I stand by my interpretation.

The item was totally superfluous as a news item—the event was covered widely in every news medium, so they no one was learning about it from Christianity Today—and only makes sense, in context, as a slight on Mrs. Ford.

I would back this up with further context. In my research for a book on the ears 1973 to 1980, I have at least skimmed every issue of Christianity Today from that period. Gratuitous mockery of President and Mrs. Ford was frequent; they were apparently reviled by your editors then.

For instance in the November 12, 1975 issue: "The other day the local papers carried a picture of President Ford stoooping to get under a rope barrier in Lafayette Park, on his way to Sunday-morning worship at St. John's Episcopal Church. Of course, as president he didn't have to stoop. He could have wlaked around it, been driven, or had the National Park Service cut the rope...symbolic."

Both items are witty and urbane, as the style of the magazine generally was at that time—and in both cases, a dry, and (especially in the former item) subtly cruel wit.

Of course this is open to interpretation, and I respect yours.

Just FYI --

The Bob Jones University v. United States Supreme Court case was 1983:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

I was not a subscriber to CT back then, but I do remember the press and television news at the time generally used subtle and not-so-subtle gratuitous mockery of the late President Ford. I was glad to see that the coverage given him at the time of his funeral was respectful and much more objective.

This is the silliest assertion I've ever heard--from NY Times or any "news" organization.

Thanks, Camille, I've confused Bob Jones vs US with Bob Jones vs. Simon, one of the precursor cases that triggered the growth of the Christian Right. I'll amend the text.

Mr. Perlstein:

First of all, thank you for your excellent and uplifting tribute to Betty Ford in The New York Times. Well done.

However, in regard to the 1976 CT article mentioned above, I'm still scratching my head trying to find how it even offers an "interpretation" for you to stand by. Gosh, if you can find an interpretation based on that meager story, more power to you. No offense to Christianity Today, but the article you've cited is, as you've stated, rather "dry" but it isn't "urbane" or "witty." And I'm especially mystified at the claim that it contains "subtly cruel wit."

Dear Mr. Perlstein,

I've read and re-read the CT blurb on Mrs. Ford's prayer. To convey the meaning you are inferring, it would seem to need italics and an emoticon ;), or at least a .

CT routinely reports on any type of religious activity that would be of interest to its readers, like that of our leaders. I'm gobsmacked that you would single this out in your esteemed newspaper, particularly since there's no evidence for it.

But then, we seem to be living in an age of tolerance for everyone... except Christians.

Not "my" esteemed newspaper. I'm just a freelance writer, trying to make a living, just glad to have work But then, we seem to be living in an age of tolerance for everyone... except people who write for the New York Times. ;-)

Yes, it's rather hard to "tolerate" the NYT when a refuted assertion about CT is put into an article, despite the evidence given. Nice to see Get Religion saw the accusation as pointless as well.

No mockery was given, even when you attempt to read inferences. The NYT should make a correction.

It's always interesting when another era is viewed through the lens of the present. The view always gets distorted. But the fact remains that both President and Mrs. Ford were good and decent Americans who contributed much in their short White House term. (One wonders what Mr. Ford would have made of the current Washington dysfunction.) And the Ford Library and Museum in Grand Rapids is well worth a visit, both for those who grew up during those turbulent times and those who didn't.

No Christian right in 1976?! Phyllis Schlafly began her rabid opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, and by no means was she a lone crusader. The Christian Right became a voice and a force around this very effort.

Wow! I've read the story a few times now and all I see is respect for Mrs. Ford. To mention her in such a way is to honor her, not to mock her. Whoever came up with the word "mock" should go back to school and get a better education.

If Christianity Today really were intending to take a swipe at Betty Ford back in 1976 with its short, just-the facts article on Rabbi Sage's death -- indeed, if CT were guilty of repeatedly mocking and reviling the Fords during those years -- how does Mr. Perlstein account for the fact that only a year later Gerald Ford himself was invited by Harold John Ockenga to be the commencement speaker at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's graduation exercises? Ockenga was a key player in the founding of CT and long served on its board; he was also the founding president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and at the time he was Gordon-Conwell's president. The Fords' son Michael received his M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell that year. By way of corroboration, here's an article from the Danvers (Mass.) Herald that ran at the time of Gerald Ford's death: http://www.wickedlocal.com/danvers/local_news/x2081706530#axzz1S1hxmnhU

My vote is for David Neff. Rick Perlstein is much too sensitive.He is also very stubborn to stand by his interpretation.

Mr. Pearlstein's claims are, quite simply, ludicrous.

Which explains why they didn't raise any red flags at the NYT.

One minor correction to the date of the issue of the CT article "Impromptu Prayer." It was July 16, 1976. For those who might care, the article is embedded in a news article about the 1976 SBC annual meeting where Gerald Ford gave a fifteen minute speech, the first incumbent US president to speak before the SBC. Contents of President Ford's speech were recorded favorably by CT. As to Mrs. Ford, CT was reporting the tragedy of the Rabbi Sage's death and the sense of presence Mrs. Ford had to control a situation that could have gotten out of hand. CT was not mocking Mrs. Ford for ineffective prayer. If anything, they lauded her for her calm under a very difficult situation.

While I think Rick Peristein misinterpreted CT's intent, it would only be appropriate to show grace in the context. He seems to interpret the article from a newspaper or news magazine perspective. I suspect he is not a regular reader of CT and would have difficulty with this particular genre, which CT readers would recognize includes short items that would not be newsworthy, except for their particular religious/evangelical element. The item could be seen as the same genre as items that appear in sports or entertainment magazines, and such items usually include an attmpt to be "witty and urbane". When you add to the item a layer of rather sophisticated theological understanding, that is, the appreciation of someone who prays an apparently unanswered prayer, Mr. Peristein's misunderstanding is not suprising.

I suspect most CT readers are not only guilty of misunderstanding the genre of NYT, but have also forgotten the political context of July 1976, when a mild euphoria had enveloped many who saw the chance to elect the first "born again" president. I think CT readers who look back at this article without adjusting their lens for the dramatic role reversal of Democrat/Republican and Jimmy Carter in the eyes of the conservative Christians are just as guilty of taking this item out of context.

I find it interesting that CT chose to say nothing about its years-long campaign to demean and mock the Fords, as discussed by Mr. Perlstein. It seems to me that is the more important issue, and a truly Christian publication would not shy away from addressing its own alleged sins.

How does a publication gleefully manifest such nastiness and unkindness when it is supposedly staffed by persons who have given themselves to Christ and who are blessed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Or is it that the latter is the cause of the former?

I finally got around to finding my July 16, 1976 CT issue which had the Betty Ford and Rabbi Sage story on page 48 [1100]. The lead news piece that the impromptu prayer for Rabbi Sage story was embedded in, "Southern Baptists: Platform for the President," is an interesting bit of history in itself.

I wouldn't have predicted that I would be reading this affirmation from the SBC, though I fail to see how anyone can so confidently state that there is "A" biblical view of most anything. Such a strutting display of arrogance and willful moral blindness.

"Affirmed the biblical view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, but also affirmed the "limited role of government" in abortion matters, and the right of mothers to a full range of medical services. (two anti-permissive abortion amendments were defeated).

And as I would have predicted: "compassion for homosexuals" was deleted. I fail to see how "the practice of homosexuality as sin" is a "biblical truth." What that is, is a backward projection of a largely 20th century social construct/erroneous medical diagnosis upon scripture. "Homosexuality" as a psychological diagnosis of a neurotic condition has already been exposed as having been pretty much grounded in unscientific presumptions, selection and confirmation bias. The word itself has already been largely rejected by the American Gay community as an identity/community label. Given the abuse by those who used the word "homosexuality" against Gay people, that's very understandable.

I also would think that even in 1976, Americans would have been extra careful not to make such backward projections upon scripture to normalize and legitimize the oppression of others, given our history. But, I would have been wrong then, as I am apparently wrong today...though maybe somewhat less so?

It's easy enough to understand why Perlstein thought that CT was mocking Mrs. Ford, though I think he gives CT too much credit for CT's capacity for wit, cruel or otherwise.

I fail to see how anyone can so confidently state that there is "A" biblical view of most anything.

Therein lies your problem.

I fail to see how "the practice of homosexuality as sin" is a "biblical truth."

Because the Bible repeatedly denounces sexual intercourse between people of the same sex as sin? Ah, but the Bible must be read through the prism of a forty-year-old ideology that declares that homosexual sex is morally equivalent to heterosexual sex. How dare those Christians not conform their scripture and themselves to the zeitgeist!

Such a strutting display of arrogance and willful moral blindness.

Indeed.