Experts discuss the current influence and foreign policy priorities of the American evangelical community. Speakers include Reverend Eugene Rivers, Richard Cizik, and Clyde Wilcox. This event is moderated by Adrian Wooldridge.
Richard Cizik is the President of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, an organization committed to a broad, holistic, moral vision for evangelical engagement.
Rev. Cizik served for ten years as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, a post he left in 2008 after expressing conditional support for civil unions. He has been a leader in bringing evangelicals and scientists together in the search for common ground on climate change.
Reverend Eugene Rivers
The Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III is pastor of the Azusa Christian Community, a Pentecostal church whose pastor is ordained within the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and located in the Four Corners section of Dorchester, Massachusetts where he also lives with his wife, Jacqueline C. Rivers, and their children.
Rev. Rivers was born in Boston and reared in South Chicago and North Philadelphia. He was educated at Harvard University, and has worked on community development and various aspects of Christian activism for nearly thirty years, especially on behalf of the black poor. As President of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation (www.ntlf.org), he is working to build new grassroots leadership in forty of the worst inner city neighborhoods in inner city America by the year 2006. He serves as President of The Ella J. Baker House (www.thebakerhouse.org), the separate 501 (c)(3) non-profit originally created by the Azusa Christian Community, which provides street intervention, education and mentoring for hundreds of youths in Dorchester and elsewhere in Boston each year.
The Rev. Rivers has interests in foreign policy and geopolitics, and is now General Secretary of the Pan African Charismatic Evangelical Congress (www.pacec.org) that was formed to organize churches in the U.S. to assist their counterparts in Africa in dealing with the AIDS in Africa pandemic, as well as advocating for changes in foreign and development policies of the U.S. vis-à-vis Africa. He spoke at the 1998 meeting of the World Council of Churches to urge them to act in the face of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
Professor Wilcox writes on public opinion and electoral behavior, religion and politics, gender politics, the politics of social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control, interest group politics, campaign finance, and science fiction and politics. He has authored, coauthored, edited, or co-edited more than 20 books. His most recent include The Politics of Gay Rights, Prayers in the Precincts: The Christian Right in the 1998 Elections, The Clinton Scandal and the Future of American Government, Political Science Fiction, and Women in Elected Office, Past, Present, and Future. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty, Professor Wilcox worked at the Federal Election Commission and taught at Union College.
Adrian Wooldridge is the Washington Bureau Chief and 'Lexington' columnist for the Economist magazine.
Wooldridge was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history, and was awarded a fellowship at All Souls College, also at Oxford, where he received a doctorate in philosophy in 1985. From 1984 to 1985 he was also a Harkness scholar at the University of California at Berkeley.
Welcome to the second session of our symposium on evangelicalsand U.S. foreign policy. Please remember to turn off all your cell phones, BlackBerrys,and all wireless devices. You never know when Mrs. Giuliani is going to decide to call.I'd like to remind the audience that this meeting is on the record. Participants around thenation and the world are viewing this meeting via live webcast on the Council's website,CFR.org.I'm Adrian Woolridge. I'm the Washington bureau chief of The Economist.The speakers -- you have a detailed biography of all the speakers in your pack, so I'll bevery brief.Richard Cizik is the vice president for Government Affairs, the National Association ofEvangelicals. Eugene Rivers is the special assistant to the presiding bishop forgovernment and policy of the Church of God and Christ. And Clyde Wilcox is professorof government at Georgetown University. So we have a great diversity.We've already, I think, to some extent, trespassed into the modern world, but we are nowgoing to shift very much from the history of evangelicals and foreign policy to the currentsituation. And I wanted to start off by asking Clyde Wilcox to talk a little bit about whoevangelicals are.Do they constitute a bloc? Are there significant divisions within them? Are they allcharacters living in double-wide trailer homes, or is that -- that's what we chaps in thepress love to say that. Or perhaps it's more upward mobility. And why on earth are wetalking about evangelicals in relation to foreign policy? I know we've touched on this alittle bit, so can we sort of move the discussion on from what's already been said?Right. Well, this is a very diverse group of people, obviously. We're talking about JesseJackson, Jimmy Carter, probably Al Gore, Mike Huckabee, George Bush, Pat Robertson.Is there any foreign policy attitude that's not covered in that range of people?In terms of demographics, there are a very diverse group of people. Some do live indouble-wide trailers and some live in McMansions near me.I think the really important divisions demographically would be the following: First ofall, race, as was mentioned earlier; African-American evangelicals much less likely tosupport the war in Iraq, much less likely to support the use of military troops reallyanywhere in the world, also slightly more pro-Islam.And then I think there's a gender gap among evangelicals, just as there are among allparts of the population on foreign policy, with women less likely to support the war.And then I think there's a really big generation gap among evangelicals. The Christianright that we heard about in this first panel is really sort of a fading generation --Robertson and Falwell, you know, fading from the scene; the new generation of theRichards, in a sense, of Richard Cizik and Richard Land and Rick Warren, who are amuch more moderate and tolerant and open generation.I'm not sure Richard Land would associate himself with me.And then, you know, then the younger people that I interview are really very different.Many of them have gone on missions. Many have gone overseas. And so they're reallyvery interested in what's going on in the world.And then they're different theologically, and there are many different ways to cut thetheology. But I just want to point to one really important difference in terms of foreignpolicy, the premillennial dispensationalists versus everyone else. All right, so you havePentecostals versus charismatics versus fundamentalists, whatever.But there's one group -- it's not a majority -- who believe that there's biblical prophecythat's being enacted right now in our lifetime. That has some very importantconsequences intellectually for foreign policy. For everybody else, maybe Jesus iscoming a thousand years from now, 2,000 years from now, so we should change theclimate. We should take care of social problems. But for the premillennialists, that's avery distinctive group.Can I just ask Gene Rivers to give a supplement on that on the Pentecostals? We keephearing this word, Pentecostals. What does it mean, and how big of a phenomenon is it?Evangelicalism is -- and someone made the point earlier about it -- is a contested term.And it has been traditionally used as a big-tent term that was selectively employed.Pentecostals, as some of you may know, we represent a high-octane wing of the lowchurch -- (laughter) -- given to all kinds of, you know, liturgical enthusiasm.I'll write that one down.Right. That's right -- and associated with the Azusa Street revival in 1906, when, in ourview, the Holy Ghost comes down in a powerful way. And there's something actually,for us, remarkably, irresistibly fascinating in the idea that the Holy Ghost comes in anold, beat-up house in a dilapidated section of Los Angeles at a prayer meeting presidedover by a one-eyed former slave.And from that point, there is this unbelievable religious renewal that affirms andcelebrates the charismatic gifts of the Spirit and healing. And there are, I think, threethings that were unique sociologically and historically about the phenomenon.Number one, in southern California, which is the racial South of 1906, a globalphenomenon begins, presided over by someone that is less than a generation away fromslavery. And what's significant sociologically, beyond the phenomenon of glossolalia,speaking in tongues, was the fact that at the height of racial segregation in the South, youhave a religious experience that collapsed race and gender divisions -- 1906. Andliterally people from around the world hear about this revival that begins April 9th, 1906,of all races.And from that singular event, we now have, it's estimated, 600 million folk who areengaged in this high-octane religion, which John DiIulio has argued in "The GodlyRepublic" represents the soft power of the West. This is a fascinating idea, because allacross Africa, you know, you have the political Islam. When you go to Nigeria, veryquietly, with no ideological ax to grind, you have literally hundreds of thousands ofPentecostals. And this phenomenon comes in a variety of labels. I'm from the Church of God --Let's -- I'd like to get back to both the soft power and Africa later. But let me now switcha little bit to the politics of evangelicals at the moment in foreign policy.You have a situation where you've had an evangelical in the White House who's beenvery widely liked in the evangelical community; got a very high proportion of his votesfrom evangelicals. A very high proportion of evangelicals voted for him, let me say.And the evangelical community has been much more sustained in its support for Bushthan those other groups.What's happening now with the Republican Party? Do evangelicals have a championwho might replace Bush? Why are they so divided amongst -- why hasn't there emergedanother Bush? Why are they so divided amongst their candidates? And does that meanthat there's going to be a decline in the influence of evangelicals on foreign policy ifthey're divided?Which one?Well -- (inaudible). Would you like to start off by addressing the after-Bush?Thank you for your writing, first of all -- thank you -- and your understanding of religionin a world and in The Economist that doesn't always do that, by the way.But there has been a recent emphasis at the magazine which I think reflects what is goingon here and what is going on in the country everywhere. It is a sense that religion and itsimportance is extraordinarily significant.And it wasn't Bush who really did this, unless you have that misconception. Politicsalways follows religion. And so Bush was simply a reflection of what was alreadyoccurring in the country. And the future will be determined by what are the changesalready underway in American evangelicalism particularly because of its influence on theRepublican Party. And while there isn't a single champion, as you say, there are multiplecandidates for that role.It will remain to be seen whether anyone lives up to it. It's not likely that any onecandidate, especially Mr. Giuliani or Mitt Romney, in my opinion, will live up to that. Isuppose Huckabee poses the best prospects for playing that role.But here is the bottom line. The bottom line is that -- well, it's been said that the 21stcentury will be religious or it will not be at all. That was Malraux. Religious or not atall. Well, these factors, especially in politics, faith and politics, are what are going to, Ithink, ultimately drive even this election, believe it or not. People thought it was going towane. It's not going to wane. The broadening of the evangelical agenda that is reflectedin this document from the NAE, signed by all those names you just mentioned, thereligious right instead of the religious left, for the health of the nation, I think is what isreally important.So the question isn't really whom, in terms of a candidate. It's what, and what do thesepeople believe and what do they want?Professor Wilcox --Yeah, the one thing I'd say is that Bush, I think, has had a unique talent in talking aboutreligion in an inclusive way. Unlike, say, Carter or Clinton, even, he very seldom talksabout what his faith makes him think. He talks about how his faith makes him feel, andthat's something htat unites people across faith traditions. So if you listen to him in thedebates, he says I know what it feels like when people pray for me, you know? That I goto my Heavenly Father for strength. In fact, he made the famous quote where he doesn'ttalk to his earthly father for guidance, which was a little strange. (Scattered laughter.)But the idea that you have this inclusive, emotional language talking about faith is a verypowerful thing on the campaign trail, and I think I haven't seen any of the Republicancandidates doing that yet. I've seen a couple of Democratic candidates trying to do it.What's interesting for -- and I'll be more precise -- the black Pentecostal charismaticcommunity is that Bush surprised the entire country on the issue of Africa. No oneexpected Bush -- no one, left, right or center -- the right wasn't even thinking aboutAfrica right --No one expected Bush to undertake the initiatives that were undertaken on behalf ofAfrica. And one of the things that -- I was talking to a number of black church leaderswho are actually going to be reaching out to Bush, and what's fascinating about howsubtle the policies got, the Church of God and Christ issued a statement in opposition tothe Iraqi war very early. And what's fascinating about the statement that they issued isthat their opposition to the war -- and these are Pentecostals, now -- was based onCatholic just-war theory. (Scattered laughter.)And they used Catholic just-war theory as the philosophic basis for their opposition to theIraq war, which was completely at variance with where -- with the popular image ofevangelicals. And they said, Mr. President, we love you on Africa. You've done greatstuff. You haven't gotten credit by the liberal media. And we are in opposition to thiswar. We're still waiting for the WMDs -- you know, we're hanging in there, but we seeno moral or intellectual justification for the conflict. We disagree with you on theaffirmative action decision in the case of the University of Michigan. You got it wrong,but we love you anyway.And so I think there's a much more nuanced --Intellectually sophisticated --Yeah. I think there is a perception out there that Bush's policy towards Iraq and theMiddle East was heavily influenced by his evangelical faith. I think that that's actually anoverstatement, but --It's led to the Africa policy where you can see the influence of religion.Adrian, let me say this. I happen to disagree to the extent that the previous panelist -- Idon't know whether it was Bill or Leo or whomever -- suggested a kind of unilateralism.In fact, if you look at the Pew Forum on multilateral versus unilateralism amongevangelicalism -- this was 2005, mind you. Shared leadership -- should the U.S. exercisesingle leadership or shared leadership of the world? The evangelicals said, 75 percent,they support shared leadership. American exceptionalism, yes, 60 percent, but should theUnited States mind its own business? Sixty percent of evangelicals said "disagree."And frankly, if you look at their views of the U.N. and multilateral institutions, it's split.Yeah. That's absolutely right. Yeah.It's split. It's not this old-war characterization that is a hangover from the previousgeneration. And so what you really have to answer what is happening in our movementis a return to what mythologists and others like Ralph Winter characterize as "firstinheritance" gospel, the full-spectrum, broad issues. Not just missions, but it's changingcivil society, even the law, addressing issues of war. That is first inheritanceevangelicalism that was eclipsed for 40 years by second inheritance, as Winter calls it --those who focused exclusively on personal salvation.Now, the second inheritance mentality, of course, led to some of the errors, I think, inpublic policy. But those are being corrected by the new agenda that includes the newevangelicals addressing climate change and the rest.I think that's absolutely right. I think there's been a very dramatic change in the views ofcertain sections of the evangelical community towards the United Nations andwillingness to work within the United Nations.We invited him -- that is, the Antichrist himself -- that's a joke -- Ban Ki-moon. (Mildlaughter.) You heard the context about "left behind" focusing on the secretary-general as that.Look, the board of the NAE heard him address, in Washington, D.C. on October 12th --that's Ban Ki-moon -- addressed the broader-picture issues. And was there affirmation?Absolutely, for his concern for millennium development goals and the rest. So that is, Ithink, a result of what leadership is.When you provide leadership, I believe the people in the pews will follow, if it'sconsistent with evangelical theology and biblical beliefs and the rest.Adrian?I think one development that has contributed to the transformation is the evolution andmaturation of some form of white evangelical intelligentsia, which is a significantdevelopment over the last 30 years.Which has to do with transformations and the evangelical college and university system.And so I think that one of the -- one of the unexplored and, you know, inadequatelyappreciated developments has been the emergence of a more robust intelligentsia that'strying to move out of this stereotype of sort of being an intellectual trailer park.Professor Wilcox, could you add a little bit more to that? Because I think what we haveseen is the development exactly of this intelligentsia and almost of a foreign policyestablishment or a group of foreign policy heavyweights who are evangelicals or veryinfluenced by evangelical thinking, who range from James Baker to Condi Rice. Couldyou say something about that upward mobility, intellectually and socially, of theevangelicals?Yeah. So, you know, two generations ago, if you have said are evangelicals much lesseducated that the population, the answer would have been, you know, undoubtedly yes.Today, in the survey data among very oldest Americans, evangelicals are slightly lesseducated than everyone else. In fact, among, you know, young people 20 to 30, they'reevery bit as educated. They're going to good private schools. Many students coming toGeorgetown, you know, to study. So it's -- the aanti-intellectualism is still part of thefundamentalist wing, but it really does not characterize the movement as a whole.I'd like people to say something about the missionary world, the sheer scale of missionaryactivity around the world, the sheer scale of evangelical involvement in foreign aid, andwhat the possible implications of that involvement are for foreign policy.Well, I'll just give you one quick figure from the last 10 years. World Vision's budgetjumped, I heard from -- (inaudible) -- from 350 million (dollars) annually to 950 million(dollars). In other words, it was a huge jump, over a mere decade. That was -- the samething that occurred in other movements within the evangelical circles.The biggest institutions, the two biggies are World Vision and Feed the Children, but youhave a host of other organizations. The Salvation Army, for example, is an NAEdenomination, annual budget of a billion, 300 million (dollars) from the government. Butyou have many, many others.And these agencies who strive to do development more than simply emergency aidnowadays are what are indeed reflecting back to their own constituents and supporterswhat is occurring in the world.And so look at the priorities. Paul Marshall is here and Paul has really led on religiouspersecution. But Paul, you would be disappointed by 37 percent saying it's a top priorityamongst evangelicals. This was two years ago. What are the top priorities? Terror, 91percent. Protecting jobs in the U.S., 87 percent. Preventing the spread of nuclearweapons, 80 percent followed by reducing our dependence on energy resources, drugtrafficking and the like. AIDS, 68 percent. What do you get? All the way down tohuman rights and religious freedom at 31 percent. But what has happened, you see, isdespite in the pew, only 31 percent supporting some of that democratic human rightsagenda -- what's happening is that the leadership is saying to the movement, "You have toaddress these other issues" ---- "even if you don't always feel them personally, you have to. And that's how you havethis change occurring. And so it's not just the document in 2004. It's the statements thathave come from leaders in these denominations, churches and the like, to their ownpeople saying, "It's a new world and you have to address it, and the old mentalities don'tdo." And if you ask the average pastor in America today what his number one concern is-- this from Lee Anderson, our president, is called survival. First it's called survival.That's the number one concern. But if you ask them what are there worldviews and thepriorities they have, more of them will talk about international concerns and theinternational gospel -- the Church of Jesus Christ internationally -- than they willdomestic politics.Will they retreat if they don't have a candidate? Well, we'll see. I doubt it. I really don'tthink evangelicals are going to sit on their hands because they don't have a George W.Bush. Why? Because they know we as a church collective have an interest in U.S.foreign policy and that's why over the last nine years, this movement that has includedthe NAE, the Southern Baptist Convention and other related entities have passed eightmajor landmark bills that were cited in part -- previously, the International ReligiousFreedom Act first in 1998 under Clinton, but then you have a host of these that includethe Sudan Peace Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Prison RapeElimination Act, PEPFAR -- the AIDS bill, but also the North Korea Human Rights Act,the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act --And look at that. Here you have genocide and world hunger, global climate change --these are all now priorities. Yet 31 percent said of these evangelicals, "We shouldstrengthen the U.N." Thirty-one percent said -- that's a far cry from the fundamentalistsof days of old.Gene, could you say something about the involvement of the black church in Africa and theOn December 10th, I think it was -- 2000 -- someone can correct the date on that --President-elect Bush held a meeting in Austin, Texas. I don't know, Richard, if you werethere. There were a group of -- you know, religious leader types that showed up at thismeeting in Austin, Texas. And Dilulio had just come on as the head of the faith-basedoffice and we were flown out to Texas. We sit down and -- it's a fascinating experiencefor me. It -- the president does a little brief talk then he says, "Well, what are some of theconcerns?" And so a hand shot up and said, "President Bush, what are you going to do inAfrica? Don't want to start any trouble -- you know, and get -- you know, make this acontentious meeting but where are we on Africa?" And it was just fascinating. He said,"No, no. It's okay. That's okay. Not a problem. I'm going to make Africa a priority."And people's jaws dropped. "I'm going to make Africa a priority."And President Bush kept his word. Bishop Charles E. Blake, working very closely withJohn Delulio -- and black churches then began to really push in communication withCondoleeza Rice -- and I should say also and it's interesting -- we were talking aboutevangelical leadership, no one has yet raised the name Condoleezza Rice, who bytheological definition would be an evangelical but who is not paraded out in any of thediscussions which may be related to her demography -- we'll say demography, right? ButCondoleezza Rice was a --You mean because she's black.Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no ---- demography, what do you mean --It could be -- demography also involves gender as --Okay. Or race --It's a gender thing here, right? (Cross talk, laughter.) Let the church say, "Amen," all right?So I think that the black churches were given -- and this is interesting. The blackchurches were given an opportunity to play a greater role in foreign policy discoursearound the AIDS issue under a Republican administration as opposed to Democratic. Weall love Bubba Clinton and -- you know, and -- you know, and that was all a very warmexperience in the whole business. But one of the great ironies of the last 20 years is thatBush was better on Africa and had a closer working relationship with black churches onforeign and development policy as it related to AIDS than was the case with the Clintonadministration. And it's one of the most fascinating ironies that's been sort ofunderexplored in this case. And so --I agree with that.But you also have the Sudan Peace Act, which was again to Bush's credit. He took thatas well.Peter Carrington, one of the grand old men of the British foreign policy establishment,once said that the trouble with science was that it was all invented after he went to school.And I think one of the troubles with evangelicals and foreign policy is most of theevangelical foreign policy was all invented after journalists of my generation went toschool and formed their opinions about it. There does seem to be a seismic change inforeign policy thinking and one of the most important of those, of course, isenvironmentalism. And I'd like -- we're very privileged to have Richard Cizik here,who's taken a leading role in that. And I'd like you to give us some sense of what'shappening in that debate and how much pushback you got from the old establishmentabout environmentalism and how this might feed into future foreign policy decisions ---- given that this is likely to wind up ---- on the agenda.Look, it is now considered by evangelicals -- self-described evangelicals by the EllisonResearch just recently to be a priority of 84 percent of evangelicals. What a priority?Namely a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions. How do you have that? Well,some of us began speaking out in 2002. The climate initiative from the evangelicals wasreleased in '06. This is merely '07 and I sat next to John Warner, who was on the -- whowas seated next to Rabbi David Saperstein on the other side. And David said to thesenator -- he said, "Senator, you shouldn't be surprised that you have evangelicals righther at this meeting." This was just three days ago.You shouldn't be surprised because then Rabbi Saperstein recounted the last ten years.And then Warner, who is now shepherding this bill with Joe Lieberman essentially afteran hour-long meeting with a diverse group of religious leaders, said he would go to bat inthis case for an agenda concern of ours, namely that the auction dollars that come fromthe cap-and-trade program that is part of this Climate Security Act that he has co-authored with Lieberman would have a healthy percentage, not just the 5 percent --potentially even the 10 percent of those dollars going -- you see, to the internationalcommunities that suffer the most.So how did this happen? It happened because evangelicals who were out front ontsunami relief, were out front on AIDS, were out front on human rights, on -- includingDarfur -- this internationalism -- the new internationalism that Nick Christoff refers to --not being able to go to any place in the world, Mindanao or wherever, and not find theevangelical missionary movement there along the relief and development agency, it's thischange you see which is even going to make the evangelicals the go-to community onclimate change. When we will not be intimidated by our critics -- by the way, I say thatthe NAE motto is not just cooperation without compromise, it's cooperation withoutcompromise or capitulation.And the reason I say without capitulation is because this isn't really about climate change.This is an internal debate in evangelicalism not just about who speaks for us -- not justthe old guard anymore -- we will not stand for that -- but it's about the agenda and willthe agenda include all these issues. And we're saying yes, this is a logical extension ofthis human rights campaign because climate change is the human rights issue of the 21stcentury. And my father's generation sat on their hands, Eugene. They -- in the south andeverywhere in this country -- they sat on their hands on civil rights for black Americansand for others, and were lukewarm at times about women's rights.We will not be that way. We will not endure, I think, the everlasting shame that hascome upon our movement for having behaved that way on this issue. We will not. Andso look for the evangelicals to play a role in this one as well.I think a lot of what's been said so far would surprise the average French left bankintellectual. And it's all very warm and fuzzy and pleasant, but let me play the part of theFrench left bank intellectual for a moment.Please, please. (Laughter.) Let's hear it for the French!What about -- I won't do it in French.What about the clash of civilizations? What about the role of religion in heating upethnic conflicts and cultural conflicts? Is religion necessarily something that isdangerous, or could it actually be used to reconcile different traditions? Can it be a cure,as well as a cause of conflict? Eugene.The clash of civilizations business -- like most things in life -- is a much morecomplicated discussion because it involves nuance. In Africa you have some fascinatingdevelopments. For example, one goes to Accra, Ghana -- there's very significant Muslimactivity. And it has been referenced that the prosecution of Christians -- which is a realissue, because in the discourse around Muslim-Christian relations, Muslim-Westernrelations, frequently -- and this is something that a lot of black Christians are mentioning.Listen: We affirm the rights of all individuals in this country. Muslims should berespected. However, we also insist that if Muslims' civil rights are to be respected in theUnited States -- Muslims must be just as vocal to defend the human rights of Christians inMuslim nations.And one of the things that's happening in the black community is that there are somefairly candid conversations that say, look, I don't want to hear the civil rights rap aboutthe civil rights of Muslims in the states, and then there is this deafening silence whenChristians are being persecuted in Cairo; they're being persecuted all throughout NorthAfrica and there's not one word said by Muslim leadership on the issue. In the case -- themore interesting case is Darfur where one of the things that has concerned me -- and wehave challenged Muslims in the United States -- where were you Muslims on the issue ofDarfur, which for us has a racial subtext, because you have folk who say they're Arabs,right, persecuting black people. So that has a particular way that it plays in the UnitedStates among black people who also happen to be Christians.So I think that there is a new discussion. I think that -- and I agree with you, Leo.Pentecostalism, in particular, which is a subset of evangelicalism, which is sort ofinteresting, because as the numbers of Pentecostals grow and evangelicals, you know,sort of wiggle to figure out how they can claim -- right? Because this is a funny kind ofdefinitional -- a contested category, right? I mean, I say, I'm glad to be told that I am anevangelical now. Forty years ago I was a Pentecostal who was viewed very differently.But now that we're successful and we're sort of the big dog, right, we've been invited intothe shrinking camp. So I'm flattered that I've been invited to be at the table. (Laughter.)The Pentecostals were always at the center of the NAE. In fact, in 1945 the AmericanDictionary of Churches in America didn't include anything other than the AOG. TheAssemblies of God --Well, but see -- the Assemblies -- that's white Pentacostals --That's a segregationist claim of the Church of God. No, no, that's an important point.You know, that's an important point. And I don't condemn --