tional Association of Evangelicals; Professor Paul Ramsey of Princeton, New Jersey; Rabbi Seymour Siegel of Washington, D.C.; the Reverend Martin Deppe, Clergy and Laity Concerned; and, finally, Mr. M. William Howard of the National Council of the Churches of Christ.

We will recess at this point for 10 minutes.

[A brief recess was taken.]

The CHAIRMAN. Correction, I had thought Senator Cranston had left. There is an urgent telephone call that I must make. Senator Cranston has thoughtfully indicated he will begin hearing the testimony of the panel and I will be back in just about 10 minutes then. Thank you very much, Senator Cranston.

Senator CRANSTON [presiding]. The hearing will please come to order. We welcome the next panel. You can decide among yourselves who will go first, if you wish. Why don't we just follow the list. [Mr. Dugan's biographical sketch follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF ROBERT P. DUGAN, JR.

Position Director, Office of Public Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, Washington, D.C.

Background: 1981 marks 24th year as ordained minister. Served as youth minister in Bloomfield, New Jersey, 1957-58. Served as senior minister at churches in Rochester, New Hampshire, 1959-63; Elmhurst, Illinois, 1963-69; Wheat Ridge, Colorado, 1970-75. Ran for the United States Congress in 1976. After being designated to the ballot by his Party, defeated in two-man Republican primary election in September 1976, in the second congressional district in Colorado. Was Vice President of Rockmont College, an interdenominational Christian liberal arts college with campus in suburban Denver, Colorado, 1976–78. Past elective: President of the Conservative Baptist Association of America. 1973-76, youngest ever elected to that post. Member, Board of Administration. National Association of Evangelicals, 1970-78. Chaplain, Senate of the State of Colorado, 1974 and 1975.

Current elective: Member, Board of Trustees, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado, 1971-present. Member, Board of Trustees. Rockmont College, Lakewood, Colorado, 1979-present; listed in "Who's Who in America."

Education: B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois, 1953; M. Div., Fuller Theological Seminary, California, 1956. Graduate study, 1957. Teaching fellow in Hebrew, 1954-57.

Family Wife, Lynne: Son, Bob, III and Daughter-in-law, Jeanne; Daughter, Cheri. Children live and are employed in Colorado.

Business address: NAE Office of Public Affairs, 1430 K Street, N.W., Suite 900. Washington, D.C. 20005.

Home address: 1712 Paisley Blue Court, Tysons Corner, Vienna, Va. 22180.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. DUGAN, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. DUGAN. Senator, I guess I am on that list first.

Mr. name is Robert Dugan and I am with the National Association of Evangelicals, a voluntary association of evangelical Christians numbering 4 million among 38.000 churches from 74 denominations. through commissions and affiliates like National Religious Broadcasters and World Relief. We actually serve a constituency of ap proximately 15 million.

We are not politically motivated in asking to testify at these hearings, since the NAE is not a political organization. My primary pur

pose in testifying is to express evangelical concern for human rights and how these rights may be advanced by the appointment of Dr. Ernest Lefever to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.

I sincerely believe that my views reflect those of most evangelicals in the United States, but I want to make it clear that I am not speaking officially for NAE. Had NAE desired to formulate a resolution on the nomination of Dr. Lefever it would have been procedurally impossible within the time frame of his nomination and these hearings. My secondary purpose in testifying is to express disappointment at the widespread distortion of the concept of human rights. Our national policy in the past has often been more critical of friendly nations than, for example, of totalitarian Soviet expansionist powers. At the outset I wish to communicate my conviction about Dr. Lefever's character and integrity, which has been questioned by some who apparently misunderstand him or his principles. We flatly reject any suggestion that Dr. Lefever is opposed to human rights. He is not. Admittedly, his perception of the best tack to follow in preserving human rights differs from that of his opponents, but his commitment is no less sincere.

Our endorsement of Dr. Lefever does not imply that we concur with everything he has espoused in the past and, looking to the future, we do not predict that every judgment he will make will please us or be characterized as infallible.

But let me lay some groundwork from our evangelical perspective. Human rights are not the invention of 20th-century politics, but are as old as the human race itself. They flow, in our belief, from the conviction that humanity was created in the image of God. Value and dignity are an integral part of every human being, no matter what gender, race, nationality, or religion. The dismissal of God as the source and sanction of human rights obscures the precise identification of those rights.

It is our belief that neither a utopian evolutionary philosophy or radical secular view of reality in life can persuasively maintain the permanent or universal dignity of mankind. Evangelicals know that the word of God calls them to pray, speak, and act on behalf of persons whose rights are violated by abusive regimes, whether on the right or left.

Most of us church leaders are willing to admit that we are not foreign policy experts, but I can testify to the reasons why many evangelicals support the nomination of Dr. Lefever. In the first place, we identify with the philosophical approach that Lefever brings. To quote him,

Political conflict, domestic or international, is rooted in the nature of man. If the presuppositions of the Biblical understanding of human nature are correct, there will always be conflicts of power and interest among men and nations. The best we can expect is a rough justice, an unstable equilibrium and an uneasy truce.

Those who subscribe to a liberal theological view that man is innately good and will be able to produce the Kindom of God on Earth will find much to disagree with in Dr. Lefever's philosophy, emphasizing, as it does, man's morally ambiguous nature and the political realities involved in trying to impose our values on sovereign government. Nevertheless, we must contend for human rights in a marriage of realism and

progressivism-a hardnosed, no-nonsense view of the world and vet a belief that improvement is possible.

In the second place, we find refreshing the methodological approach of Lefever. I applaud his intention of using quiet diplomatic channels at appropriate times and places, as opposed to human rights posturing when it becomes an end in itself. In all humility I think it needs to be said that this Nation's own history of slavery and its treatment of the American Indian, for example, should caution us not to be too quick to condemn foreign governments when they fall short of our current perceptions of morality and justice.

In the third place, we support the functional approach of Lefever to the conduct of foreign affairs. A government's purpose is to provide order, justice, and freedom for its people, not to serve as a selfappointed worldwide judge. Indeed, neither God nor any international institution has appointed the United States to be policeman to the world. As much as we love our freedom and cherish our democratic republic we do not have the right as a nation to force our manner of life upon other nations. Having said this, let me emphasize that we cannot so subordinate human rights considerations that they become irrelevant, lest we be not only politically inept but morally insensitive.

In the fourth place, we concur with Lefever's analytical approach in differentiating authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. In our charter American political documents human rights have an inalienable status. Totalitarian powers that erode that status ought to be criticized above all others. To quote the noted evangelical scholar and current president of the American Theological Society, Carl Henry:

To exempt adversary nations from criticism while we belabor the compromises of allies, is cosmetic window-dressing.

Mr. Chairman, based upon the soundness of his philosophy and strategy of approach to the pressing problem of human rights, and supported by his superb qualifications, I strongly urge this committee's support of Dr. Lefever's nomination to the full Senate. [Mr. Dugan's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. DUGAN, JR.

The National Association of Evangelicals is a voluntary association of Evangelical Christians numbering nearly four million among our 38.000 churches from seventy-four denominations. Through commissions and affiliates like the National Religious Broadcasters and World Relief, we actually serve as constituency of approximately fifteen million.

We are not politically motivated in asking to testify at these hearings, since the NAE is not a political organization, nor is it involved in advancing partisan legislation for any particular ideology. My primary purpose in testifying is to express evangelical concern for human rights and how these rights may be advanced by the appointment of Dr. Ernest Lefever to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.

I sincerely believe that my views reflect those of most evangelicals in the United States, but I want to make it clear that I am not speaking officially for NAE. Had NAE desired to formulate a resolution on the nomination of Dr. Lefever, it would have been procedurally impossible within the time frame of his nomination and these hearings.

My secondary purpose in testifying is to express disappointment at the widespread distortion of the concept of human rights. Our national policy in the past has often been more critical of friendly nations than, for example, of totalitarian Soviet expansionist powers. To employ a phrase from columnist George Will, we have manifested "a selectivity of indignation." It has been dif

ficult to understand why some human rights activists have appeared preoccupied with relatively minor abridgements of rights, at the same time overlooking massive denials of liberty to millions of human beings.

Furthermore, the media have communicated an impression that religious leaders are generally opposed to the appointment of Ernest Lefever. That this is not the case is demonstrated both by my presence here and by the large number of letters written by a diversity of religious leaders supporting his appointment.

At the outset, I wish to communicate my convictions about Dr. Lefever's character and integrity, which has been questioned by some who apparently misunderstand him or his principles. We flatly reject any suggestion that Dr. Lefever is opposed to human rights. He is not. Admittedly, his perception of the best tack to follow in preserving human rights differs from that of his opponents, but his commitment is no less sincere. As a matter of fact, he has written that "human rights are what politics is all about."

Our endorsement of Dr. Lefever does not imply that we concur with everything he has espoused in the past. Many evangelicals to illustrate, would differ with him on his willingness to use missionaries for overseas intelligence gathering, although it should be stated that he appears only to advocate using such channels as a matter of extreme necessity. Looking to the future, we do not prediet that every judgment he will make will please us or be characterized as infalliable. By the same token, the United States Senate is not infalliable either, and we freely acknowledge that we purchase pencils with erasers on them for use in our NAE office.

Our endorsement is based upon Ernest Lefever's philosophical and strategic approaches to human rights, which are compelling to us in their wisdom. Before discussing these, however, let me lay some groundwork from our evangelical perspective.

Human rights are not the invention of twentieth century politics, but are as old as the human race itself. They flow, in our belief, from the conviction that humanity was created in the image of God. Man's innate human rights were affirmed when God assigned him stewardship over the earth and were finally confirmed when God himself took on humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. It is not inconsequential that his whole conception of rights, of the oneness of humanity and of the dignity of man, has arisen within the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Obviously these rights are also universal. Value and dignity are an integral part of every human being, no matter what gender, race, nationality, or religion. The dismissal of God as the source and sanction of human rights obscures the precise identification of those rights. It is our belief that neither a utopian evolutionary philosophy or a radical secular view of reality and life can persuasively maintain the permanent or universal dignity of mankind. Evangelicals, convinced of this and committed to the inspired, authoritative Scriptures know that the Word of God calls them to pray, speak and act on behalf of persons whose rights are violated by abusive regimes whether on the right or left. We are bound by the Psalmist's word, "Lord, I know that You defend the cause of the poor and rights of the needy."

Evangelicals in past decades have been in the forefront of humanitarian reform. They strove for an end to the slave trade, for child labor laws, prison reform, improved factory labor conditions, the protection of children, and other causes in the sphere of social justice. In this day they are no less committed to human rights. This concern, unlike that of liberal Christianity, has not resulted in a political-economic perspective which has manifested itself in support of Marxist causes.

Evangelicals have not taken to the streets to demonstrate their concern for human rights. Rather, they have demonstrated their concern by identifying themselves not so much with social customs or discontents, but with persons in their survival needs: physical, moral and spiritual. Survival requirements include material help to the needy, social justice to the oppressed, and redemption to all who respond to the Gospel. Consequently, evangelicals are characterized by medical, literacy, educational and change-oriented ministries, in addition to their preaching. We believe that the voice of the Church has been conspicuously weakened whenever this approach has been forsaken. Sadly, many religious leaders appear to have substituted public pronouncements, promotion of legislation, organization of demonstrations, or violent revolution for the biblical task of the Church. I think that the above clarification is relevant to this hearing on human

rights policy, since many evangelicals are distressed by the apparent politicization of the term human rights. The term must not become a slogan and rationalization for socio-political revolution in Third World countries.

As I have just indicated, evangelicals have chosen to come to the aid of the suffering and oppressed through individual and corporate church efforts to meet the survival needs of people. How a national government can come to the aid of oppressed peoples is a more difficult question to resolve, involving complex issues of foreign policy. Most of us church leaders are willing to admit that we are not foreign policy experts. But I can testify to the reasons why many evangelicals support the nomination of Dr. Lefever to work in this crucial area of protecting human rights.

In the first place, we identify with the philosophical approach that Lefever brings to his understandings of how to deal with human rights violations. He writes:

"One's understanding of international politics is not only drawn from the study of history, political science and current affairs, but is a reflection of what one believes about the nature of man and history."

Reflective of his biblical understanding of humanity, he points out:

"Men are inclined to seek their own interests at the expense of the rights of others; hence there will always be a struggle of pride and power within and among nations."

Evangelicals agree with Lefever assertion that:

"Political conflict, domestic or international, is rooted in the nature of man . . . If the presuppositions of the Biblical understanding of human nature are correct, there will always be conflicts of power and interests among men and nations. . . The best we can expect is a rough justice, an unstable equilibrium and an uneasy truce."

Those who subscribe to a liberal theological view that man is innately good and will be able to produce the kingdom of God on earth will find much to disagree with in Dr. Lefever's philosophy, emphasizing as it does man's morally ambiguous nature, and the political realities involved in trying to impose our values on sovereign governments. Evangelical recognition of man's sinful nature and its consequences compels acceptance of the view that the world political arena is a tough arena where coercive power counts more than good intentions. Likewise, evangelicals reject as naive the notion that a vision of morality and goodness will prevail merely because it is moral and good. Nevertheless, we must contend for human rights in a marriage of realism and progressivism, a hard-nosed, no-nonsense view of the world and yet a belief that improvement is possible. It is with this kind of appreciation of the practical limits of foreign policy that Dr. Lefever approaches his job.

In the second place, we find refreshing the methodological approach to Lefever. He intends to labor for human rights in a different fashion than has been attempted in recent years. I applaud his intention of using quiet diplomatic channels at appropriate times and places, as opposed to human rights posturing when it becomes an end in itself. While Dr. Lefever recognizes that "public preaching to friend or foe has limited utility," he has advocated on numerous occasions that the Soviet Union and all other governments should be reminded of their pledge in the United Nations charter and the Helsinki Agreement.

Neither we nor Dr. Lefever reject the conviction that morality has a place in foreign policy. Nevertheless, it must be recognized in foreign affairs that many situations are morally ambiguous, marked by clashing moral principles. The foreign policy maker must sort out conflicting principles and determine which ought to take precedence and what sort of balance to strike. Often the highest morality necessitates political toleration of certain evils or a choice of the lesser of evils, a practical reality especially pertinent to human rights issues. In all humility, I think it needs to be said that this nation's own history of slavery and its treatment of the American Indian should caution us not to be too quick to condemn foreign governments when they fall short of our current perceptions of morality and justice.

In the third place, we support the functional approach of Lefever to the conduct of foreign affairs. He does not reject the Christian view of the proper function of government. Its purpose is to provide order, justice and freedom for its people, not to serve as a self-appointed worldwide judge. As Lefever correctly notes, "the means available to any nation for influencing the policies of other nations are highly limited." Indeed, neither God nor any international institution has ap