and Women’s
dorms and individual religious surveys (“randoms”)
spread the Christian message as a solution to
meaning in the lives of students as well as a
coherent way of viewing the world.

By the end of the year Phil Fleming the CCC campus
director stated their were maybe only a few hundred
on the campus who had not been directly confronted
with the claims of Christ during that year.

The early 1970s were a turbulent time
as I’ve already written about both in
this country and around the world.
Christians are ones who are focused
into the signs of the times. The sense
of the end of history and the Second
return of Christ is a hope that Christians
look forward to with great expectancy.
Many ministers amd para-church ministries
place great emphasis on the prophetic
(future things) parts of the Bible.

Hal Lindsey wrote The Late Great Planet Earth
in 1970 which expressed in popular terms
the scenario of future things as laid out
in the Bible from a dispensationalist perspective.
This book was for that generation what the
Left Behind series is to this generation.
This type of eschatological thinking was
taught in the church that I grew up it.

As noted previously Christians of all persuasions
have looked forward to Christ’s return. This
doctrine of the imminent return of Christ has
often been a driving force in evangelism and
missionary outreach to the lost. There are
at least a couple of reasons for this. One is
to reach as many people with the Gospel
message before Christ’s return and also the
idea that reaching lost mankind will speed
Christ’s return.

To do a little mental backtracking I will share
today and tomorrow some of the other influences
in my thinking during my high school and college
years that lead me to become seriously involved
with Campus Crusade. As a Christian growing up
in a conservative, evangelical (and yes fundamental)
church I was taught the basic problems we encounter
in society and the world are primarily ones stemming
from the attitudes the human heart. The Christian
message is to change the human heart then you
change society for the better. This change doesn’t
come from clever persuasivness or force of will or
physical coercion. It comes from a willing submission
to the graceful wooing of God’s Spirit. Earlier on
while listening to Carl McIntire and Billy James
Hargis they both featured a man on who demostrated
the capacity of Christ’s love to change hearts in even
the most adverse circumstances.

This was the Rev. Richard Wurmbrand. Wurmbrand
was a Rumanian Lutheran pastor who during
World War II had been jailed by the Nazis.
After the war was over he was imprisoned
for his faith (ungoing extreme tortur) twice for
a total of 14 years by the Rumanian Communist
government. His story is a profound testamemt
to the love of Christ for your enemies and how
that love change chance even the most hardened
and evil heart. Such is the power of the gospel
message. Richard now deceased left a on-going
ministry called The Voice of the Martyrs (VOM).

One day in Fall of 1970 I entered the campus
Student Union building. Off the the side was
a display that made a profound affect on me.
The tables showed the development of a
human pre-birth baby (“a fetus”). The display
was put on by a pro-life group and was an
educational effort to inform the students
about the beginning of human life. That Fall
a referendum was on the ballot (for the
mid-term elections) in Washington to greatly
liberalize the state’s abortion laws. I was
disturbed to think that a referendum had
gotten on the ballot that would mean the
death of helpless and innocent human infants.

Before this I had not thought much (if anything)
about the subject of abortion. I realized then
that unrestricted abortion was a social evil
that should be suppressed. While activism
in the incipent pro-life movement was not
in my thinking this display helped to
determine my thinking on the subject.
Abortion—the taking of innocent human
life was wrong and reprehensible. This was
the first election I participated in and was
happy to cast my vote against this referendum.
I was very disappointed when the referendum
passed making Washington one of the first
states to liberalize their abortion laws. This
was a distinction that I was not happy about.

This came at a time when I was deeply
involved with the evangelization of our
college campus. A bitter disappointment
cropping up during a time of exciting happenings.

In 1970 I began taking my first steps
toward activism. Up to this point I
had been largely an observor of politics
and current events. Being an rather
average college student I needed all
the time I could to keep my grades up.
However toward the spring of 1970 I
knew my time as an undergradute was
coming to a close.

I had became acquainted with a
gentleman named Lloyd Hawkins
who was the college age Sunday
School teacher at my church and
a Campus Crusade for Christ
staff member. He talked to me
about coming to Southern California
and taking a training seminar at
Campus Crusade’s then headquarters
in Arrowhead Springs. After I graduated
in August 1970 I traveled to Arrowhead
Springs for a one week course in
evangelism and discipleship.

That week was very influential in
my thinking. Campus Crusade based
its mission on a Biblical foundation
but also with a eye to what was currently
happening in society.

The next two and a half years saw to decline
and fall of Nixon’s presidency. It was very
painful to see this man who I thought was
sincere and basically decent come crashing
down over as Barry Golwater put it a
“petty ante” burglary. Nixon’s grand
diplomatic strategy also unraveled to
greater extent with the collapse of
South Vietnam and all of Southeast Asia
less that a year after his resignation.

I felt sorry for evangelist Billy Graham
who had stepped out to endorse Nixon
to find out that his trust had been
largely betrayed. Nixon set the stage
for the election of Jimmy Carter who
further weakened the U.S. during
his term in office.

In 1972 Nixon was running for re-election.
His Democratic opponent George McGovern,
primarily an anti-war candidate, was a
unelectable alternative. However I was
not enthusastic about Nixon. He traveled
to Red China in February seeking a
diplomatic breakthrough with that
country. In a highly publicize photo taken
during the trip we saw Nixon dedicating
a toast to his host Chairman Mao.

Chairman Mao has the horrific honor of
being the greatest mass murderer of the
twentieth century. Only fellow communist
dictator Josef Stalin comes close to rivaling
the sheer immense of Mao genocidal mania.
It bothered me very deeply at the time even
for supposed good benefits that Nixon would
dignify saluting this despot. One thinks of
Neville Chamberlin in 1938 returning from
a meeting with Hitler in Munich waving a
piece of paper announcing “Peace in our time.”

I couldn’t vote for Nixon or McGovern and
so I voted for the third party candidate
John Schmitz (American Independent Party).
While Schmitz had no chance of being elected
I couldn’t support Nixon in my first Presidential
election as a voter.

I was still too young to vote as the voting age
was 21 at the time. The day after the November
election had a somewhat was odd and eerie feel.
Nixon had won in a very close race. The students
in my art classes were clearly apprehensive about
what was going to happen next. Would Nixon bring
about the end of the war? How would he cope with
the growing domestic violence from the New Left
and terrorist groups like the Black Panthers?
Could this establishment Republican put it off?

Nixon’s first term was mixed. His solution to the
Vietnam war was to began pulling American troops
out of the conflict and instituting something called
Vietnamization. He also instituted a Draft Lottery
system that seemed to make the Selective Service
more fair by making it random. He later pushed
for an all volunteer armed forces—perhaps the
most enduring aspect of his years as President.
I personally felt these were good policies that
and helped to defuse somewhat the anti-war
movement. Oddly this seemed to energize the
more radical and violent prone elements of the
movement. National Review spunoff a companion
newsletter called Combat that spotlighted news
of domestic left wing terrorism that wasn’t being
covered thoroughtly in the mainstream media.
I subscribed to this newsletter in 1968 throught
the early 1970s.

Richard Nixon seemed to be a political has been
after his unsuccessful run for governor of California
in 1962. “You won’t have Nixon to kick around”
anymore was not the most graceful exit line.
As a young person I had rather ambivalent feelings
about Nixon. I felt that he was a very sincere
(in hindsight sincere sounding) politician who
wanted to do good for his country. On the other
hand he came across as the ultimate
middle-of-the-runner with out the passionate
conservsative convictions of Barry Goldwater
or the unabashed liberal Republicanism of
Nelson Rockefeller.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race
because things weren’t going well in Vietnam.
One of my good friends who was a Johnson
supporter felt that Johnson should have run
and could have won a second term. This was
an opinion I didn’t hear often. Humbert Humphrey,
the “Happy Warrior” received the Democratic
nomination. Nixon staged an amazing political
comeback and won the GOP nomination.

Even with two years of college behind me
I was still had strong conservative convictions
and was lukewarm about Nixon. I thought
he would be better that Humphrey who as
I viewed as a recycled 1960s New Dealer.
Humphrey would probably just continue
Johnson’s failing domestic and foreign policies.

National Review had two major things going
for it. It had a expansive list of top-flight
columnists, wriers and essayists. Former
communists and conservative idealogues
made this magazine a real education.
James Burnham, a one-time Trotskyist wrote
a column of foreign affairs called the "Third
World War" which he believed started in 1944
before the end World War II. Russell Kirk,
brilliant Catholic intellectual expounded
on the importance of tradition as a idealogical
anchor for culture and society. William F.
Buckley himself wrote his “On the Right” column
that one needed to read several times to under
his full meaning. Besides being a magazine
dedicated to conservative principles it was a
good read.

It also had a sense of humor that made it a joy
to read. One earlier article that caught my
attention early on was by Victor God called
“The Cliche Expert Testifies as a Liberal”
(June 27, 1967) which satirizes the trite
intellectual sayings of the time. Clever
illustrations and cartoons also completed
the mix that was National Review.

When I started college in 1966 I discovered a
magazine in the college library that caught my
attention. That magazine was National Review
and the philosohy behind the publication was a
well reasoned, scholarly yet feisty conservatism.
The editor was the urbane, wtty. erudite,
William F. Buckley, Jr. a Yale educated Catholic
intellectual who was very serious about critiquing
the status quo from the perspective of a traditionally
grounded ethos and values. This was a very
stimulating publication, at times somewhat
over my head intellectually, but none-the-less
enriching and thought stretching.

National Review was a magazine with an agenda.
This publication set out to develop a modern
coherent conservative political and cultural
philosophy as well as critiquing the prevailing
establishment liberalism. It was deeply
anti-communist and was certainly compatible
with what I had learned from Carl McIntire
and Billy James Hargis. I began subscribing
to it and continued to do so for 25 or 30 years.
The college I went to was not one that was friendly
to conservative thought and my bi-weekly doses
of National Review helped me keep a right
perspective during the turbulent late 1960s
and early 1970s.

The Vietnam War was not the only social
political upheaval happening during the 1960s.
One TV show I enjoyed in the early 1960s was
“The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis.” This program
featured a young and very funny Bob Denver
(later to play the silly Gilligan) who became
a beatnik named Maynard G. Krebs. Maynard
was a broad stereotype of the bohemian life
style that became popular during the 1950s.
In some ways the Beatniks (or the Beats)
ultimately midwifed the Hippie movement.

Like so much in life I saw the Hippies with
mixed feelings. They seemed to be a rebellion
against the materialistic, comsumerist American
culture of the period. They realized that just
accumulating material things and climbing
the corporate ladder proved hollow as
essential life goals. Their solution as
advanced by Timothy Leary and others
was to “Tune In, Turn On and Drop Out.”
Leary was an early advocate of turning on
with “awareness expanding” drugs like LSD.
As Leary was gaining notoriety one of my
best friends seemed to be open to the idea
of drugs like LSD could be benefical and not just
a coop out. I was surprised! Also Leary himself
made an appearance on our local college
campus promoting drug usage.

The potentially good elements of the Hippie
philosophy-return to a more basic lifestyle,
natural foods, etc. made the subculture
attractive to idealistic young people who
was disillusioned with their routine and
dull suburban unbringing. However the
whole pervesive drug element (and the lie
of “free sex”) can’t be separated from the
Hippie phenomenon which finally
destroyed the movement in its hallucinogenic
excesses. The Hippies either assimilated back
into mainstream culture and became among
other careers left wing college professors or
were converted into early 1970s religious
revival known as the Jesus Movement.

This doesn’t mean that the sacrifices of our
Vietnam vets weren’t noble in trying to
preserve the soverneity of a non-communist
people, but their efforts ultimately proved
in vain when on April 30, 1975 the North
Vietnamese Army conquered South Vietnam.
Ironically on April 30, 1945 thirty years earlier
Adolf Hitler committed suicide in a Berlin bunker
and a few days later the German armies surrendered
ending Europe’s long nightmare. On April 30, 1975,
South Vietnam’s nightmare was only beginning.

I had a good friend who was a Vietnam vet
(a helicopter medic) who literally cried as he
watched the Americans being airlifted from
the roof top of the U.S. Embassy that spring
day in 1975. Even today when someone talks
about “the war” I have to ask them to define
which war they are referring to. “The war”
in my thinking was the Vietnam War” not a
war before I was born (World War II). However
life goes on and I find it amazing and somewhat
comforting that even people a few years younger
than myself who lived throught the Vietnam years
as children have no explicit memories of this
chapter in country’s history.

I entered college in the fall of 1966 with
a student deferment (later a F4 -physical
on account of chronic asthma). The war
dragged on and on, week after week, month
after month, year after year. Every
week night the TV evening news informed
us of the body count of American fighting
men killed in the war as well as the
estimated enemy dead. Walter Cronkite
then told us reassuringly “That is the way
is it on May 22, 1967" (or whatever day).

While I never was involved with the
anti-Vietnam war movement I could
understand the motives of those who
were. They didn’t want to become cannon
fodder for a no-win war. It is one thing to
fight and even die in a war in which you
are protecting your country and its freedom
and where victory is a clear cut objective
and another where you are sent to a country
where the only real objective is to see if you
can survive for 12 months.

I could understand the frustration of my
generation with the seemingly endless conflict.
However the anti-war movement was influenced
and infiltrated with extreme militant New Left
groups (SDA, Weathermen) that sought and
in large measure were successful in “radicalizing”
the movement. It turned into being not only
an anti-war, but in large measure an
anti-America movement.

During my junior and senior year of high school
the Vietnam War was starting to heat up.
President Johnson apparently felt he could
have both guns and butter. As a young
man approaching draft age I had mixed
feelings about the Vietnam War. I saw
America’s intentions as just in helping
a pro-western, non-communist government
resist communist takeover. The noble ideal
was not to let happen what had taken place
in China, the Eastern European countries,
Cuba and elsewhere. However Vietnam turned
out to be another Korea. A “pulled punches war”
(as popular radio newscaster and commentator
Paul Harvey would say)—a war that we couldn’t
lose, but we couldn’t win either. Our national
leadership was afraid of massive Chinese or
Soviet ground forces entering the conflict or
even worse igniting a nuclear conflagration
over the war.

Those voices on the conservative side that
counseled either victory or pullout were ignored.
It seemed as if our government was using
our armed forces (much of it made up of
draftees) to project it global geo-political
policies rather than achieving a military
victory that the American people could
fully support.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about
Lyndon B. Johnson’s first several years in
office was his presence on the airwaves
seemingly every night telling “My Fellow
Americans” what his Great Society was
going to do for us. His brand of paternalistic
government earned him the handle of
“Big Daddy LBJ.” President Johnson
interpreted (rightly or wrongly) his
triumph in the 1964 election as a clear
mandate for his style of government.
Read BIG government. As a young person
with very conservative ideas about the
role of government the Johnson years
were very difficult. You felt that Johnson
was trying to outdo his hero Franklin D.
Roosevelt in establishing government
programs.

He also promised during the campaign
that hewouldn’t be sending more American
troops to fight in Vietnam. A promise he
promptly broke.

Since the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater held the most conservative views
I was strongly for him, The media was admantly
against him and I realized that his chances of
winning were slim to none. I was astonished at
some of the anti-Goldwater TV commericals.
The most infamous one was the cute little girl
picking flowers in a field and then an atomic
bomb explodes. The opposition portrayed
Goldwater as a nuclear trigger happy nut.
Goldwater had a very forthright manner
and was very upfront with his views which
endeared him to his supporters but allowed
this enemies to twist his words which they
certainly did.

(Note: I’ve just read Goldwater’s 1979 memoir
called “With No Apologies” that explains his
disappointment, which mirrors my own, with
the direction of the United States and many
U.S. Presidents Democratic and Republican
during my life time.)

Late in the election movie actor Ronald Reagan
gave a brilliant televised talk (later known as
“The Speech”) supporting Goldwater which
momentarily raised hopes that all might not be lost.
I watched the televised election returns in
November 1964 and realized the miracle
wasn’t going to happen. Goldwater was
crushingly defeated.
After the election car bumper stickers began
cropping up saying “27 Million can’t be wrong.”
While I sympathized with the people whose cars
bore those bumper stickers I thought it was
a little pathetic because the vote had been so
overwhelmingly against Goldwater.

Another slogan that was used during the
campaign was “In Your heart You know He’s Right.”
Perhaps that fit more my feelings as a
disappointed 16 year old (oh, I had so wanted
to vote for him —AUH2O>64—I was five years
too young!). I didn’t think what I had heard
and read was wrong it just wasn’t the right
time for someone like Goldwater. Some critics
thought Goldwater was a throwback to a political
Stone Age. Actually he proved to be ahead of his time.

There was a sense in the countrythat the
American people had just gone through the
traumatic lost of a president and another
big change was just to soon. Give the new
guy a chance.

Another radio program I listened to
was Billy James Hargis and his
Christian Crusade.
Hargis was a radio preacher out of
Tulsa, Oklahoma and similar to
Carl McIntire decried the Marxist
subversion of American institutions.
He was an early voice protesting sex
education in the public schools and the
harmful influence of Rock music on
American youth.

During this time I came across a copy
of John Stormer’s famous book called
None Dare Call It Treason. This book
was a heavily documented expose’ of
the faults of the Roosevelt and Truman
administrations in terms of Communist
influence and infiltration. As I remember
it claimed this influence continued into
the Eisenhower years and after. I had
read nothing like it and it came out in
1964 just before the Presidential Election.

During this time I discovered a local Christian
Radio Station (KARI out of Blaine, Washington)
that had a full schedule of Radio preachers that
ministered the Word on the airwaves.

One was Dr. Carl McIntire whose Twentieth
Century Reformation Hour was a great listen.
Dr. McIntire (with his sidekick Amen Charlie)
started off his program with a short five to
8 minute Bible devotional and the rest of the
broadcast was dedicated to exposing the
communist influence in religious bodies such
as the World Council of Churches and the
National Council of Churches. McIntire always
backed up his charges with supporting documentation.
He used the documentation as an incentive to
get people to write in and send donations to
support the radio program. He eventually got on
over 600 Radio stations and was a gadfly to
the liberal church officials for many years. He
conducted numerous large rallies and led
protest marches on Washington DC.

In his own way he maintained that our Christian
faith should influence the way we think (and act)
about our society and culture. Of course, his
opponents tried painting McIntire as an extremist.
I felt then and even now that he was correct in
most of his positions (even Christianity Today
extended Dr. McIntire a post humous apology
of sorts www.ctlibrary.com/8573). His telling
the truth got him into trouble. He was a feisty,
gutsy guy who was an excellent orator and a
delight to listen to. Probably in the early to
mid 1960s Carl McIntire made a trip to
northwest Washington to visit with his
local supporters.
My brother Elvin and I when to his meeting at
one of the local Bellingham hotels. I found it
somewhat odd that a local church did not host
him, but apparently he preferred a non-religious
venue. I kept up with McIntire through the
mid-1960s but when I started college my focus shifted.

(Having recently moved to Arizona I met a man
who worked for McIntire in his younger days in
the early 1960s. He thought highly of McIntire’s
preaching and teaching but he felt the radio preacher
lacked important administrative skills. There is a
web site dedicated to Dr. McIntire (www.carlmcintire.org/).

Then in late 1963 the totally unexpected
happened—assasination of President Kennedy.
I remember sitting in my tenth grade
geometry class and the principal came
over the room public address system
announcing that the governor of Texas
had been killed and the President severely
wounded in Dallas, Texas (actually it was the
other way around we found out later).

There was a silence in the room.
Our teacher encouraged us and assured
us everything would be alright. I recall sitting
at home on a cold rainy morning (and afternoon)
several days later (school had been cancelled
because of the National Day of Mourning) glued
to the TV watching the funeral of JFK. There was
little John Jr. saluting his slain father and
Mrs Kennedy and Robert and Ted the President’s
brothers riding in a car following the horse
drawn casket. Part of me wanted to be doing
something else but another part of me
wanted to keep watching.

I realized that real history changing events
were happening. Presidential assasinations were
rare events—it had been almost 100 years since
Lincoln’s murder.

I had mixed feelings. I was never a Kennedy fan,
but I also never wanted him killed. I wanted him
to finish out his term of office and possibly be
defeated for re-election (though in hindsight he
probably would have been re-elected).
A very sad time for our nation.