We are used to seeing our money lose its value. We are aware, for example, that we earn more dollars now than we did 10 years ago—but we are equally conscious that we can purchase less.

Of course, it is not only money that loses value. Sadly, words also lose their value.

Any good word seems destined to be devalued. Take “righteousness”: it is a word little used now. More often than not it is used derogatorily, as when we speak of someone’s self-righteousness. But righteousness is a key word in Scripture, for God is righteous.

The prophet Amos records the Lord’s passionate appeal: “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt. 5:6), and “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10).

Yet the world does not see us as having a passion for righteousness. If you were to ask the so-called man in the street what the church is about, the answer would not be “a passion for righteousness.”

On the other hand, we don’t want to be too righteous. The world has persuaded us that to be righteous means missing out on the good things of life, and carries with it the inherent possibility of that all-too-dangerous disease of self-righteousness. The world so easily identifies goodness with gloom, and indulgence with fulfillment. We know on one level that self-indulgence does not lead to ongoing happiness—but on another level, we want to indulge ourselves.

Further, the danger of self-righteousness can loom very large. We know that those who are good can become very hard, priggish, and look down on others. We know that the pure man is a condemnation of the impure, the truthful a condemnation of the liar, the hard-working a condemnation of the lazy man, the honest a condemnation of the dishonest. The judgment is inherent in the distinction. The danger we recognize is that sometimes the person also, to his own damnation, becomes judgmental.

Yet, although we have too often avoided talking about righteousness because our focus has been elsewhere, or because we have seen its dangers, righteousness still remains for us our calling before God.

First, we need to be right with God. Man’s righteousness with God ultimately depends on the righteousness of God himself, on God’s grace. The psalmist saw in Psalm 103:10–14: “He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor requite us according to our iniquities.”

For the Christian, the person of Jesus is the declaration of God’s righteousness. The apostle Paul wrote, “Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness …”

Our rightness with God ultimately depends on God, but too often we center our righteousness on ourselves, our abilities, our righteousness, our achievements.

But we are not right with God until we admit that God is the Lord of our lives, until we admit our dependence upon him. Self-righteousness and pride are deadly enemies. Therefore, we need consistently to seek the Lord’s will, to know our emptiness before him, to realize, as Isaiah said, that he is the potter (Isa. 29:16).

Second, we need to be right in relation to our fellow men. We cannot afford to be caught up in the legalism which can make men hard. As Jeremiah saw, people have always needed the Lord to perform his miracle of changing the external form to an inner motivation—“I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).

It is having the law within that can change our relationship from a relationship to law to a relationship to our fellow men and women within the law. As Jesus saw it, it moves a man from a relationship to the commandment—“You shall not commit adultery”—to a pure relation with a woman. He went past the commandment when he said, “I say unto you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27).

The relationship is not to a rule—“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” We must be right in our relationship with the people the Lord has made, “for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” So for the law of retribution Jesus substitutes a relationship to people in very stark terms: “If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles” (Matt. 5:39–41).

Third, we need to be right in relation to God’s law. The teaching of situational ethics has made conduct relative. Yet we cannot be true to our traditions and avoid the concept of law. The Decalogue stands at the heart of the covenant, and to the Christian, Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18). We must strive to be right before the law.

The lawlessness of our age also is bringing chaos. The lack of respect for law is widespread, and so not only do we have crime of very destructive proportions, but there is a breakdown of relationships in all areas of society. We have set ourselves above the law. Only when we live under the law can we be right in relation to the law. Only so can society be ordered that we may live in peace. That is true for governments and for the individual. Our Western democracy has depended on this, but in the light of our denigration of law, we see the disintegration of society.

Christians ought to lead the way in respect of the law. Our human nature would push us to sit loose to the law, to set our own rules in matters that are to our advantage. But we know that our responsibility is not to our human nature, but to God.

We need a passion for God’s righteousness. Our calling as men and women of faith is to grow in righteousness. We must put this word and concept of righteousness back into our vocabulary. In our lives, we must strive every day for righteousness, with a passion for purity in our lives before the standards of God’s judgment, with a passion for love in our relationships with our fellow men, with a passion for God’s will and his glory.

These three emphases are well summed up by Micah: “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8). Only as we have that passion for righteousness will we fulfill our vocation.

Pentecostal revival continues to bring renewal to many

At the turn of the century, very few believers were known as Pentecostals. The designation meant little in the church world. Today it is estimated there are over 50 million Pentecostals throughout the world.

This phenomenal growth has received attention in religious circles and in the mass media. People have expressed strong opinions on what is right and wrong in Pentecostalism. As a member of the Pentecostal movement for 62 years, I would like to express what is right in Pentecostalism.

What is the basis of such an evaluation? Is a degree of success the criterion? No, the test to determine whether a movement is of God cannot be numerical growth alone. History shows that some religions at variance with the Word of God have also multiplied. Success in itself cannot be accepted as an indication that a movement is of God.

While the growth of Pentecostalism cannot be overlooked, an appraisal of what is right about it must be made on other grounds. We must evaluate with biblical principles as our guide.

1. Pentecostals hold a high view of Scripture. The origin of the movement in a sense was spontaneous, surfacing in many parts of the world at the same time. For this reason, it is impossible to credit a strong and capable human leader as the founder of the movement. People from various theological and denominational persuasions, in their earnest seeking after God, received experiences that paralleled the events of the early days of the church as it was described in-the New Testament. New converts were constantly added. They were introduced to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; they were also introduced to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

Because early Pentecostal believers were usually ostracized by members of existing religious structures, they gravitated to those who shared their faith and experience. Some came from a Calvinistic background, others from an Arminian tradition. Some came from liturgical churches, others from churches where worship was less formal. While the initial prejudice of these early Pentecostals was against forming organizations, it soon became evident that organization was essential in order to preserve what God was doing.

A review of those early meetings and the resultant doctrinal statements will show that Pentecostals insisted the Bible, not experience, must be the rule of faith and conduct. Some differences exist in doctrine among Pentecostal denominations, but there is no variation on the authority of Scripture. Pentecostalism will always be grateful for those ministers in its formative years whose moorings were in the gramatico-historical hermeneutic. They helped apply sound biblical interpretation to the process of developing doctrinal statements.

2. Pentecostalism is in themainstream of theological orthodoxy. Pentecostal denominations are not off course on an isolated tributary. Fundamental doctrines in the historical creeds and confessions are prominent in Pentecostal preaching and teaching.

Among the great doctrines, Pentecostals hold without question that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God. With very few exceptions, Pentecostals believe in one true God existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The deity of Christ is accepted, including the Virgin Birth, vicarious death, resurrection, and ascension. Man is seen as having been created in the image of God, marred by the Fall, and in need of the redemption that Christ provided on the cross.

The church is the body of Christ, made up of all who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior. This community of believers worships God, edifies fellow members, and evangelizes the lost. A literal heaven is the destiny of those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior. A literal place of everlasting punishment awaits those who reject him.

3. Pentecostals honor the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally. Because they hold that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, some believe that the main message of Pentecostalism is the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

Great biblical truths were underemphasized at various points in church history. Far-reaching spiritual movements usually were revivals of doctrine before they were revivals of people. When the truth of justification by faith seemed to be lost, God used men like Martin Luther to bring the truth into proper focus. When the truth of sanctification was neglected, God used men like John Wesley to bring revival. And when the person and work of the Holy Spirit were underemphasized, the Pentecostal movement proved to be a resurgence of interest in the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

In the revival of proper recognition of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals are indebted to great Bible teachers like R. A. Torrey and evangelists like D. L. Moody. Though not Pentecostals, they taught that a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the time of regeneration needs a subsequent experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Almost all Pentecostals today believe that a person who has accepted Christ is indwelt by the Spirit. They also recognize that some people who lack what Pentecostals consider the baptism in the Spirit may more closely approximate their God-given potential than those who view the baptism in the Spirit as an end in itself.

Pentecostals differentiate between the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) and Christ baptizing them in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:12; Acts 1:5). We believe this baptism in the Spirit provides power for service (Acts 1:8).

The baptism in the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues has been a distinctive message of Pentecostals, but it has not been the main message. As in the early days of the church, “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” is the heart of our message. Evangelism centers in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We recognize that an individual who has not accepted Jesus Christ is lost. There is salvation only in Jesus Christ and it comes by grace through faith alone. While we emphasize that a change in lifestyle should follow conversion, the transformed life is considered a result of salvation, not a condition. Christ’s atoning work is the only basis of salvation.

God the Father is also honored by Pentecostals. When we pray in the manner Jesus taught his disciples, we recognize God as a loving, heavenly Father concerned with every detail of the lives of his children. We honor him for his love, mercy, and grace, but we also honor and revere him for his holiness and justice.

In theology, life, and service, the relationship of the three persons in the Godhead is kept in focus. The words of the doxology, “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” express well the honor we ascribe to the triune God.

4. Pentecostals take seriously the Great Commission. One reason for the rapid growth of Pentecostalism is the wholehearted way in which we respond to the Great Commission. Our primary concern is not to build denominations, but to bring people into a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

While the special role of the clergy is recognized, one of their important responsibilities is to prepare every believer for ministry in the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). The ideal of witnessing and ministering is frequently stressed. As a result, people often help others who have problems. They lead people to Jesus Christ apart from church services and then encourage them to join the fellowship of believers.

Concern for the lost, however, does not end with the immediate community. Reaching the uttermost parts of the earth has high priority. Pentecostal congregations ordinarily budget a sizable amount for missions. A constant stream of missionary candidates prepares for assignment overseas.

Ministry to human need is included in obeying the Great Commission. When tragedy strikes, such as earthquakes or acts of human terror, Pentecostals respond with help for the material needs of people. When problems such as drug addiction develop, Pentecostals help addicts discover the deliverance Christ can provide. Organizations like Teen Challenge have helped many find their way back to meaningful living. Where health care or education are lacking, Pentecostals seek to fill the gap.

5. Pentecostals seek to be responsive to the Holy Spirit in worship. While Pentecostal churches usually follow an order of service, worshipers are encouraged to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. They testify to the goodness of God in helping them with difficult experiences. They manifest the gifts of the Holy Spirit referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12–14. Because of their nature, some manifestations by Pentecostals, such as speaking in tongues with interpretation and prophecy, are more obvious than other gifts of the Spirit. People with physical needs are remembered in prayer and encouraged to look to God for a gift of healing. At times believers lift their voices in one accord of prayer and worship similar to the event described in Acts 4:24.

Pentecostals recognize that where fallible humans are involved, excesses occur. Not everything that happens is credulously accepted as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The principles of love, consideration for others, and edification of the congregation outlined by Paul are practiced. Prophetic utterances and interpretations of tongues are to be judged by Scripture in general and by the guidelines spelled out in I Corinthians in particular. Evaluation of manifestations is encouraged, just as is responsiveness to the Holy Spirit.

Pentecostals also believe strongly that doctrine must be based on a proper interpretation of Scripture and not on experience. Improper procedure here leads to aberrations that reflect adversely on the cause of Christ. As Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 14, when proper procedure is followed, the results will be salutary.

Great significance is attached to the preaching and teaching of God’s Word in Pentecostal services, and there is frequently an enhancement of the worship experience as the Holy Spirit manifests himself through responsive believers.

6. Pentecostalism maintains a spirit of cooperation with evangelicals. Whenever efforts are made by Bible-believing Christians to work together, Pentecostals are supportive. In continuing organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, they actively seek the success of established objectives. Pentecostals cooperate in special endeavors, such as the American Festival of Evangelism, to maximize their effectiveness.

Nor does cooperation stop at the national level. In local communities, Pentecostals work with other evangelicals in evangelism crusades, media presentations, holiday celebrations, surveys of communities to determine both spiritual and physical needs, and Christian schools.

There are various reasons why a spirit of cooperation prevails. Certainly one of the most prominent is recognition that everyone who has accepted Christ as Savior is a member of his body. The Pentecostal experience does not constitute a spiritually elite portion of the church. We are constantly reminded of the biblical truth that all believers are what they are because of grace, not human merit. We are members of one body, and there is no place in it for status seeking. Every believer has a God-given role to fill.

Though doctrinal differences exist among evangelicals, Pentecostals seek to function cooperatively because Scripture teaches us to maintain the unify of the Spirit until we all come to the unify of the faith. We hold that the truths that unite us are far greater than those over which differences exist. In honest effort to honor the lordship of Christ, and in recognition of the task of reaching a lost world, Pentecostals want to cooperate with every member of the body of Christ to bring glory to God.

In the course of church history, there probably have been more than 20 revivals of a charismatic nature. These revivals seemed to terminate without a lasting impression or far-reaching influence in the world. Their limited accomplishment and early cessation usually resulted from weakness in biblical theology.

The present Pentecostal revival has continued for over 80 years, during which it has made an impact around the world for the glory of God. The lesson is obvious. As Pentecostalism holds to the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Jesus Christ, as well as the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, it will continue to fill the role for which it came into existence.

He was not quite tall enough to see over the dashboard of the car I was driving.

“Hurry up, Mom!” he urged.

But he was too young to read the road signs that said 45 miles per hour. As I began to apply the brakes, he demanded, “Why are you stopping?”

“There is a school bus that has just stopped,” I explained.

As soon as we started again, he urged, “Pass him, Mom.” He was too small to see the double yellow line.

I thought to myself, “How like me when I pray!” Spiritually I am too young to read the road signs, too small to see what lies ahead. Yet how often I am guilty of telling God how to run things.

We may make requests, but never insist on having our own way lest we become one of those of whom it was said, “he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul” (Ps. 106:15).

We may pray in simple, childlike faith; urgently, persistently. But we must always pray, “Thy will be done.”

But the challenges of content and prophetic presentation still lie head

Religious broadcasting has influenced profoundly the Christian community and the secular public during the past 25 years.

It trumpeted the gospel literally to the ends of the earth. It caused directly or proximately the rise of parachurch ministries. It thrust evangelical doctrine and practice into the mainstream of American social, political, and religious life.

For the first time in history, the gospel has been presented for all the world to hear and see. That achievement is undoubtedly the fait accompli of religious broadcasting. But that is not all. Religious broadcasting also served as a kind of closed-circuit communications system by which evangelicals came to a sense of national self-realization.

In essence, a vast parish of the air was formed, a fellowship without membership. Through this electronic church, the body of Christ perceived its fundamental oneness despite secondary differences in doctrine and polity. The medium and the message were the same: we are one in the Lord and we are strong in the power of his might.

The Past Achievement Of Pioneers

Religious broadcasting in the modern sense did not take shape until the late fifties and sixties. But visionary pioneers of an earlier day already had grasped the significance of radio for evangelism and teaching. Stalwarts like Walter Maier, Paul Rader, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Charles E. Fuller, M. R. DeHaan, and others built national radio ministries from small beginnings in the 1930s and 1940s.

Others, like Percy Crawford, Rex Humbard, and Oral Roberts, launched television ministries in the early fifties. So did the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Seventh-day Adventists, and Bishop Fulton Sheen.

All of these people were ahead of their time, but Percy Crawford’s quantum leap to FM radio and UHF television in the late fifties opened the doors to religious broadcasting as we know it today. Crawford obtained licenses to own and operate FM stations in a day when most people did not even know what FM was. His venture into UHF television in 1960 in Philadelphia was so conceptually advanced it failed; not enough people had UHF receivers.

Crawford’s far-sighted advocacy of FM radio and UHF television resulted in a rapid increase of Christian-owned stations. These stations in turn laid the financial foundation on which the evangelical media explosion of the seventies was built. Although UHF has not equaled FM’s swift rise to broadcast media power, it is carving out sizable audiences and generating profits. All the Christian television stations on the air today are UHF.

After the death of Percy Crawford in 1960 and the failure of his station in the same year, full-time Christian television retreated to a dream until Pat Robertson put WYAH-TV on the air in 1962 in Norfolk, Virginia. Robertson, a Yale lawyer turned religious broadcaster, was to Christian television what Crawford had been to Christian radio. He opened several UHF stations in major markets and led the way to the production and distribution of syndicated Christian television programs. Robertson’s other firsts included the introduction of organized Christian fund raising on television and the use of cable and satellite technology.

The Current Competition Of Programs

With the multiplication of Christian stations came a growing demand for program material. First in the line of supply were the established programs, those great warhorses of religious broadcasting in which orthodox doctrine, traditional semantics, and conservative style converged. Before the decade of the sixties ended, there was a host of new programs and more to come.

These newcomers were evangelical enough in doctrine, but their message was packaged in an increasingly modern style. Tension grew between the old and new, strained, and finally divided religious broadcasting into fundamentally two camps: traditional and contemporary.

The focal point of debate was music—and little wonder. Just when evangelicals were getting into broadcasting, everybody under 30 was dropping out of society, or so it seemed. Rock music was in, and before long its ripples reached the rapidly developing Christian music industry. The debate has diminished somewhat, with contemporary music holding the upper hand in terms of stations favoring the newer sounds.

The gospel music industry was just one of many Christian enterprises and ministries that flourished in direct proportion to the growth of religious broadcasting. Christian publishing houses and bookstores, the Christian counseling revolution, advertising and marketing firms, and various parachurch organizations, including nationally known evangelists, all found a mother lode of exposure and support in religious broadcasting.

Perhaps the most interesting but least explored aspect of religious broadcasting has been its role in carrying ideas within the Christian community. Political ideology of the religious right traveled well on the religious wavelength. The modern charismatic movement virtually exploded through Christian radio and television. The “Christian psychology” movement did the same.

The rapid expansion of stations and program material brought diversity and specialization to religious broadcasting—perhaps more than we need. With some 1,600 radio and 40 television stations operating on full-or part-time religious formats, marketing threatens to change from servant to master. Vendibility and salability have become key questions as the focus of our concern shifts from asking what shall we say to how shall we say it. Market research, demographics, and audience response vie for position in front of calling, conviction, and content.

The Coming Necessity Of Cooperation

Management and programming issues pale in significance when compared to the problems technology imposes on religious broadcasting. The Christian world is about to be future-shocked by an invasion of space-age multiple delivery systems that will either fulfill hopes for evangelizing the world, or shatter religious broadcasting beyond repair.

Much of the technological hardware is already in place. Cable and pay television have widened the public’s viewing options. Two-way cable systems, where both parties can see and talk to each other, have been tested successfully. A nationwide Christian media counseling service beckons. Videocassette recorders and videodiscs will soon make it possible for a local Christian bookstore to offer concerts, revival meetings, or teaching sessions—video and audio—for the price of a record. Low-power television, soon to be in use, and UHF/VHF translators, already in use, augment broadcasting’s ever widening delivery system.

It is easy to imagine ways this gadgetry will increase religious information available to Christians and the general public. But even the wildest dreams would find it hard to anticipate what is coming in satellite and computer technology.

Picture, if you will, a worldwide Christian satellite system pumping out 24 separate television signals and 24 separate FM signals to earth. That makes 48 new listening and viewing options available to anyone who is plugged into the right wire or who owns the necessary equipment.

Talk about specialization and fragmentation! Talk about gospel glut! Every conceivable audio and visual need will be covered. Every taste in music, every unique ministry, every interpretive whim and wish—all can and will find their way to these highly specialized channels. And this is only part of the story. Computer technology will link up with these satellites and provide staggering amounts of data for home computers. Using microtechnology, the computers will relay information subvisibly and subaudibly right in the satellite signals. An entire Bible can be sent in seconds; Strong’s Concordance in minutes. These can be stored for later use in the form of printouts on the television screen, hard-copy teleprinters, and even facsimile pictures. Answers to counseling questions, what the Bible says on any subject, what a certain Bible expositor has taught or written or believes, out-of-print books, live missionary updates—anything and everything will be at your fingertips with home computers.

If your system lacks “storage” space, you can program your request on the computer. It will “watch” the continuous flow of information desired until you are ready to use it.

All this seems far-fetched, but it can and will happen unless we come to the end of the age, humanly speaking. A world Christian Consortium, along with its United States member called Project Lookup, is already organized and plans to launch the first of three Christian satellites by 1985. The first satellite will broadcast to North and South America, the second to Europe and Africa, the third to Asia and the Pacific. Each will have its allotted 24 television channels plus 24 FM subchannels. Plans call for using 12 television channels at first and eventually increasing to full operation.

It must be apparent to even the casual observer that religious broadcasting stands on the edge of a brave new world facing challenges unlike anything previously known. These appear to fall into four categories.

First, technology. Religious broadcasting must develop a strategy for dealing with the rapid advances in delivery systems. Economically viable and business experienced, evangelicals now have the capability of damaging their own cause through the unrestrained use of technology. Indeed, the Christian marketplace has already reached the breaking point through overlapping signals and competing program material.

Technology has become a special responsibility. The daring we must summon is not that of dauntless pioneers, but rather of the courage to submit ourselves to one another in the Lord so that we can use the new technology before it uses us. There is no more room for blind ambition in religious broadcasting, no matter what lofty motives are offered in its defense.

The second challenge of the future will be to devise ways to reach the many people who do not listen to or watch religious broadcasting. Documented audience research shows that religious broadcasting regularly reaches less than 5 percent of the total available radio and television audience in the United States. We are not broadcasting the Good News; we are narrowcasting it to a highly defined, previously interested audience. This does not mean we are failures, but it emphasizes the fact that we have a long way to go before we are effectively utilizing the mass media at our disposal for world evangelization. Nor will the matter be resolved by adding new stations, cable, satellite, or other delivery systems. The problem remains: How do we attract the disinterested unbeliever?

The third challenge will be to fulfill our responsibility to speak prophetically as well as scripturally to current issues. Evangelical participation in politics is big news, and I congratulate activists who have forced America’s leaders to recognize and respect the majority of the electorate who adhere to Judeo-Christian moral values.

We must be careful, however, not to make religious broadcasting synonymous with a certain political philosophy. How are we to speak to the whole of society if we are perceived by the public as the Knights Templars of the airwaves? Who can argue with our outrage at abortion, sexual immorality, and the divorce rate? But what about American wastefulness in a hungry world, or penal reform, or racism? Does not the prophet have a word from the Lord on these and other issues that affect us all?

The final challenge of the next quarter-century in religious broadcasting is program content. There is no way around this issue if we are to be religious broadcasters. Our mandate is to tell the truth about heaven and hell; we must preach Christ to those without hope and without God in the world. And we have a responsibility to believers as well; we must correct, rebuke, and encourage with great patience and careful instruction. No doubt the most difficult aspect of this challenge will be to tell the truth so people can understand it. It will not be enough for us to say it. We also have to ask, Did they understand us? And further, Did we understand them?

Ultimately, the Holy Spirit must convey divine truth to the human mind and will. But this does not relieve us of our responsibility to present the gospel with clarity and relevance. The listening and viewing public of the future—Christian as well as secular—will be more critical than audiences of the past 25 years. Simple solutions to complex problems will not easily win a hearing, nor will truisms and clichés.

The challenge is clear: to communicate the Word of God in such a way that all the world will understand truly that Jesus Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Jerry Falwell was seated in a hearing room on Capitol Hill, ready to testify on the tuition tax credit bill. The first question from its sponsor, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wasn’t about tuition tax credits at all, however. Moynihan asked why his name was on Moral Majority’s “hit list” of congressmen who are targeted for election defeat.

The question was good-natured and so was Falwell’s reply. But the point of his response probably was missed by most of the people in the room: it was that Moral Majority does not have a hit list; it never did, and never will. Moynihan had it confused with another organization.

A large problem facing Moral Majority as it regroups for the issue campaigns that he ahead is getting people to realize just what it is and what it is not. If a U.S. senator does not have it straight, is there any hope for the rest of the people?

Falwell himself has not made things easy. He is seen each week by millions in his role as Falwell the fundamentalist preacher on the “Old Time Gospel Hour.” Yet in his Moral Majority role, he wishes to be known as Falwell the concerned citizen, who is seeking to restore the country’s moral roots but not asking that all its citizens become born-again Christians.

Confusion is thus inevitable. But there have been truckloads of invective from commentators in the secular mass media accusing Falwell of the ultimate sin of a pluralistic society: trying to force everybody to believe in his brand of religion. Yet this is precisely what the Moral Majority has not been trying to do, and the prevalence of the myth betrays an astonishing ignorance of fundamentalist Christianity. The American press is not bashful about burrowing into any problem it lumbers upon, but the misconceptions in this case have been so virulent that there are those at Moral Majority headquarters who believe the problem is not ignorance but intent.

Falwell’s religious roots are in the Baptist Bible Fellowship, which has headquarters in Springfield, Missouri. It has some 35,000 churches in America, some bigger than Falwell’s. Its message is not only born-again Christianity, but separation from the world’s evil influence. This is what Falwell believes, and it is practiced at his church and his college. It is assuredly not what Moral Majority stands for.

For Falwell, the separation between his religion and his political activism in Moral Majority is so distinct that he can balk at inviting Billy Graham to preach in his Lynchburg pulpit (assuming Graham would accept) because of Graham’s association in his crusades with religious “liberals.” Yet without batting an eye, Falwell can walk into a synagogue and talk to Jews about Moral Majority. The press has failed to discern the crucial separation that Falwell sees between faith and politics.

The essence of the Moral Majority message is that the country is chopping off the Judeo-Christian roots that have nourished its political and legal vitality. Those roots must be made to grow back if the country is to survive. This is not Christianity, and, according to Moral Majority, people can march under that message without becoming Falwellian fundamentalists.

The question of whether the country can survive without its moral roots is at the center of the Moral Majority phenomenon. Yet that is seldom addressed by Falwell’s critics, probably because he has given them juicier targets to shoot at. On this central issue, however, the evidence is strongly in Falwell’s favor.

Harold Berman, a Harvard Law School professor, writes: “It is supposed by some, especially intellectuals, that fundamental legal principles … can survive without any religious or quasi-religious foundations on the basis of the proper political and economic controls and philosophy of humanism. History, however, including current history, testifies otherwise. People will not give their allegiance to a political and economic system, and even less to a philosophy, unless it represents for them a higher, sacred truth.”

That this country’s religious foundations (if not the daily practice of all the founding fathers) are Christian seems beyond dispute. Joseph Story, a U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1811 to 1845, wrote that “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it … the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

When leftward critics enter the constitutional arena to argue against Falwell, they usually wind up misreading the separation of church and state doctrine, which has nothing to do with keeping the influence of Christianity out of government. (Falwell heartily endorses separation of church and state.)

Cal Thomas, Moral Majority’s vice-president for communications and a former NBC correspondent in Washington, D.C., has found so much hazy reporting about Moral Majority in the popular press that he has begun slashing back. In an Indianapolis speech to Moral Majority organizers, Thomas said of the press, “Usually they are dumber than you are. They ask predictable questions and they don’t understand the answers. They’re more interested in their careers than in the issues.”

Thomas was asked to defend the new religious right during a debate at a recent Associated Press broadcast convention in Washington, D.C. He was told that Carl McIntire, the old fundamentalist firebrand of another era, would be appearing with him to defend the movement. That, said Thomas, “shows an incredible misunderstanding” of the 1980s fundamentalist phenomenon, and he turned down the invitation three times before finally agreeing to go. He said that putting what Falwell represents together with what McIntire represents is like asking Amos ’n’ Andy’s Kingfish to join Andrew Young in defending black issues.

Even the religious press sometimes has a hard time keeping things straight. The August issue of the United Presbyterian magazine A.D. carried a cover article entitled, “Moral Majority: Distorting Faith and Patriotism.” But the question might be asked, Who is distorting what? The cover photo accompanying the article is identified as a shot from the Washington for Jesus rally, and shows a crowd praying in charismatic fashion, with upraised arms. Other photos from the rally also appear.

The cover photo seems odd as a Moral Majority illustration because neither Falwell nor most of the fundamentalists he speaks for are charismatics. Besides that, Falwell wasn’t even at the rally, nor did Moral Majority sponsor it. The magazine’s editors had Moral Majority confused with the charismatic movement, a different phenomenon entirely.

Even commentators closer to fundamentalism have not always taken time to aim straight. Robert Webber, a Wheaton College professor, wrote a book called The Moral Majority: Right or Wrong? In it he finds that Moral Majority fails to espouse biblical Christianity, and it is on that account that he is critical. It is not surprising Webber should detect this, because it is the whole point of the organization. Falwell stresses every chance he gets that it is not religious. Webber acknowledged that his book failed to make this distinction about Moral Majority, and said that if he had waited another six months before writing, the book would have been different. He said he based it largely on Falwell’s book, Listen, America!, published in December 1979, a few months after Moral Majority was organized. Listen, America! expresses Falwell’s concerns as a fundamentalist preacher, and it is not about Moral Majority at all. Cal Thomas conjectures that Webber’s book would have been different if only he had personally interviewed Falwell before writing it. Twice Webber was asked to come to Lynchburg, but he did not go.

(Falwell’s people know the value of personal acquaintance. The original manuscript of a new book by Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson, two staff members at Falwell’s Liberty Baptist College, [see accompanying review] slashed hard at liberal Harvard theologian Harvey Cox. Then Hindson and Thomas were invited to speak at Harvard. They were enthralled with Cox, and with his and some of his religion students’ spiritual depth. Hindson stayed on an extra day, and when he returned to Lynchburg, the book was changed.)

Despite all the misconceptions about what Moral Majority is, there are some substantial criticisms that Falwell brings upon himself. For one thing, the “Old Time Gospel Hour” is chronically short of money, and some of Falwell’s fund-raising letters are so strident they are silly.

One of those recent letters was on the subject of world hunger—a problem Falwell blamed on Communism. The strategy behind the letter seemed to be that if the heart-rending pictures of starving children accompanying the letter wouldn’t get you to part with your money, that old bugaboo Communism would. The letter noted, almost incidentally, that some of the money would not be spent to fight world hunger or the Communists at all; rather, it would go to Lynchburg, to support Falwell’s college and school.

Another Falwell letter, this one seeking money for Moral Majority, suggested that militant homosexuals were now more bold than ever because they thought Moral Majority was getting weak. Although Falwell the Moral Majoritarian recognizes the civil rights of homosexuals and Falwell the preacher separates the sinner from the sin, the letter was such a heavy-clubbed attack that it effaced all these distinctions.

This “crisis of the week” approach raised the eyebrows of Sen. Mark Hatfield, who has been concerned about the ethics of religious fund raising. It was his prodding that brought about formation of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (of which Falwell is a charter member). Hatfield twisted arms again during an ECFA speech in April, alluding to some of Falwell’s letters.

The pressure was felt in Lynchburg. The June mailing from Moral Majority was a positive-sounding summary of the organization’s achievements (it didn’t bring in as much money as the crisis letters), and the August mailing was little more than a birthday message to Falwell from Sen. Jesse Helms.

With his mass mailings and television programs, Falwell has direct access to his constituents, and he says he ignores the distortion he reads in the news media. Others in his organizations are much more bothered by it.

“We’ve got to start seizing the initiative and start framing the issues, and stop reacting to outlandish charges,” said Moral Majority’s executive director, Ronald Godwin. An administrator at Pensacola Christian College before joining Moral Majority, he brings a Ph.D. in planning and management from Florida State University to the organization.

One of Godwin’s goals is a tighter relationship between Moral Majority at the national level and its state and county affiliates. He said new contracts will be drawn up that will specify more clearly how the name can be used. The intention is to eliminate some of the embarrassments brought about by the Moral Majoritarians in Maryland, for example, who picketed a local establishment selling anatomically accurate gingerbread men.

One of those “loose cannons” rolling about the deck is Michael Gass, a Medford, Oregon, fundamentalist minister who heads that state’s Moral Majority chapter. Gass has been making life uncomfortable for Mark Hatfield, who is the most prominent evangelical Christian in the Senate. Not one given to hyperbole, Hatfield called Gass “a wild man” who is trying to tine up an opponent to run against him in 1984 because of his liberal votes. This comes at a time when Falwell and Hatfield are establishing, in Hatfield’s words, “a marvelous working relationship and communication.”

(Gass apparently has been feeling the heat. He said in an interview that he has stopped commenting on Hatfield’s record because the press distorts everything he says. Gass did say, though, that he agrees with Hatfield much more than he disagrees with him).

Hatfield finds that Christian leaders who have recently awakened to politics are confused about just what that is. They will say they are not being “political” because they don’t endorse candidates or are not active in a political party, Hatfield said. “They will say one moment that government should be taken out of busing and civil rights and affirmative action. Then they say government ought to crack down on the pornographers, or the abortion law.… They are being political when they want an impact by a corporate state by a corporate action,” he said.

Hatfield finds that Falwell in particular has matured rapidly. “Starting with the homosexual issue, in which he was so shrill … the burn ’em at the stake type of thing … I think he has been able to delineate between the sinner and the sin, which I don’t think he did at first.” Hatfield also noted Falwell’s growing involvement in social problems, especially in the inner city.

Lately a number of commentators have begun to dismiss the religious right as an influence for the future, noting the financial difficulties of Falwell and others, and the fact that television audiences don’t seem to be as large as electronic churchmen sometimes claim. But that assessment could be classified as just another misconception of what motivates men like Falwell. For him, money has been chronically short ever since June 28, 1956, when the Thomas Road Baptist Church started up in the syrup-sticky confines of the Donald Duck Bottling Company building in Lynchburg. He and others like him are stirred not by their financial statements, nor by the rating sheets of Neilson and Arbitron, but by the feel of God’s hand upon their shoulders.

Moral Majority’s Godwin says that in hopes of having a deep impact on the 1982 Congressional election, the organization plans to start chapters down to the county level in every state by next year. That seems like an impossible goal, and even if they don’t accomplish it, it is clear that the folks from Lynchburg plan to be around for a long time to come.

Because of Jerry Falwell’s impact on both the religious and political scene, and because he and his supporters are concerned that the mass communications media often distort his views, CHRISTIANITY TODAY met with him at Lynchburg, Virginia, for approximately two hours. Following are excerpts from the interview, which was tape-recorded and edited for publication. In it, Falwell answers questions frequently raised about Moral Majority, and about his own philosophy and goals.

The secular press seems eager to discredit Moral Majority. That’s got to hurt.

The press is very powerful; no one would question that. But I’m not afraid of the press. I cannot stop doing what I believe God wants me to do because of a concerted effort by liberal persons in the national news media to hurt us.

Where do you see Moral Majority going?

Moral Majority is going through its most rapid growth right now. The hostility of the national news media that you mentioned has really been the greatest thing that has happened to Moral Majority. I can’t say I enjoy being attacked—but it has helped the movement. People are far more perceptive than 10 years ago, and because of television, we are able to get through to them. Someone in the print media can make what you say sound the way he wants it to sound. This is not possible on “Face the Nation,” “Meet the Press,” or with Phil Donahue or Tom Snyder where we have been able to eyeball the people.

Are you going to keep hammering away at the same issues for the near future?

We’re going to keep banging. We’re going to recruit members. This was a good year, so we are trying to get organized, trying to get those loose cannons out there under control. We’re trying not to throw people out, but to educate and conserve people who may be doing it wrong.

Who are “those loose cannons”? Are some of your local leaders hurting you?

We are not being hurt by some people who make foolish and unfounded announcements in the name of Moral Majority. I look on our national movement as a union leader would the labor movement. Here in southwest Virginia and in parts of West Virginia we have had striking coal miners shooting at nonunion people and throwing rocks at their automobiles. That does not discredit the labor movement in America. We know these criminals are not representatives of labor in general. Likewise, when some uninformed person in Maryland attacks a bakery for making pornographic cookies, or some gentleman in northern California in no way connected with Moral Majority advocates capital punishment for homosexuals, it simply remains for me to repudiate any connection or any endorsement of what they are doing or saying.

You don’t see any need to change the policy by which you allow your name, Moral Majority, to be used by state groups?

There really is no way I can stop it. We have very little problem with our 50 state chairmen and their executive committees. We meet with these people regularly, and conduct seminars. We are less than two years old as a movement, so there is obviously a great deal of maturing and educating to be done. We have very few problems considering there are four million people actively involved, among whom are some 72,000 ministers, priests, and rabbis.

Most of us didn’t learn in seminary what we are doing now, so we have the job of educating each other and orchestrating our goals, our philosophy, our methodology. If someone who really is connected with us occasionally makes an unfounded statement or does something to discredit the movement, I think it is to our advantage to err on the side of liberty rather than to have a monarchy where Jerry Falwell is the only spokesman and makes all the decisions and controls every part of the movement. It will not be a national movement unless there is pluralism in the leadership.

What are your really deep spiritual goals for the Moral Majority? What would you like to see happen?

I would like to see Moral Majority become a very powerful and positive movement for morality in this country. And I would hope that in this decade we will be able to bring the nation back to an appreciation of the traditional values and moral principles that really have been the American way for 200 years. I’d like to see the family become prominent in our society again. I would like to see television featuring united families rather than broken and distorted families. I would like to see language on the television screen again assume some dignity and gravity, and not be seasoned with profanity. I would like to see the country become more sensitive. I can see Moral Majority creating a sensitivity among the American people for the needs of the unfortunate, the poor, and the disenfranchised that will cause the private sector, particularly the churches, to fill the vacuum that is going to be created by the government’s necessary withdrawal from that sphere. I would like to see us remaining nonpartisan, within the two-party system. I would hope that none of Moral Majority’s principal persons would ever run for election to public office at any level.

Would you include yourself in that?

Oh, of course.

Yet you feel a legitimate way to achieve these goals and bring the answer to your prayers is to be involved in the political process.

Moral Majority for me is definitely a movement in which I am involved as a private citizen—period! I do not involve Thomas Road Baptist Church. The church has never given a dollar to the movement. When our people come here to church they hear the Bible taught and preached, they don’t hear Moral Majority. I doubt if I’ve mentioned the words Moral Majority 10 times in Thomas Road Baptist Church.

What is your relationship with fundamentalist pastors who probably don’t see eye to eye with you on many of your involvements?

The most aggressive leaders in Moral Majority are fundamentalist pastors. That isn’t necessary, because Moral Majority is not a religious organization; it’s political. There is no theological agreement in Moral Majority. At the same time, fundamentalists like me were taught to fight before we were taught to read and write. There is no lack of courage among fundamentalists. Fortunately, fundamentalists like me have been growing up over the past 20 years. We have been finding we can fellowship only in truth, but that we can have friendship in many other affinities.

How would you define a fundamentalist?

Well, there are differences. Definitions change every decade. My definition of a fundamentalist is one who, first, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, and second, is committed to biblical separation in the world and to the lordship of Christ. For me, the definition of separation from the world may be different from some others’. I don’t use alcoholic beverages and I preach teetotalism. That would be the practice of 18,000 members of this church. I don’t think it has anything to do with salvation. But when I talk about separation, I mean separation from the rock music culture, separation from immorality, separation from the Hollywood culture.

Would you ever say anything on the “Old Time Gospel Hour,” for example, about the deceptive advertising in the Readers Digest by the Mormons?

No, I wouldn’t. On the “Old Time Gospel Hour” I’m preaching the gospel to everybody. I’m not pastoring a church; I’m not developing a spiritual movement. I’m preaching the gospel and attempting to do something for Jesus Christ. If I attack Catholics or Jews or Mormons, or allow anyone to do it on my platform, I have immediately excluded them as a reachable group.

I know you have spoken to Catholics. Have you ever spoken in a synagogue or to a group of Mormons?

I can’t think of anyplace I haven’t preached. As a matter of fact, if I were to take engagements in all the synagogues I’ve been invited to preach in, I’d be preaching every week in a synagogue.

Preaching or talking on the Moral Majority?

Moral Majority. The largest synagogue in this country has invited me to come and speak on Moral Majority. As a gentleman, that is all I would speak on. I would not go there as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, but as president of Moral Majority, sharing what I think would be our points of coalescing. The same thing is true with the Mormons.

Can’t you slip in a little bit of the gospel in a Moral Majority speech, just in case there is someone out there who hasn’t been converted?

If I want to be deceptive, I can. But I don’t want to be deceptive. What we’ve said from the beginning is that the Moral Majority is a political organization. You’re not going to hear doctrine there. We are not going to try to witness to you there. You come as an American who shares the moral views of the membership, and to fight together on a prolife, profamily, promoral, pro-American position.

Could I pose a hypothetical question? If you would, please, compare Salt Lake City with New York City. Say that in Salt Lake City they took the Moral Majority position right down the line, but because of false doctrine, they would not ultimately go to heaven. New York City has a reputation for the very things Moral Majority is against. Yet there is a possibility that some of those people in the corrupt society in New York City, in spite of their immorality, might be converted and wind up in heaven. Which would you rather see? I’m concerned that we could get the country morally straight and people would still go to hell.

I don’t think there is any problem at all as long as we all know who we are. I’m a Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, soul-winning preacher. I know that the “Old Time Gospel Hour” and Thomas Road church are committed to winning people to Jesus, planting local churches, building Christian schools, and witnessing to everybody, everywhere. At the same time, I think America is great, but not because it is a Christian nation: it is not a Christian nation, it has never been a Christian nation, it is never going to be a Christian nation. It is not a Jewish nation. It is a nation under God, and a nation in which for 200 years there has been absolute freedom to preach whatever religious conviction one might have, without ever impinging on the liberties and freedom of others. Madalyn Murray O’Hair has every right to preach her venomous message.

America has become the greatest nation on earth because of what Solomon said in Proverbs 14 (in paraphrase): “Living by God’s principles promotes a nation to greatness; violating God’s principles brings a nation to shame.”

If a nation or a society lives by divine principles, even though the people personally don’t know the One who taught and lived those principles, that society will be blessed. An unsaved person in business will be blessed by tithing to the work of God. He’ll still go to hell a tither, but God blesses the principle.

I feel that the dignity of life is a principle we protected in this country until 1973. I think the traditional family, the monogamous husband-wife relationship, is a principle that America has honored until lately. Now we have a 40 percent divorce rate and we accept homosexual marriage, so we are beginning to violate that principle. The principle of moral decency has been honored in this country until lately; pornography is a recent phenomenon. All these principles and many others have been honored in this country, and for that reason God has honored the United States. That has nothing to do with whether people go to heaven or hell. It is a personal relationship with Christ that determines that.

In order for the churches in America to evangelize the world, we need the environment of freedom in America that will permit us to do it. If we, through Moral Majority and other such organizations, can protect and preserve those principles, America will stay free, so that the ultimate goal of the gospel—world evangelization—can be pursued by the churches.

So then you can justify Moral Majority by this rather distinct, clear delineation between the political and the spiritual and say that in the long run Moral Majority contributes to the preaching of the gospel and the saving of souls.

Yes. Because it creates and preserves freedom.

You grew up during a time when patriotism went down rather sharply. How did you come by your rather intense patriotism?

There are lots of paradoxes in my development. I grew up in a home where my father did not believe in religious values. He was never inside a church in his life. My mother was a very religious woman. Dad would not allow her to force us to go to church, so we were home on Sunday mornings. My mother would leave the radio on when she left for church, and that is how I heard Charles E. Fuller and became a Christian. I was an 18-year-old college sophomore studying mechanical engineering at the time I was converted. Two months later, in 1952, I felt the call of God to full-time Christian service.

When I was a boy in Virginia, in a redneck society, patriotism was just a part of life. Whatever was for America was right, whether it was right or not. I had an overdose of patriotism as a boy. I also grew up in a segregated society. I was a segregationist, and Thomas Road church was five years old before God flushed that out of my system. I thought segregation and spirituality were the same. I would have fought you over saying that I was prejudiced; I would say it was scriptural. When I first baptized a black man in this church, it caused quite a ripple.

A number of years after that, Thomas Road Baptist Church, which had always been patriotic in a redneck way, really became patriotic in the Christian way. It was through an osmosis by which the Spirit of God, through the Word of God, taught me that I was wrong and made me willing to say it publicly. It cost me a lot of friends for a while. That’s not an issue any more, but it was a big issue in this town 20 years ago. We still have that to overcome with the older black people in this community who remember Jerry Falwell in that context.

But patriotism was just a way of life as a boy. I realized later that one could be committed to his country and still be an internationalist in world missions without compromising either.

God has raised up America in these last days for the cause of world evangelization and for the protection of his people, the Jews. I don’t think America has any other right or reason for existence other than those two purposes.

Speaking of your outspoken support for the Jews, and particularly the Zionists, do you not see a parallel between your former redneck segregationist views and your rather uncritical, enthusiastic support now of the Zionists?

I don’t think so. I have personally examined that possibility in my own heart. I support the Jews, first, for biblical reasons; I take the Abrahamic covenant literally. God has blessed America because we have blessed the Jews. God has also blessed America because we have done more for the cause of world evangelization than any other nation. I also support the Jews because I think, historically, the evidence is on their side that Palestine belongs to them. Legally, they have had the right to be in the land since 1948. I also support the Jews because from the humanitarian perspective, they have the right to exist, and there are a hundred million neighbors who are committed to their extinction. I also support the Jews because they are the only true friends America has in the Middle East.

Could you, through your open support of the Zionists in the Jewish state, help that state to be more democratic in terms of allowing freedom of witness and preaching in Israel?

I talked with the leaders there about that subject. I talked with respect. They have many concerns. Some are valid, some are not valid. They are fighting for survival right now. The Jews look on conservative Christianity as the right wing that has been their enemy in years past. It is only a modern phenomenon that conservative Christianity is pro-Jewish. So-called Christians wiped them out during World War II, and all of them were right-wingers. It has just been in this generation that mature, Bible-believing Christians have stood up and said, “Hey, we are for the Jews because God is for the Jews.” The leadership in conservative Christianity today is solidly behind the state of Israel; there is no question about that. However, the Israelis need more time to be assured of the fact that we don’t have any ulterior motives.

I have no problem preaching in Israel. We have missionaries there. There is no question there are cases and instances where the Arabs are not treated fairly, and I am against that. But I have to look at the overall picture and say that, at this moment, the issue is Israel’s survival. Israel has got to come through this period and have survived, with everybody accepting that. Then, there has to be time for freedom to mature there, as it did in our country. That didn’t happen in revolutionary days. We Baptists had a terrible time in this country 200 years ago. The country has to be safe first before it can talk about internal freedoms.

You seem to be very much together, upbeat and positive. You’re always looking for new worlds to conquer. What are you afraid of? Are you confused?

I have the constant fear of any minister about getting his priorities confused. I must always remember that my first priority is to my wife and children, under God, of course. When I fail there, I fail everywhere. I have a son in college, and a daughter and a son in high school who need me very much. I have to be there to deal with their needs and problems so they can grow up well adjusted and normal. And I do that. I don’t let anybody confuse my priorities.

Second to that, I decided years ago that I am pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church. Although I have 62 associates who help me minister to the people, I’m their pastor, and I stay committed to meeting their needs. Beyond that, there are the schools, the television, the radio, Moral Majority, and a multiplicity of other things. But I never let the bottom become the top.

Some political leaders are fearful of right-wing “hit lists.” They say these are unfair to our traditional political process. Does Moral Majority have a hit list of congressmen or senators you are trying to defeat?

We have no hit lists. We are not attacking candidates; we are not endorsing or supporting candidates. We did not put Ronald Reagan in office; the perception of that is much greater than the reality. We are committed to issues and principles that the liberal leaders of our nation don’t have on their agenda. We look on abortion as murder. That’s a strong statement and I realize it runs counter to the grain of liberal sociologists and educators. In our reaction against the social gospel, we have ignored the social implications of the gospel in conservative Christianity. In the past five years we became aware of that, and we acknowledged our wrong attitude. We must now make it a priority in the 1980s.

Apparently there is a distinction in your mind, which doesn’t come across in your advertising and in your lectures, that you don’t endorse candidates but you support them. What is the difference?

Someone asked me during the last campaign if I was endorsing candidate Reagan. I said, “No, I’m not. I am voting for him because the platform on which he is campaigning is very near the platform that I believe in.” I did not endorse or publicly promote his candidacy because I want to be able, while he is in office, to criticize him when I think he is wrong. I don’t want any position in the White House. I don’t ever want to be a chaplain or spiritual counselor. I always want to be an outsider. I want to be able to support the president when I think he’s right and oppose him when I think he’s wrong. If he does exactly the opposite of what he campaigned for, I want to be able to say that I voted for him but I was wrong, and that I am now going to work to get him out of office.

However, I do think that Mr. Reagan is the greatest thing that has happened to our country in my lifetime. We have Congressional elections coming up in 1982. Many of the state chapters have political action committees that want to support and endorse candidates, and we allow that.

So your state committees would decide, in fact, who they are going to try to get into office.

Yes, they would. Many of them don’t have political action committees, but they are allowed to. I don’t come in and campaign with them.

Does it bother you at all that they do that?

My preference would be that they didn’t, but many of them have very strong convictions about it. They feel it’s their obligation to do precinct work. I can’t find Scripture to oppose that, and so I don’t get involved.

Who really controls Moral Majority and who decides what the platform is going to be, the four points around which you can build a pluralistic consensus?

We spent about five years chipping out that platform after meeting with Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, fundamentalists. I and three or four others here and there worked on it. We realized we had to create a nonreligious organization where we could address the issues as private citizens and without violating the separation of church and state or the tax-exempt status of our ministries. All the real volatile moral issues had become volatile political issues by the late seventies. We finally arrived at a consensus where everybody said, “Leave it there. If you leave it there we can come in. If you bring in gun control, domestic policy, the Panama Canal, if you bring in this or that segment, it will never proliferate.”

Moral Majority’s position was clearly established in June of 1979 and it has not changed one iota since. And it cannot. We are prolife, protraditional family, promoral, under which we have opposed the illegal drug traffic and pornography, and we are pro-American, which means strong national defense and the State of Israel. If we wanted to add anything, we would have to get all four million people and all 72,000 ministers to agree, because we made a moral commitment to them that this is where we are.

Television comes under pornography. That’s a little fuzzy.

We need to take a position on the violence—on sex and violence. We are very careful about the violence thing. We do fudge there, because I happen to think that violence is detrimental, but there are some in our group who do not. Some Moral Majority people see the problem of the sex influence in television, but they do not see the influence of the violence. We have to be very careful that what we say is Moral Majority position is Moral Majority position.

I was asked on “Face the Nation” about gun control. I had to make it very clear that this was Jerry Falwell speaking, that I am against gun control, and why. I said that very clearly. But I could not say this was a Moral Majority position, because it wasn’t. We would lose a large segment of Moral Majority if we took a gun control position.

If you say you are profamily, or promoral, where do you stop?

We just define it. We define it as illegal drug traffic and pornography.

Do you put alcohol and tobacco under drugs?

Yes, we do with alcohol, but not tobacco. We have lots of Moral Majority members who smoke. People say, Why don’t you guys get more involved in this? Or someone will say, What about the poor? We could never bring the issue of the poor into Moral Majority because the argument would be, Who is going to decide what we teach those people? Mormons, Catholics? No, we won’t get into that. As private persons and ministers, we make a commitment if we feel convicted. But for Moral Majority, no! If we go in there, create jobs, raise funds, and get involved with the local pastors, the problem is, which pastors? If we say the Mormon pastors, the fundamentalists are gone. If we say the Catholic pastors, the Jews are gone, and so forth. We just have to stay away from helping the poor.

Could Moral Majority ever have a convention and add other moral issues?

We could, if something occurs. We really try to zero in on the vital things.

Are you ever going to have a national convention?

Someday we may.

Do you see yourself dropping out of the leadership at some time.

I see myself spending less time, hoping to develop new leadership if some of the outstanding men in this movement rise to the top, but probably not dropping out. It is happening already.

Is it more important for you to speak to the people, or to the leaders?

I can do both. I have the opportunity of speaking weekly to the leaders in private meetings and to the people on television. I spoke to the Chicago Civic Club last spring and I am speaking this fall to the Executive Club. While I was in Chicago I spoke to a small group of Jewish leaders. The night before and the next morning I spoke to 35 leaders of the largest industries in America. Their board chairmen and presidents were there privately, with no publicity and no fanfare, for obvious reasons for both of us.

Do you speak for Moral Majority, or as a preacher?

Whatever they want. Because I am there as a private citizen I discuss anything. And I can share the gospel there.

Carl Henry and some other evangelical leaders and theologians feel you are extreme and they would like to meet with you, have dialogue with you, to get you to moderate your views. What do they want you to moderate?

I have no idea. Dr. Henry is a great man and I would never, under any circumstances, criticize him. My only unhappiness was that his comments were made without any discussion with me to see where I am coming from. It is not his nature to do that, and it is unusual that he did it.

You haven’t had any private conversations with evangelical leaders, theologians, or scholars saying, Do this or that to make yourself more acceptable to us and to our people?

There is no way I can be effective in trying to develop a real spiritual revolution against the trend of the times and be popular with everybody at the same time. I’ve got to be willing to wait a few years before a lot of good people understand what we are trying to do.

From where we sit, we get this constant pounding from Christians who are not “followers of Falwell.” We are trying to figure out what it is.

Frankly, I am raising a lot of money and some of their people give to our ministry. That is a valid concern they would have. If I were sitting where they are, in all fairness I would be feeling a little edgy about that. The ones who don’t know me don’t know where I’m going; they don’t know if I am honest.

Suppose I was sitting where that pastor is; would I not be feeling a little uneasy about this guy, too? Is he trying to put together a political party? Is he trying to be president? Is he planning on taking over this country some day? Is he personally getting rich off all this?

Those are questions they don’t have the answers to. I have to be willing to keep saying the same things everyplace, everywhere, long enough. It is going to take a number of years before I can expect to be accepted by many of the people.

Are you too much of a showman? Do you spend too much time on TV raising money?

I am fully expecting between now and the coming of the Lord that this world is going to experience a spiritual awakening unlike anything in the past. There is going to be an invasion of God on this planet, and changing of lives: real biblical evangelism. There is going to be a terrific harvest of souls somewhere between here and the Rapture. I believe that God’s role for America is as catalyst, that he wants to set the spiritual time bomb off right here. If that is the case, America must stay free. And for America to stay free we must come back to the only principles that God can honor: the dignity of life, the traditional family, decency, morality, and so on. I just see myself as one to stand in the gap and, under God, with the help of millions of others, to bring the nation back to a moral standard so we can stay free in order that we can evangelize the world. And protect the Jews.

If you have to go on TV and be a showman, a money raiser, a promoter, it is because everything feeds into that overriding purpose.

It does indeed.

Taking the slam-bangs from the liberals, the evangelicals, and the fundamentalists?

I’ve never had those things in mind. I don’t read all of it. I’ve learned that nobody can hurt you but you.

A Book Is Known By Its Review

The art of analyzing a book review is one every student should master. I am an experienced review reviewer because I began writing reviews when I was a junior in Sunday school. I reviewed books from our Sunday school library, which was located on a window sill in our classroom. It was a collection of paperbacks by authors like Paul Hutchens and other juvenile writers—that is, writers of juvenile fiction. I read so many Sugar Creek Gang books that my teacher was afraid I’d get diabetes. Twice I almost fell out of the window.

The first step in analyzing a book review is to note who wrote the review. You must try to figure out why he or she was chosen to write this particular review. Suppose the book is Lectures on Gnosticism and the reviewer is identified as “Horace Postlewaithe, Jr., head pastry chef at Hoffmeyer’s Bakery, Madison, Wisconsin.” This probably indicates that the book review editor is overweight, owes Hoffmeyer money, and is paying off his bill by sending free review books to the employees. On the other hand, it could also mean that Postlewaithe, Jr., is related to the author or the publisher, in which case they are guaranteed an enthusiastic review. Either way, don’t bother to read the review. It will be biased and you will waste money buying the book.

However, if the reviewer is Dr. Qumran Masada, noted professor of dispensational archaeology at Feeblecorn University, you know immediately the review will be over your head. Furthermore, the professor will complain that the book did not have enough information on the Ming Dynasty, and so cannot be trusted on any other subject. Again, you have saved money.

You must also take note of the publisher, because there are some publishers we just cannot trust no matter who the reviewer is. If the reviewer recommends a book from a “bad” publisher, don’t believe him. If he says something critical about a “good” publisher, take it with a grain of salt. After all, a good tree produces good fruit, and a good publisher publishes good books, no matter what the reviewer may say. It’s as simple as that.

Next, check the name of the author. Do you recognize it? If not, don’t waste time reading the book. New authors are always angry at something or confused about the situation. Old authors are safe, especially if this is the tenth book in a series. By now, the author has run out of material and is living in an echo chamber. The book will be boring but safe.

Should you find yourself desiring to read the book whose review you have analyzed, immediately hide your bifocals and donate the price of the book to a worthy cause. Chances are the reviewer didn’t read the book, so why should you? Wait for the digest to appear in paperback, or, better yet, wait for the movie, whichever comes first. And while you are waiting, you can always read more reviews.

EUTYCHUS X

No Turning Back

Karen Burton Mains is to be commended for her view of the perplexity of the modern Christian woman [“It’s A Mystery to Me,” July 17]. I agree that the church is best served if it accepts that the women’s movement has happened. To deny that is like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.

It is time for pragmatism, not theorizing about women’s role in the church. The women’s movement can be a challenge, not a threat, if viewed as the opportunity to encourage ministry by and for women in all areas of their lives. To define women’s role in terms of restrictions or limitations was not Christ’s view. He said, “You are freed …,” “Go in peace,” and “Go tell …” What if the church were to declare a moratorium on the limitation statements and say only positive things about women’s role and ministry?

The idea sounds exciting enough to try.

KATIE FUNK WIEBE

Hillsboro, Kans.

Self-Examination Essential

Your editorial, “Love of God Demands Love for His Church” [July 17], was excellent and timely. We need to be confronted with the importance of and the necessity for the church in today’s world. It is the body of Christ. If we are to work within the church to improve it (and we must), we will have to examine the church and be willing to be critical. As we examine the church, we will be examining ourselves and when critical, will be critical of ourselves. I trust we are able and willing.

NEIL R. FULTON

Elmhurst, Ill.

It was good to read such strong support for “God’s instrument for introducing love into the barren, loveless existence of the fragmented and isolated life of twentieth-century man.” I have served in three churches in 11 years of full-time service. I have never found a church that did not have serious problems. But we all must realize that the church belongs to Jesus Christ, who “will never leave us or forsake us” and finds “all things to be possible.”

I find myself in graduate school, where the church is under great criticism. Some see no hope in revitalization, and have chosen alternatives. The leadership of the church must itself be open to a “multitude of counselors” for the strengthening of the church. Critics of the church must be willing “to hear reproof” also, that they might obtain understanding.

DONALD PAUL BATES

Wheaton, Ill.

No Help

Kok’s points are well made and communicate a sincere truth: the body must know what the individual is suffering before it can help [“Pastors Shouldn’t Keep Secrets,” July 17]. What he failed to point out is that people around us simply do not help. I can’t count the number of times that when people begin to describe some problem area of their life, what immediately comes is advice, suggestions, and war stories to “help.” It is exasperating and disappointing. Kok’s metaphor of the body is as scriptural as it is accurate. But the body, by God’s great design, almost always responds to its own need properly. The body of Christ (some of its members) frequently fails miserably.

DAVID W. SMITHWICK

Glendale, Ariz.

Before And After

Charles Bussey, in “Bob Dylan: Driven Home” [June 26], quotes from Dylan’s “Highway 61 Revisited” dialogue between Abraham and God and interprets: “Dylan’s theme rings clear and true: only through obedience to God can man achieve peace.”

The said “theme” may be clear and true, but at that time it was not what Dylan was trying to get across. That album, hailed by the secular world as the greatest collection of the poetry of evil since Baudelaire, packs a communicative force awesome even today. But it is a communication of hate, fatalistic despair, and the blackest cynicism. We should not whitewash or reinterpret the blasphemies of 1965 in light of the blessings of 1980. They spring from different motives and different men.

T. S. Eliot’s postconversion “Little Gidding” said of “… the rending pain of reenactment / Of all that you have done, and been; the Shame / Of motives late revealed, and the awareness / Of things ill done and done to others’ harm / Which once you took for exercise of virtue. / Then fools’ approval stings, and honour stains.” Dylan has recently written, “… I was blinded … I was gone … How weak was the foundation I was standing upon.” Both Eliot’s and Dylan’s preconversion poetry contained striking insight into the bitter futility of existing in a world with nothing real to cling to. But their earlier works can still be valuable in an instructive as well as artistic sense. These works show man’s chaotic state and need of peace. But it is only in their works after conversion that their “theme” becomes “obedience to God” in achieving it.

MARTIN SARVIS

Amarillo, Tex.

Nurture For Young Artists

Seerveld’s article, “Can Art Survive the Secular Onslaught?” [July 17], was of interest to me as a parent of a 17-year-old visual artist who has for months been trying to locate a Christian postsecondary art school. Could it be that the reason the Christian community has not caught the vision of arts as a “reasonable service” is because the Christian academic world has convinced us that art has no place there? The Christian academic world is finally catching up in the fields of science and engineering and I would like to see the same in the visual arts.

WANDA F. MILLER

Ellicott City, Md.

Growth Or Decline?

In “The Decline of a Church and Its Culture” [July 17], Lindsell attributes the rise in Sunday school enrollment in the Roman Catholic Church (the Parish School of Religion) to rediscovery of the Bible. Would that were the case! While it is true that there has been a resurgence of biblical interest and scholarship since Vatican II, the PSR increase is a negative factor, not a positive development. It represents a turning away from the full-time Catholic school training, which dominated the Catholic educational scene since the twenties, to the superficial Sunday-only education. As such it can be seen as supportive of Lindsell’s thesis that biblical (religious) literacy is on the decline in the U.S.

SISTER LORETTA PASTVA

Chardon, Ohio

Please Document

Some of Mr. Dinwiddie’s points are valid [“Moneychangers in the Church, June 26], but stripped of integrity because they lack documentation, particularly the opening statements. Specifically, “A popular gospel musician’s fees skyrocket … because his booking agency takes 40 percent … as commission.” This amount seems exorbitant; it is common knowledge in agency circles that the normal booking fee runs between 10 and 20 percent.

Can you validate the statement “Christian artists’ homes break up at an alarming rate”? This sounds like passing judgment, an undocumented generalization which tempts the human nature to suspect the bad rather than encourage the good.

PAULA PILECKI

New Sound Concerts

Walpole, Mass.

All statements were carefully checked by the author, but names were omitted so as to focus on the issue and not the personalities. The artist involved authenticated the 40 percent booking fee. Public records, pastors, and business associates document the increasing rate of breakup of homes among Christian artists. Care was taken to qualify statements to protect the integrity of those who faithfully discipline their talents and lives for the glory of God. Other responses suggest that, if anything, he article understated the seriousness and pervasiveness of the growing commercialism in music ministry.

—Editors

Dr. Thomas Zimmerman is a former president of the National Association of Evangelicals who presently serves as general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. As part of the twenty-fifth anniversary of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, I asked him to write an article for us on what Pentecostals are doing right.

When I was a youth, I didn’t think Pentecostals did much of anything right. I considered them fanatics who carried on antics, in the name of religion, far across town on the other side of the railroad tracks. Later I changed my mind about Pentecostals. Of course, I got converted—to Christ, that is. And I met a few live Pentecostals.

But the really decisive factor in my changed attitude came when—of all things—I first read the work of Jonathan Edwards: Distinguishing Marks of a Revival of the Spirit of God. That book gave me a new standard—a biblical standard—by which to evaluate the structure of the Christian church. It cut through frothy superficialities and put the focus on the really significant aspects of Christian experience.

We evangelicals have much to learn from our Pentecostal brothers and sisters. God has greatly blessed their witness during the last half century. That does not mean we agree with them about everything—especially about their distinctive doctrines of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Still, we confess that God has wonderfully used them in many ways, and there is much they can teach us. In his article, Tom Zimmerman shares some of the things God has done through the Pentecostal churches.

In this same issue, Tom Bisset analyzes what the broadcasting business means to the church. Already it has transformed the image of evangelicals in our nation. Its potential for the future is startling. Then we include an interview with Jerry Falwell, the most successful of modern television evangelists. Through television Falwell has become the acknowledged leader of right-wing evangelicals and the head of Moral Majority. In his recent book, reviewed here by Carl F. H. Henry, Falwell calls for wide support from all who accept his basic moral values—whether they be fundamentalists, evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jews, or Mormons.