361 CHRONICLESnnever in doubt.nRedrafts of the future run deepernstill. We are to shy away from callingnGod “Father” too often. Instead, wenshould tend more toward the likes ofn”Foundation,” “Helper,” “TriunenOne,” “Ground of Being,” and thenheart-stirring “Other.” And the searchnis on for the “new terms which refer tonthe being of the persons of the Trinity.n” We are permitted “for the present”nto employ the ancient formula, “Father,nSon and Holy Ghost,” but thenuse of “Mother,” for example, is currentlynbeing studied and discussed. Innthe meantime, there is no prohibitionnon the use of “Mother” or anythingnelse for that matter.nBut more: The epilogue of the Reportnwarns that, while exploring fornand discussing new language, we mustnnot become “idolatrous of any particularnset of terminology.” The Presbyteriannhierarchy clearly means to implynthat those who cling to the Father andnthe ancient Trinity are not only unloving,nbut idolators as well.nC.S. Lewis once wrote that it is thenbusiness of Christianity “to presentnthat which is timeless in the particularnlanguage of our own age.” But, he alsonsaid, the “bad preacher” does the opposite:n”He takes the ideas of our ownnage and tricks them out in the traditionalnlanguage of Christianity.”nAnd it is indeed a battle of ideas, notna loving discussion of linguistics, thatnpresently racks the PresbyteriannChurch. By importing their own contemporarynpolitical ideas, the hierarchynaims at nothing less than convertingnthe church into a partisan politicalnorganization.nThe long-standing, left-wing politicsnof the Presbyterian hierarchy formnthe larger context of the effort to renamenGod. The proof of their allegiancenis manifold, from their gift ofn$10,000 to the Angela Davis DefensenFund to their routine endorsement ofnthe pronouncements of the Nationalnand World Council of Churches onnpeace and economics.nThe spectacle of a modern, leftwingnclergy is deeply ironic. As RichardnJohn Neuhaus notes in The NakednPublic Square, “The public programnof many mainline churches is hardlyndistinguishable from the program ofnthe American Civil Liberties Unionnfor the elimination of religious influ­nence from American public life.”nNeuhaus contends that if the publicnsquare is left “naked” (that is, withoutnthe benefit of religiously inspired principles)ntoo long, the state will fill thenvoid with amoral or immoral tyranny.nAlas, the public square has remainednnaked too long and the main-linenclergy have inhaled too deeply its politicalnfictions. The Ideologues proposennew doctrines that tend, incredibly, toneliminate religion from religious life.nWe shall soon have a naked altar tonmatch our naked square.nThe governing and probably thenonly principles of the naked publicnsquare are the often contradictory fictionsnof total liberty and radical egalitarianism.nBy definition, the nakednsquare is vacuous, devoid of substance,nwithout particular or distinguishingnattributes. In short, it is anprocess or an arena for games withoutnan object. Traditional Christianity, onnthe other hand, with its God, thenFather Almighty, has distinct attributes;nit is full of particular substance.nIn a sense, it is too real for the Ideologues.nAs a reflection of the publicnsquare’s emptiness, the God of the leftnmust be vague, abstract, and, abovenall, mutable.nWitness a flyer titled “Africa Awareness,”nwhich I recently received fromnour Synod. It outiined the problem ofndrought and hunger and noted thatnmoney was needed to buy, store, andndeliver food. Yet, amazingly, there wasnno solicitation of funds; we were told,ninstead, where to write for “resources.”nHow very much the flyer’s concludingnsentence says about the philosophy ofnthe main-line leadership: “A concernnis that governments are withdrawingnfrom their moral responsibilities tonsupport global structures for peace andnjustice through a return to ‘charity’ bynindividuals.” We have come to this:nthat our leaders are shameless statistsnwho place their faith in “economicndemocracy” rather than charity.nMeanwhile, until the Ideologuesncan establish a new regime in whichnthe objectives of the secular and sectariannrealms happily converge, all oldnforms of authority are under attack.nThe Presbyterian leaders’ commitmentnto “sanctuary” for illegal CentralnAmerican immigrants is proof of theirndisregard for liberal democracy,nwhich, if it is to have any meaning atnnnall, must rely on the rule of law. If thenlaws even of a legitimate democracynare not worthy of obedience, thennthere cannot be government or anynsecular order among Christians. Innfact, it is the very essence of tyrannynfor one group to place its politics aboventhe law and beyond the claims of thenelectorate.nBut the more telling objection to thenIdeologues is that their partisan politicsnprofoundly threaten the church. Thenpolitical game divides its subjects; it isnfractious; it breeds contention. Thencatholic nature of the faith shouldnbind us in a realm largely separatenfrom the partisan form of politics. Thenfaith, “mere Christianity,” shows usnour ends and outlines the broad limitsnof acceptable means for attainingnthem. In a democracy, partisan politicsninvolve the selection of the mostnpractical of these acceptable means.nFor the church to adopt or endorsenparticular means presumes too muchnand implies a knowledge of the divinenwill beyond the church’s capacity.nMoreover, the mission of the church isnitself conservative in a real, though notnpolitical sense. To a large degree, thenchurch’s purpose is to conserve, passnon, and proliferate a message, a witnessnin as clear and pristine a form asnpossible. The church cannot placenitself in the forefront of a partisannmovement without jeopardizing itsnfirst principles.nYet the Ideologues seem intent onnschism. According to Pastor Neuhaus,none Methodist Bishop expressed deepndistress at a November 1980 meetingnof Methodist Bishops over the electionnof Ronald Reagan: The “saints” hadnsomehow proved weak in their effortsnto win over the populace. The Bishopnhad hope, however, for if the “peoplenof faith” could gain strength from theirnfailure, they might move on to victorynnext time. Doubtless, not a few goodnMethodist Republicans would be surprisednto learn that they are no longerncounted among the “people of faith.”nIn the Bishop’s attitude we can seenthe true, hypocritical nature of theneffort to rename God. The Ideologuesnplay shallow linguistic games to demonstratentheir magnanimous “inclusion”nof women, who never were excluded,nbut they employ theirnsanctimonious politics to effect verynreal exclusion of those who vote an