Words Hot From The Soul

Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life, by Ian Hunter (Thomas Nelson, 1980, 243 pp., $13.95), is reviewed by Lloyd Billingsley, a writer living in Poway, California.

One might well ask the question why, after Muggeridge’s own Chronicles of Wasted Time, anyone would dare to attempt a full-length biography of this man for whom battalions of adjectives are insufficient. Is not such a work redundant and unnecessary?

Fortunately, the answer is no. Ian Hunter, a Canadian law professor, student, and friend of Muggeridge, has produced a thorough and sensitive account of this important man. Himself a stylish and lucid writer, Hunter has included many details and perspectives that are absent from his subject’s own works.

Since the third volume of Muggeridge’s autobiography has not appeared, and some—including his American publishers—doubt that it will be forthcoming, this book may ultimately prove to be the only detailed, organized account of his latter years. It was during this time that Muggeridge “rediscovered” Jesus and began to write about him as few have ever done. The storm of invective this provoked from, in Hunter’s words, the “intellectual Samurai” of the time is particularly well chronicled.

For American readers who are unfamiliar with the wit of Muggeridge, Hunter plucks some prize barbs from the slag heaps of the British press. Some examples, among many: John Foster Dulles—“dull, duller, Dulles”; and Clement Attlee—“a sheep in sheep’s clothing.” The account of his television interview with Mike Wallace of CBS is priceless.

Most important, Hunter penetratingly reviews the record of Muggeridge as a prophet. He predicted, when the prevailing opinion was totally contrary, the demise of the British Empire, the rise of Soviet tyranny, the failure of the League of Nations, and the disastrous effects of television, materialism, and eroticism, among many others. Of particular interest is the prediction that euthanasia will be the next raging social issue. Based on this track record, Hunter urges the reader to consider Muggeridge’s most consistent prophecy: that we are living “in the twilight of a spent civilization.”

Hunter is certainly right when he states that Muggeridge’s genius goes beyond his literary powers. It resides mainly in his “having something to say” that is “hot from his soul.” For all who would know this man and his message, Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life is essential.

C. S. Lewis Aglow

The Achievement of C. S. Lewis, by Thomas Howard (Shaw, 1980, 139 pp., $5.95), and C. S. Lewis: Spinner of Tales, by Evan K. Gibson (Eerdmans, 1980, 284 pp., $8.95), are reviewed by Michael H. Macdonald, professor of German and philosophy, and director of the C. S. Lewis Institute at Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington.

Two recent books that merit the attention of readers of Lewis fiction are Tom Howard’s The Achieiement of C. S. Lewis and Evan Gibson’s C. S. Lewis: Spinner of Tales. (CT readers may also wish to note that Carolyn Keefe’s compilation of essays on Lewis’s personality and work, C. S. Lewis: Speaker and Teacher, was republished [fifth printing] in 1980 by Zondervan.)

Both authors have distinguished themselves elsewhere: Howard as professor of English at Gordon College, author (Christ the Tiger, among others), and popular lecturer; and Gibson, professor emeritus of English at Seattle Pacific University, author of numerous pieces.

Howard writes as he speaks—powerfully. Employing an immense vocabulary and a marvelous way with words, he attempts not so much to find a category for Lewis’s work as to see the nature of his achievement. How does his art relate to human experience? Does it throw light on or obscure that experience? Does it ennoble or trivialize our vision of man? Howard does not miss the central motifs of Lewis works: moral order (fixed, serene, blissful), orderliness, temptation, freedom, heaven, hell, longing—in the end, human experience in the bright light of the Ultimate.

Gibson’s exceedingly careful study may become the definitive introductory work on Lewis’s fiction. His clientele are those ordinary readers who would like to understand more clearly Lewis’s ethical and theological implications. Somewhat like Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Gibson’s book puts together much that we already know in a new, fresh, and persuasive way.

In addition, Gibson uncovers what many critics miss almost entirely—the structural balance of the works. He also notes everything from the number of colorful nouns and adjectives in a chapter to the inconsistencies of an illustrator. Thoroughly immersed in Scripture, Gibson’s wisdom and maturity are particularly evident in his interpretations of Aslan, Father Christmas, and the Green Lady.

Gibson’s style is much more Apollonian than Howard’s. The emphasis is on form, order, meticulous care to detail, and clarity of contour. Dionysian might not quite be the word to characterize Howard, yet his style is less one of moderation, order, and law than one of English meshed with Latin (or French), and magnificent sentences (sentence fragments, sometimes)—strong and soaring. As one might suspect, Gibson discusses the Narnia books separately while Howard makes sweeping references to Narnia in totality. Both do so excellently.

Perhaps what distinguishes these two works from others about C. S. Lewis is what Peter Kreeft notes in the preface to Howard’s book: these are books that look beyond Lewis to something far more important—his world.

The Bible Into Shoeleather

Ladder of Angels, by Madeleine L’Engle (Penguin, 1980, 128 pp., $9.95), is reviewed by Elizabeth Skoglund, family counselor and author, Burbank, California.

Combining a charm of style that revitalizes many biblical passages with a dazzling display of children’s art, Madeleine L’Engle has produced in Ladder of Angels a high quality of Christian literature.

While biblical passages are made contemporary in a loose paraphrase, authentic biblical truth seems accurately preserved. Practical truth appears to be emphasized with striking clarity. The disunity that befell Adam and Eve in their sin, the sharp turn of the question “What of us?” following the description of Ezekiel’s vision, and the defeat of Satan when confronted with Job’s faithfulness all have applications to life for us here and now. Old truth is not distorted but made new. Biblical principles are translated into shoe-leather for those of us who follow Christ in this decade.

Adding appeal and further understanding to the ancient but ever new—and newly put—words of the Scriptures are the colorful illustrations by children, painted with characteristically combined childish simplicity and depth.

Ladder of Angels is for any age. Indeed, it is for anyone willing to allow Scripture to speak with its ancient power, yet to be made new for all persons of all time.

Clark Strikes Back

Language and Theology, by Gordon H. Clark (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980, 152 pp., $4.95 pb), is reviewed by Robert H. Countess, chaplain, U.S. Army, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

In a review of Robert L. Reymond’s The Justification of Knowledge (CT, Nov. 18, 1977), I wrote: “Reymond shows that Gordon H. Clark’s absolute idealism leaves us with the impossibility of knowledge.” And: “Responses … will surely be forthcoming.”

Gordon Clark has produced his response. He makes witty but trenchant criticisms that largely call for Reymond to produce his own theory of language, especially for him to specify what sensation is and what role it plays in the acquisition of knowledge.

Reymond contended that scores of Scriptures point to the acquiring of knowledge via sensory experience—particularly those passages in which are employed such verbs as see, hear, read, and listen. To Reymond, these are obvious sensory knowledge-producing verbs, and he then asked Clark how these could be ignored when at the same time Clark claims the Bible to be his sole source of knowledge. Reymond insisted that Clark do exegesis which, Reymond holds, would demolish Clark’s absolute idealism.

Clark has produced in this monograph three emphases: (1) that ordinary language is, after all, really adequate for “God talk”; (2) that empirical epistemology leads inevitably to skepticism; and (3) that human language is possible and meaningful “because God created man a rational spirit, a mind capable of thinking, worshiping, and talking to God. God operates through his Logos, the wisdom that enlightens every man in the world” (p. 152).

Language and Theology is Gordon Clark’s defense of his epistemology known as “spiritual rationalism” (p. 131). When an empiricist states, “Knowledge is derived from the senses,” Clark raises several seemingly devastating objections to empirically based epistemology. They are: (1) that sense impressions can be highly untrustworthy; (2) that sense impressions cannot produce concepts; and (3) that sense impressions can never lead to universal propositions (which universal propositions are fundamentally necessary to logical thought [pp. 132ff.]).

At this juncture, one might easily misunderstand Clark, and, possibly, Reymond has. Clark does not deny that sensory impressions exist. Nor does he deny that they provide data with which knowledge has to do. Rather, Clark asserts that sensory impressions produce only sensory impressions—not knowledge—because knowledge is logico-propositional. He believes that logic is “the architecture” of God’s mind and thus logic is universal, valid, and a most necessary basis for knowledge.

It appears that Clark has answered Reymond’s question: “Don’t you have to read the Bible?” (p. 131). Clark readily embraces sensory involvement with his scriptural pages and his way of looking at scriptural, ink-formed words in Hebrew and Greek and English (add also French and German!). But all such sensory impressions do not produce knowledge for Clark. Knowledge derives from logical handling of these data and relating them to concepts built into man’s God-created mind.

Clark fails, however, to confront a most basic issue of Christian epistemology when he does not treat of what he means when he speaks of our knowing God. There is at least on the surface a sterility to Clark’s knowledge. Is knowing two plus two equals four like knowing that in the Bible we are told about God? How can one who believes in these two propositions be comforted by them? Can one love a proposition? Be consoled by a proposition?

Like Reymond, Clark is most effective as a critic. This book is to be recommended highly, but I suspect those seeking positive answers will probably have to continue seeking them.

BRIEFLY NOTED

Pastoral Ministry. The Shepherd Under Christ (Northwestern, Milwaukee, Wis.), by Armin W. Scheutze and Irwin J. Habeck, is a textbook for pastoral theology, covering topics from the call to the ministry to the shepherd and his supervisors. Criswell’s Guidebook for Pastors (Broadman), by W. A. Criswell, covers the same territory, drawn from over 50 years of success in the pastorate, and defined as “working now toward eight thousand registered every Sunday in Sunday School and toward a giving program of over eight million dollars a year. “Becoming a Prophetic Community (John Knox), by Jack Corbett and Elizabeth Smith, speaks to the social ministry of the church. Lawrence Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke look at the church as an organism, rather than an organization in A Theology of Church Leadership (Zondervan). David Kingrey and Jack Willcuts offer a corporate model for church life in Team Ministry (Barclay, Newberg, Oreg.).

Two nicely done books on conflict are: Resolving Church Conflicts (Harper & Row), by G. Douglass Lewis, and Conflict Ministry in the Church (Broadman), by Larry L. McSwain and William C. Treadwell, Jr.

Dealing specifically with hurting pastors are: Coping with Depression in the Ministry (Cope, 225 South First Ave., Suite 205, Arcadia, Calif.), by Archibald D. Hart, a set of cassettes and booklet of genuine value; Burn-Out: Stages of Disillusionment in the Helping Professions (Human Sciences), by Jerry Edelwich; and Passages of a Pastor (Zondervan), by Cecil R. Paul. This is all useful material.

Preaching. David Steel looks at Preaching Through the Year (John Knox) by focusing on the liturgical seasons. The Homiletical Plot (John Knox), by Eugene L. Lowry, looks at the sermon as narrative art form. Richard Jensen discusses variety and imagination in preaching in Telling the Story (Augsburg). Building Sermons to Meet Peoples’ Needs (Broadman), by Harold T. Bryson and James C. Taylor, is an easy-to-follow homiletical handbook. The Sermon as God’s Word (Abingdon), by Robert W. Duke, looks at the varieties of theological homiletics from fundamentalism to black liberationism. Robert D. Young offers this clue to effective preaching: Be Brief About It (Westminster). Reflections on 40 years of preaching is Postscript to Preaching (Judson), by Gene E. Bartlett.

Church Programs: Three books deal with the library: The Small Church Library: A Guide for Organizing and Managing It (Forward Movement, 412 Sycamore St., Cincinnati, Ohio), more a pamphlet than a book; 121 Ways Toward a More Effective Church Library (Victor), by Arthur K. Saul; and The Church Library Workbook (Light and Life, Winona Lake, Ind.), by Francine E. Walls.

Two truly excellent books by Gerard Berghoef and Lester DeKoster are The Elder’s Handbook and The Deacon’s Handbook, both published by Christian Library Press, Box 2226, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Understanding Your Church’s Curriculum (Broadman), by Howard P. Colson and Raymond M. Regdon, is now revised for a new generation of pastors.

Human alienation goes deeper than Marx allowed.

Karl marx taught that religion dehumanizes man. The more one puts into God, the less there is left over to put into man. How can man be free to project his own social utopia if there is a God ruling over him? To that assumption Marx added a second conviction for which he is famous: that religion is the opiate of the poor and the oppressed. Unjust societies produce it, and the just society will cause it to disappear. Hence, he predicted that religion was certain to wither away.

Three telling criticisms, however, can legitimately be raised against the Marxist viewpoint.

First, Marx never really faced up to Jesus Christ and the prophetic tradition in the Bible. It is preposterous to speak of the religion of Amos or Jeremiah, Isaiah or Jesus, as a narcotic of the oppressed. Their words were designed to make the rich oppressors uncomfortable rather than put them at ease, and surely were good news to the poor. Jesus did not side with the authorities against the poor. He did not go off somewhere in the desert, fleeing society to pursue a pure life. He advocated and lived out a revolution of love that oriented him to a stand on the side of the needy as he dedicated himself to God’s kingdom and its justice.

Max Weber distinguishes between world-rejecting religions and world-affirming ones; the latter see themselves as responsible to transform culture in the service of God. The Christian message should be seen as this kind of faith, having within it a powerful impulse to change social conditions. Something Pascal said applies to Marx: “Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack before attacking it.”

The one-sidedness of Marx’s critique of religion is tragic. Had he placed his passion for social justice in the framework of the faith of his fathers instead of dialectical materialism, he might have become the great modern prophet so needed in church and society. Had he done so, many of the sad features of his thought that stem ultimately from his materialism might not have eventuated: the metaphysical emptiness, the ethical barrenness, the contempt for life, the self-righteousness.

Marx was off target as far as Christianity is concerned. Our gospel is not an opiate, but a source of great hope for all people. We must, however, be willing to admit that Christians at times have defended God at the expense of man, that we have not always paid attention to the cries of the oppressed, and that large numbers of church people still need to be awakened to the social implications of the gospel. Marx was partly right—religion can be an opiate. But he was wrong in thinking it had to be, and in not seeing its potential for hope.

Second, Marx was mistaken when he predicted the demise of religion. Actually, he made a number of predictions that have not come to pass. He thought the state would wither, whereas it has only gotten larger in Communist lands. He also thought capitalism would soon disintegrate, and did not anticipate its ability to adjust to new situations and to reform itself by correcting the evils pointed out in the original Communist Manifesto.

Certainly his prediction that religion would wither away was wrong, despite intense propaganda and even persecution in Marxist lands. That it has not faded away owes to a certain superficiality in Marx’s thought about human alienation and the role of religion. Religion is essentially a system that gives people confidence that the world and their lives in it are intelligible and meaningful. Religion will exist as long as man is man. Marx erred in not seeing that religion can ennoble and humanize life, and need not degrade or trivialize it. He even made a logical blunder at this point. He argued that man wishes for meaning, therefore believes in God, therefore God does not exist.

But the conclusion does not follow. Although nothing exists merely because we wish it did, it is not true that things cannot exist because we wish them! God may exist even though man wishes it—indeed, to turn it around, the deep need for meaning itself might bear some significance as to the nature of ultimate reality. The universe would be a madhouse if man was starved for meaning, and there was no hope of meaning to feed on.

Human alienation also goes deeper than Marx allowed. Self-centeredness and deceit exist in socialist countries too, and create a severe problem for Marx’s utopian vision. How can the classless, sharing society come into existence unless mankind is somehow changed to become loving and other-directed? What is lacking in Marx—a doctrine of salvation—is obviously present in the gospel he despised. His prophecy failed because the analysis was faulty. He opposed the One Thing that could have solved his problem. This tragically missed opportunity in the history of ideas has awesome consequences for us all.

Third, in 1840, though it might have looked to Marx as if religion was the opiate of the people, now, 60 years after the revolution, things seem to be reversed. We see in Communist society a huge totalitarian state, which forces people into a harsh regime, and which, while promising paradise in the future, denies elementary human rights in the present.

Is Marxism not the opiate of the people today? Indeed, Marxism is very much like a militant type of religion—authoritarian and dogmatic, strictly organized, infallible in its teachings, steeped in sacred sources, and spread by the sword. It offers people what amounts to a substitute theology, a total perspective on the world, a Weltanschauung. As a religion, Marxism is the “god that has failed” as Arthur Koestler found it. Alongside its empty promises are grim realities. Marx turned away from Christianity when he could not see in it any real concern for suffering people. Now people are turning from Marxism for the same reason. And while Christians have been rediscovering the socially relevant gospel of Jesus, the serious inadequacies of Marxism have been showing up plainly. It is a humanism without a human face.

None of these criticisms fills me with glee. If only Marx had faced up to Jesus Christ, had understood the true scope of religion in human life, had anticipated the grim results of the choice he made that has brought untold suffering to the world in our time! But is it not still true that people turn away from the gospel without knowing what it is and run the risk of repeating the same mistakes? If only we could communicate that there is a better way: the good news that there is a loving Father who cares about justice for the oppressed and the dignity and worth of human life. Ours is a religion that is as likely to make us uncomfortable as comfortable. But in view of the alternatives, surely it is also the most intelligent choice a thinking person could make in deciding what to do with his life.

CLARK H. PINNOCK¹Dr. Pinnock is professor of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

According to the prophet Amos, the worst famine that can befall anyone is “not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11).

In our day, biblical preaching feeds the people of God with his Word. But while there may not be a famine in some pulpits, there is a degree of malnutrition caused by an unbalanced diet. Some parts of the Bible are preached over and over while other portions are ignored.

Perhaps the most neglected parts of the Word are the narratives of the Old Testament. These include large sections of the Pentateuch, the historical books, parts of Daniel, and the book of Jonah. I have preached some of my best-received sermons from these passages, and I have discovered several practical guidelines for preparing messages from narratives.

1. Emphasize people. Essentially, Old Testament narratives are the stories about people. History must be read in terms of the people who made it. Preaching must emphasize the human element more than the historical.

The Book of Judges is both a hall of fame and a rogues’ gallery. What preacher could fail to capitalize on the fascinating people of Judges? There was Deborah, in the front lines before women were registered for the draft; Gideon, with his almost comical fear followed by his utter failure to cope with his own success; and weak-willed Samson, the “super jock” of Scripture. It will make us familiar with ourselves, because in these Old Testament people we will see ourselves.

2. Explain actions. Usually the Bible tells us what its characters did with their lives, not what went on inside their heads. Don’t try to psychoanalyze the people of the Old Testament. Discover their characters through their actions.

For example, Gideon’s use of the fleece was an outgrowth of his semipagan superstitions. Failure to mention this fact could lead to misunderstanding and misapplication by the audience. Nothing less than a solid understanding of Old Testament history, culture, and geography will guide the preacher in evaluating the actions of Old Testament people.

3. Explore options. Old Testament characters become more real and easier to identify with if we think not only about what they did, but what they might have done in certain situations. Life is a series of choices; interest can easily be aroused by pondering them. Sometimes what someone did not do tells as much about him as what he actually did.

Consider Rehoboam, Solomon’s son (1 Kings 12). By following foolish political advice, he precipitated the rebellion of the northern kingdom. The text tells us that Rehoboam sought the advice of both older and younger men, following the counsel of the latter. But something is missing. Scripture tells us that Israel’s kings from Saul to Zedekiah sought supernatural advice in times of crisis. Rehoboam, however, does not appear to have sought the advice of God at all. This fact reveals as much about him as do his recorded actions. Old Testament characters faced options, and successful preaching about them will explore these options as well as the more obvious actions.

4. Contemporary main points. “What has this got to do with me?” is the usual audience response to Old Testament narratives. This is the fundamental question the preacher must answer. A universal theme in the text must be isolated, developed, and applied. But sometimes, though we are successful at isolating such a theme, we smother it in sermon construction by making a common technical mistake: we phrase the main points in historical instead of in contemporary terms.

For example, we might see the theme of Jonah 4 as “lovelessness.” A main point of a sermon on the chapter could be. “The Causes of Jonah’s Lovelessness.” But this is a ho-hum point. Who cares what caused Jonah’s lovelessness? What we care about is what causes our lovelessness. The main point should be, “The Causes of Lovelessness.” As a rule of thumb, always avoid mentioning any historical name, incident, or term in main points. This will help keep the points contemporary.

For too long the stories of the Old Testament have been relegated to the preschool Sunday school department. If we believe, with Paul, that “these things occurred as examples” (1 Cor. 10:6), we will seek to rediscover the rewards of studying and preaching them.

MICHAEL J. HOSTETLER¹Mr. Hostetler is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Mahomet, Illinois.

By the time the final credits begin, Jewish and Christian viewers of Raiders of the Lost Ark will probably be wondering why the producers of the film brought God into all this. And in a box at that.

Raiders is the latest production of Lucasfilm, Limited, a movie company owned by George Lucas, the man who created Star Wars. The director, Steven Spielberg, is a friend of Lucas, and the director of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Both have specialized in fast-paced adventure films, and the result of this, their first collaboration, is an exhilarating story of suspense.

The film is set in 1936. Archaeology professor Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is commissioned to locate the lost ark of the covenant. It seems that Hitler is determined to acquire the ark, convinced that it will make him invincible. The Nazis are on the verge of finding it. Jones must find it first.

The story moves from Nepal to Egypt to a secret Nazi base in the Mediterranean as Jones chases his prize. At every stop there are new opponents, new dangers. Jones faces certain death even few minutes, but he always manages to outwit or outfight his enemies. In its concentrated excitement, Raiders almost makes Star Wars seem dull.

Yes, the film is immensely entertaining, and the kids will love it. And yet—what is God doing here? And in a box, at that?

George Lucas is the most religiously oriented of American filmmakers. The Star Wars epics have an explicit theological content. Of course, Christians have frequently complained about the grab-bag theology of The Force, and rightly so. It’s there, though, an inseparable part of these films.

It is also worth noting that Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters lends itself to theological interpretation. It is easy to see images of religious ecstasy melded with the science-fiction plot of visitors from space.

So, we have had God as energy field from Lucas, and God as space traveler from Spielberg. But when they join forces, they give us—God in a box. It’s a let-down, but not really a surprise.

In the Star Wars films we are given a mushy, indefinite religion. The Force can’t be defined exactly. Only certain adepts can use it, and they can turn it to evil as well as good. Lucas stands behind goodness, but apparently just because he thinks goodness is nice. His heroes have no principles, only urges.

Nevertheless, because this religion is so vague, because it requires no hard thinking or believing, it is a safe religion. Lucas can ramble on about The Force for movie after movie and never alienate anybody.

Close Encounters provides a similar example. Spielberg’s aliens possess the usual science-fiction technology, combined with an ineffable incomprehensibility that Spielberg invests with religious overtones throughout the film. Some critics complained that the aliens’ actions make no sense. But indeed they do, if you realize that, for Spielberg, their coming is a religious experience. But Spielberg offers us a religion without reason or consistency: a safe religion.

Now these two talented men have presented us a golden box with God in it. But this time it’s our God, Yahweh, the historical God who has done real things in real places, about whom people believe specific things.

This is why Raiders has almost nothing to do with God. Except for the climactic theophany, this film could have been about the Maltese Falcon, or the Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or the Light at the End of the Tunnel. Plainly, the ark of God was chosen as a dramatic device to raise the ante as high as it could go. The question whether God is inside is raised to create emotional tension, not to present the most basic of moral questions. These questions are deliberately ignored, because the answers are hard and lead us where we would not go. Biblical faith is not safe.

In the beginning, Jones believes that the ark is no more than a valuable treasure. By the film’s end, after God has put in an appearance (a feminine apparition!), Jones has advanced little further. He realizes that the ark is a storehouse of incredible power, but he never connects this power to the God whose ark it is. He closes his eyes in God’s presence and is therefore spared, but the implications of his escape are never brought up. Having seen proof that one Bible story is true, he does not ask whether the others might be true also. He does not wonder how else God might work in the world.

And why should he? To judge by this movie, the Hebrew God is a local entity, real enough, but only inside that old box. The Force changes the destiny of planets. The spacemen in Close Encounters bring enlightenment to mankind. But the dusty old God of Moses has climbed into a gold-plated hope chest. And the worst thing you could possibly do is open the box and let him out. After punishing the Nazis who open the ark, God climbs back inside and slams the lid.

Of course, nothing blasphemous occurs in Raiders. Irreligion doesn’t sell tickets. And yet, one senses a certain contempt for God in all this: the idea that he’s all right in his place, but that it’s wise to keep him locked away when he’s not killing Nazis.

Jews and Christians know that God is everywhere, not just in the ark, and that his wrath is only one manifestation of his being. We may know it, but generally we don’t live as if it were so. If we did, there would be less reason for people like Lucas and Spielberg to lock God in a crate with Top Secret stenciled on the side. If it is unsafe for God to be let loose, in our entertainments or anywhere else, it is because we have made it so.

HIAWATHA BRAY¹Mr. Bray, a free-lance writer in Chicago, is employed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Where Is the Ark?

Probably most Christians and Jews have never wondered what happened to the ark of the covenant—until Raiders, that is. The movie story line has the ark taken from Jerusalem by invading Egyptians and hidden in the ruined city of Tanis in North Africa.

William LaSor, professor emeritus of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, told an Associated Press reporter of legends that say the prophet Jeremiah hid the ark in limestone caves around Jerusalem. However, if the ark was hidden in a cave in the temple area, he said, it would now be under the Moslem shrine (the Dome of the Rock), “and you can’t take a bunch of Jewish archaeologists in there to dig.” He doubts the likelihood of discovery: made of wood in the fourteenth century B.C., it is hard to believe it has been preserved all that time.

Biblical archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, told CT he is unaware of anyone ever trying to find the ark. Most archaeologists believe it was stolen by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. And Gerald Larue, professor of biblical history and archaeology at the University of Southern California, says the prospect is that the Babylonians stripped the gold from it, or just held it in their collection.

—Editors

But was weapon relinquished too soon to effect real change?

If you want to do something to rid television of profanity, sex, and violence, switch off your set, write protest letters to network officials, or join a PTA lobby. But if you really want to do something, pull together a large group of people (three to five million will do), get backing from the Moral Majority, and plan a boycott. Threaten to stop buying products of companies that sponsor offending programs—and watch the fur fly.

That’s just what Donald B. Wildmon, founder of the Coalition for Better Television, did. He proposed a one-year boycott of products from sponsors of television shows marked offensive by 4,000 volunteer monitors during a three-month period (CT, Mar. 13, 1981, p. 74).

The monitors produced a list of sponsors—but Wildmon never used it to effect his boycott. One week before the scheduled announcement of his list, Wildmon met with advertisers in Memphis and made an eleventh-hour decision to hold off on the boycott.

Justifying the boycott, Wildmon, a United Methodist clergyman, had said, “Our values, our principles, our morals—those things which are very dear and meaningful to us—have been ridiculed, belittled, mocked, and insulted by the networks. We feel the boycott will be criticized very loudly by the networks and the companies, but that’s nothing new to us. The only thing that matters to them is money and we’re ready to see the boycott through to prove our point.”

Wildmon’s bark had some bite. The National Federation for Decency, which he founded, has successfully pressured television sponsors in the past. Last year CBS lost $5 million from worried advertisers who were warned about a film that contained an incestuous relationship.

Advertisers are deeply afraid of such consumer action, said an official from Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborne (BBDO), one of America’s largest advertising agencies. “It only takes a percentage point or two of shift in the retail sales of washing machines or K-cars to make a tremendous difference in profits. If push came to shove, the advertisers would lean on the producers to make sure that the boycott ended fast” (Saturday Review, Feb. 1981).

Wildmon planned to announce his list of offending sponsors at a June 29 press conference, but Proctor Gamble, television’s biggest and most influential sponsor, made an announcement of its own two weeks earlier. P & G would withdraw backing from more than 50 shows.

Although P & G denied that Wildmon’s impending boycott forced its decision, Owen B. Butler, chairman of the company, said at a meeting of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in Los Angeles, “We think the Coalition for Better Television is expressing some very important and broadly held views about gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity.”

He added, “I can assure you that we are listening very carefully to what they say.” Even more surprising than the P & G announcement, however, was Butler’s speech. According to Broadcaster magazine (June 22, 1981), “Except in marketing and advertising, P & G has long sought to maintain a minimum profile.… Butler’s speech … was in fact believed to be the first public speech by any P & G head in at least five years.”

Reaction to P & G’s move was immediate and angry, much of it directed against the coalition. “The Coalition has indicated that it intends to boycott advertisers,” stated the Association of National Advertisers. “Its purpose in doing so can only be to gain control of television’s economic base and thereby impose its own wishes and standards on both the television medium and on television viewers. Such means are coercive and contrary to the spirit and purpose of our free institutions.”

The networks also saw teeth in the impending boycott. Fred Silverman, then NBC president, warned that if the boycott proved successful, the coalition and Moral Majority might seek control over all future programming.

Gene Jankowski of CBS said, “We are now faced with an organized attempt not just to block or remove a specific program or series, but to set the standards that will prevail for the entire medium—an unprecedented usurpation of the individual viewer’s right of choice and a direct assault on the creative community’s freedom of enterprise. It is an attempt at prior restraint on a grand scale.”

Not all commentary was directed against the group, however. Said Grant Tinker of MTM Productions in Hollywood, “If we did our job better, we wouldn’t have the Moral Majority telling us to clean up our act.”

As incoming NBC chairman and chief executive officer, replacing Fred Silverman, Grant Tinker will undoubtedly exert a new influence on network programming. “Tinker will probably delegate more responsibility, place a greater emphasis on quality shows, and be more willing to listen to the Moral Majority and other critics of sex, violence, and profanity on TV,” predicted TV Guide. In reference to right-wing group attempts to censor television, Tinker said, “There may be some rocky moments, but I think that all this really is healthy. It is a good time for self-examination for the industry.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger quoted a popular editorial writer: “A prudent public would be suspicious of groups that are more interested in demonstrating their boycott power than patiently persuading listeners to their point of view.” He added: “The fact is the prudent public is about plumb out of patience. This country is now bursting with reasonable, well-educated, and very upset young parents who are quite willing to sit quietly while the undainty folks from the Moral Majority go out there and clean up the mess.”

Columns, editorials, cartoons, and news stories evidenced the mounting impact of the coalition boycott. Television network officials, big-name sponsors, the news media, and the public all awaited the big day in June when Wildmon’s “hit list” would be announced.

But the announcement never came. June 29 came and went, and with it went the coalition boycott resolve. Wildmon carefully explained why: the boycott was no longer necessary because meetings with executives of companies that advertise on television had shown him that advertisers “basically share these same concerns” (New York Times, June 30). Furthermore, advertisers had “pledged to clean up television,” and, as far as he was concerned, “conversation, consultation, and fair compromise [provide] a far more commendable course to resolve conflict than confrontation.”

But just to make sure those advertisers lived up to promises made to him, Wildmon said his group could still institute a boycott in the fall if the new season’s programs contain too much sex, violence, or profanity.

Do good guys always finish last? Did a naïve coalition succumb to the blandishments of the savvy networks? Tune in this fall to see from the TV prime-time fare whether the coalition won its spurs—or flinched too soon.

North American Scene

Guess who got a predawn telephone call from the prime minister of Israel shortly after his raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell, of course. Falwell said Begin called because he was worried U.S. religious leaders would misunderstand the bomb raid, and said, “Dr. Jerry, I wish you’d communicate to the American people and the Christian public that we’re not warmongers. We’re just trying to save our little children from annihilation.” Falwell’s reply? “Mr. Prime Minister, I want to congratulate you for a mission that made us very proud that we manufacture those F-16s. In my opinion, you must’ve put it right down the smokestack.”

A “lackluster” program and rumors of light attendance sent delegates to the American Baptist Convention in Puerto Rico expecting more play than business. But enthusiastic local Baptists, the fastest-growing group in the denomination (membership up 50 percent in the last five years), filled the convention center to overflowing. Said ABC general secretary Robert C. Campbell, “I want to learn from those kinds of Baptists.”

Ministers in record numbers are being fired or leaving their jobs for other careers. According to a number of recent surveys, this trend is due to minister burnout, an emotional deterioriation that occurs in most high-pressure professions. The condition often results in loss of motivation and enthusiasm, and in doubts about the validity of the call to ministry—even uncertainty about personal faith.

Feisty Preus yields gavel to self-effacing Bohlmann.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod voted last month to break off intercommunion and exchange of ministers and members with the American Lutheran Church.

The action by the fifty-fourth regular assembly of the denomination—started by German immigrants to the midwest—followed the recommendation of its Commission on Theology and Church Relations that altar and pulpit fellowship be severed. It came 12 years after the ALC link was formed in 1969. That was the same assembly that elected conservative Jacob A. O. Preus president, ushering in a decade of intense sparring between conservatives and moderates. (The LCMS does not admit to having a liberal wing since it is the most conservative of the four major North American Lutheran denominations.)

Although theological discussions between the two denominations were held regularly over the 12-year period, differences were not narrowed; in fact, they increased. Those differences included the inerrancy of the Bible, what subscribing to the creeds entails, ordination of women, abortion, and membership in ecumenical organizations.

Lack of progress prompted the LCMS to move four years ago to a status of “fellowship in protest,” implying that if no significant progress were made, the altar and pulpit fellowship link should be broken. Two years ago, the biennial assembly voted to extend the protest status for two more years. But, as the Commission on Theology and Church Relations chairman noted, the synod could not drag on the fellowship in protest “interminably” and retain its integrity.

The resolution to cut the special tie was debated for two-and-a-half hours, with pro-and-con sentiment more or less evenly matched. When the vote came, it was close: 590 delegates voted for the break, 494 opposed it.

The near stand-off seemed to indicate weariness from the years of theological turmoil and confusion over the meaning of altar and pulpit fellowship. Such a relationship, according to LCMS staff (and in contrast to the ALC understanding), is the closest possible interdenominational tie, based on substantial doctrinal agreement. It has nothing, they stress, to do with basic Christian fellowship, or with theological dialogue.

This year’s assembly marked a changing of the guard in Missouri Synod leadership. Both president Preus and first vice-president Edwin C. Weber—in that position for eight years—had announced last fall their decisions not to seek reelection.

Centrist Ralph A. Bohlmann, president of Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis, led a slate of five candidates from the first of four ballots. Robert C. Sauer, a conservative aide to Preus for eight years, was eliminated on the first ballot. Gerhardt W. Hyatt, a bit to the left of center and president of Concordia College in Saint Paul, Minnesota, was eliminated on the second ballot. Hyatt spent most of his career as a military chaplain, and so is not well known throughout the synod.

At this point, moderate Charles S. Mueller, pastor of Trinity Church, Roselle, Illinois, was in second place, and conservative Walter A. Maier, Jr., theology professor at Concordia Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, was in third. Maier, son of the long-time “Lutheran Hour” speaker, is well known in LCMS circles. His prospects were clouded, however, by recent charges by Preus that he deviates from Lutheran belief on the matter of objective justification (CT, March 13, 1981, p. 56).

Maier was eliminated on the third ballot. Since delegates then transferred Maier’s entire block of votes to centrist Bohlmann rather than to the relatively liberal Mueller, Bohlmann was elected handily on the fourth ballot.

A white-haired 49, Bohlmann appears to fit the mood of his synod. He is polished, low-key, and steady in contrast to Preus’s bluff, hearty, shoot-from-the-hip style.

His doctrinal credentials are solid. He championed orthodox theology at Concordia in Saint Louis when the firing of liberal president John H. Tietjen in 1974 precipitated an exodus of about 40 faculty members and 600 students—and he became president soon afterward. He has built the school’s student body back up to 700.

Bohlmann also served over the entire 12-year span of the committee that held discussions with the American Lutheran Church. But he is expected to downplay confrontation and to shift to helping Missouri Synod Lutherans work through what their denominational distinctives mean in practice.

In his first press conference as president-elect (he will assume office in September), Bohlmann said he would move from the current “everything or nothing at all” fellowship and cooperation at the local level to more flexibility—making the level of fellowship and cooperation “commensurate with the level of agreement.”

The liberal and conservative wings of the synod dueled again over the first vice-presidency, with some of the same candidates dominating. Mueller led on the first ballot, since conservative votes were again split between Sauer and Maier. This time, however, Sauer took the lead on the second ballot as marginal candidates were eliminated, and he was elected on the third.

As Preus chaired his last convention, delegations passed a resolution citing, among other things, his “helping to maintain the LCMS as a solid confessional church body.” That he had certainly done, as evidenced by the showdown at the Saint Louis seminary—provoking an exodus of the synod’s more liberal-leaning churches.

The complexion of the denomination that remains is slightly weighted in favor of the conservatives, as demonstrated by the actions of this year’s convention. But only time will tell if the courtly scholar elected there can hold the line as effectively as the gutsy scrapper.

Evangelism

Knechtle Paces Comeback Of Open-Air Preaching

Evangelist Cliffe Knechtle can probably relate to the popular comic who says, “I just don’t get no respect.”

Knechtle just finished a year of preaching in the open air on more than 30 college campuses nationwide. He encountered fist-waving Jewish activisits in New York, mustard-slathered food thrown at his speaker’s podium in Florida, and a pie thrown by an Ivy Leaguer (it missed).

But rather than coming out depressed or paranoid, Knechtle was enthused. He says open-air evangelism proved to be a highly effective way to reach non-Christian students with a gospel message. And just as important in his eyes, the campus Christians themselves were encouraged to share their faith—and did so.

Christians should recognize again the effectiveness of open-air preaching, and not write it off as an archaic throwback to the John Wesley era, he feels.

Knechtle recently spent a week at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, in conjunction with evangelist Leighton Ford’s campaign there. Weather permitting, Knechtle preached outside to groups of from 10 to 100 on relevant student topics: stress, sex, success. Question and answer periods that followed—central to all Knechtle’s open-air meetings—sometimes lasted several hours. He also held nightly meetings in various dormitories. A singer helped draw a crowd, then Knechtle opened up with a message and the discussion periods.

Even skeptical Ball State students commented about Knechtle’s sincerity—his honesty in saying so, for instance, if he didn’t know the answer to a tough question. A Leighton Ford staff member observed, “Open-air preachers have been around for years, but Knechtle does it with intelligence.”

Knechtle, 27, an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staff member who attends the First Baptist Church in Sudbury, Massachusetts, when he’s not traveling, goes only to campuses where Christian student groups have invited him. Organizers clear Knechtle’s activities with the school administration, and Christian students provide on-campus publicity. These steps lead to a campus awareness that “this is not just some guy coming in on his own and starting to wing it, but something that has been planned by the Christians on campus,” he says.

Knechtle relies heavily on the support of Christian students. He asks some to gather at the spot where he’s preaching—always a place with high student traffic. They create a crowd feel and thereby help attract other listeners. But they also intend to share their faith one-to-one with other listeners who have gathered, asking, as a springboard, for reactions to what Knechtle is saying.

Also, Knechtle asks these Christians beforehand to “break the ice” by asking a first question during the discussion period. For instance, at Wheaton (Massachusetts) College, an all-girls’ school, a Christian asked Knechtle to explain Paul’s view of women in the New Testament: an initial group of 5 students soon grew to 60, including some professors.

A time for questions is essential to open-air preaching, Knechtle says. This counteracts the stereotype of the “fire-and-brimstone preacher” who demands an immediate decision, or who seems to manipulate. A preacher should listen, not just talk, Knechtle believes, and he says students have told him they appreciate his vulnerability.

Listeners have made Christian commitments at the meetings. But Knechtle says the involvement and resultant strengthening of Christian students at the open-air meetings is nearly as important. Open airpreaching “breaks the sound barrier,” he says, by creating a setting for a one-to-one witness between persons in his audience.

What’s more, Knechtle says, “When the Christians begin hearing Christ called four-letter words … and the battle gets out into the open, closet Christians are forced to take a stand either with Christ or away from him.”

Knechtle also says there’s a confidence boost: “Christians who have been intimidated intellectually, psychologically, even physically, are beginning to see the gospel can stand in the marketplace, and that we don’t have to apologize intellectually for our faith in Christ.”

That the open-air meetings sometimes unite Christians was shown at Western Illinois University, where the IVCF chapter grew from 5 to 20 members after Knechtle’s time there.

Knechtle began to pray for preaching invitations several years ago while a student at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. When none came, he felt led to witness one-to-one and in bars in downtown Boston. Other seminarians later joined him in his bar-preaching outreach.

After Knechtle’s graduation from Gordon two years ago, IVCF invited him onto the staff as a campus evangelist. But after a time of speaking in student unions where “99.9 percent of the audience was Christian,” Knechtle thought there had to be a better way. He gave open-air preaching a test run a year ago during IVCF beach evangelism in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Since then, his open-air preaching opportunities have taken off.

But is open-air preaching too unsophisticated for the college crowd and other listeners? “Oh, that’s easy,” Knechtle said. “People are so sick and tired of the slick put-on, the super-shiny production. They want to see people who really believe in something enough to become vulnerable, who will stand up and have people take potshots at them, who will stand there and not respond in hatred or seek revenge, but in love, tell about Christ.”

PRESTON PARRISH AND JOHN MAUST

That’s what happened at Corrymeela’s Summerfest.

When Mother Teresa of Calcutta came to Northern Ireland’s Corrymeela community for its summer festival last month, her presence confirmed the community’s international standing as a center for peace and reconciliation in a troubled land. Corrymeela was formed by mostly Protestant students from Queens University in 1964. It has since expanded to embrace people of different denominations in the difficult work of bridge building.

Mother Teresa came to talk to audiences at the Corrymeela “Summerfest” at picturesque Ballycastle, 60 miles north of Belfast on the County Antrum coast overlooking the North Sea channel and Scotland. A collection of Christian workshops and meetings, Summerfest was much like the biennial Kirchentag of the churches in West Germany. The four days of meetings at Corrymeela showed the diverse concerns of the Corrymeela community: from prison reform and denominational schooling throughout the island, to the work of bridge building at home between Protestants and Roman Catholics, to the needs of the Third World.

Some 500 people attended each day and there was an especially big audience for Mother Teresa. Her talk on the Lord’s Prayer greatly impressed listeners. It was not so much what she said as the way in which she said it. She spoke of love and forgiveness and the need for prayer, and for trust in God. She told how she cared for dying people in Calcutta. “I took one man off the street and gave him shelter. He said to me that he had been forced to live like an animal but in our place of shelter he would die like an angel,” she said. Mother Teresa spoke with the authority of someone who has lived out the Lord’s command, “Love your neighbor.”

That command is very much at the heart of the work at Corrymeela. Since its formation it has built many small bridges that have helped sustain some light in the darkness of Northern Ireland. For example, it has provided holidays for Protestant and Roman Catholic families who otherwise would not have met. It has brought together leaders from among the community’s politicians, and even members of paramilitary organizations. In neutral Corrymeela—the Gaelic Irish name for “hill of harmony”—efforts have been made to weaken barriers and to begin to break down old hatreds that divide men and women in Ireland. There have not been quick or spectacular successes; they would be impossible after so many centuries of division and misunderstanding. But small victories have been won that are encouraging for the future.

One of the major problems in Northern Ireland is mixed marriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Hence, a new mixed marriages association was formed out of Corrymeela. It was also Corrymeela that helped form the cross group for people who had lost loved ones in the violence. Its principal founder is Maura Kiely, whose son gunmen shot dead on the steps of a Belfast church. For a long time she was in despair and almost lost her faith, but in the end, she felt God calling her to form the new group. She said, “If I could not forgive in my heart, how could I say the Lord’s Prayer?”

Corrymeela has 1,000 active members and “friends” and many more wellwishers and sympathizers. It is independent of the main churches in Ireland, though it has Protestant and Roman Catholic members. The founder is Ray Davey, a Presbyterian minister who was formerly the chaplain at Queens University. During World War II he worked with the armed forces as a noncombatant, was captured, and made a prisoner of war. His experiences in prison camps and working with young people at university helped to form his views on the need for a community based on Christian principles.

Davey said, “Corrymeela has been going for a long time and we have overcome many difficulties while retaining this sense of Christian community. But the honeymoon period is over. We are now getting down to the hurts in society, to the issues that divide people.” This was borne out by the range of topics discussed at Corrymeela and by its ongoing work in Ballycastle and at Belfast, where it has also opened an office near some of the city’s more deprived areas.

Each year Corrymeela attracts many young people from overseas, including America. One of the main Summerfest organizers was Doug Baker, a young American Presbyterian who has been loaned to Corrymeela for a three-year period. Originally from Spokane, Washington, he was for some time Presbyterian minister at Berwyn, near Philadelphia.

Said Baker, “Summerfest has been a gathering of God’s people to celebrate our unity and to consider the implications of following Christ in Ireland and in the world today.” Those implications also affect the churches in America, and Baker believes that Americans could learn from the Irish experience, particularly at Corrymeela. “We have learned here that working together is vitally important. In America many people look on the ecumenical movement as something of a luxury that people do not really need. Here, in the midst of everything, we feel that ecumenism is not just a luxury. In fact, it is a vital necessity in moving forward to carry on the work for Christ.”

Another summer visitor to Corrymeela has been Tom Kane, a stout, young Catholic priest who enjoys the nickname Citizen Kane. An expert in drama and liturgy from Washington, D.C., he found out about Corrymeela from a member at a conference in Sweden and is spending six weeks at Ballycastle. Kane said, “I have learned that in the midst of all the division there is hope. In America, most people believe that in Ireland there is mainly violence; they don’t know of the kind of work that goes on at Corrymeela. There are people working to the future with vision and with Christian hope.”

Derick Wilson, a young Protestant layman who is site director at Corrymeela, summed up the importance and the implications of Mother Teresa’s visit. “She came here as a woman who spoke from the heart, he said. “Her words, like her actions, sprang from an inner calm, but she was saying to us clearly that you as Christians have been thrust into the world to work. We in Ireland have to work out the implications of her words in our own society. As Christians we do not have the right to say, ‘I’m okay with God but I don’t care about my fellow man.’ Christians just cannot do that.”

At Corrymeela they care and work for everybody.

Singapore Congress

Chinese Believers Adopt 10-Year Evangelism Plans

After the 1974 Lausanne Congress where Chinese had met regularly for prayer, Hong Kong pastor Thomas Wang sensed a new dimension. “Could it be,” he asked, “that out of the deep-rooted traditional individualism a chastened, outreaching, and more selfless Chinese church is finally emerging?”

It could indeed. This was confirmed at the first Chinese Congress on World Evangelization (CCOWE) held in Hong Kong in 1976, which, by bringing together for the first time Chinese believers from every continent, wrote a new page in Chinese church history. They acknowledged that as God had blessed their race in multiplying and spreading it all over the world, therein lay a unique opportunity to spread the gospel. They affirmed, moreover, a significant dual responsibility: “to reach the Chinese, and to reach all mankind.”

This summer the second CCOWE took place in Singapore. Its theme: “Life and Ministry—Chinese Churches Confronting the ’80s.” Some 1,200 participants discussed their aims: to promote unity and cooperation among Chinese churches; to tackle contemporary problems; to explore the evangelization of mainland China (a taboo subject at the earlier congress); to study evangelistic strategies; to further cooperation with Western and Third World churches; to encourage the commitment of young Chinese Christians to the ministry; and to envision the ministry of the Chinese Church in the 1980s.

An ambitious 10-year program required each of the 38 territorial districts to produce a precongress outline of its goals for the next decade. Canada West, for example, plans to increase congregations there from 60 to 190, and believers from 3,600 to 25,000. This forward-looking approach was also reflected in an impressively researched 610-page Chinese Churches Handbook given to all participants. Implementation of the 10-year proposals, said general secretary Thomas Wang, would enable the Chinese church “to move forward with one accord, with specific goals, with well-planned ministries, and with steady strides.” Wang was looking so far ahead that at one point he referred to the sixth CCOWE scheduled for the year 2001. Chairman Philip Teng, chairman of the Hong Kong-based Chinese Coordination Center of World Evangelism, sponsor of the once-in-five-years congresses, referred to a departure from Chinese egocentricity to a “new level of spiritual internationalism.”

Even the problems raised at Singapore were in some sense international ones: the casualty rate among first-term missionaries, the exodus of many pastors to North America, and the imbalance when more women than men undertake Bible training courses. Among the Chinese there is also an awakening social concern regarding the implications of banditry on the Jerusalem-Jericho road, and the need to minister to “the totality of man.”

While no official statement came out of the congress, suggestions from the different working groups went to make up a consensus on various topics, mirrored but not officially manufactured in platform analyses. Recommendations thus made included the planting of a new church wherever an existing congregation reached 200; similar action where a Chinese community numbered 1,000; and the allocation of 20 percent of church income to church planting.

At one of the evening meetings, which were open to the public, 200 people went forward to dedicate themselves to full-time Christian service. Many of them will go to work among their own race, only 1.59 percent of which is Christian, and which increased even during the Singapore congress by more than a quarter million.

Working sessions ended with Communion after the Anglican form. The next CCOWE is scheduled for Taiwan in 1986.

J. D. DOUGLAS

World Scene

Maryknollers continue to draw fire in Latin America and at home. Founded in 1911 as the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, the group shifted emphasis in 1966 to rally oppressed people tb fight for their civil and economic rights. Neoconservative Catholic Michael Novak has accused the group of “promoting Christian Marxism—uncritically, naïvely, grandly, and extensively.” The group’s publishing house, Orbis Books, further complicates the Maryknollers’ reputation. Orbis has become a leading outlet for radical social thinking from Third World theologians. Though the majority of Maryknollers may be political moderates, their American notions about politics and human rights sound revolutionary in Latin America. However, Vicar General John Habert said recently, “If we’re not doing this for the sake of the gospel, none of it makes sense.”

Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing spent two days living, eating, and praying with monks at Mount Athos in Northern Greece in June. No woman or female animal is allowed in the secluded, all-male monastic district, which consists of about 20 monasteries of the Order of Saint Basil of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Irish Protestant leader Ian Paisley escaped unhurt after a single shot was fired at him as he drove through Belfast last month. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility, saying the clergyman is a “legitimate target.” The attack came a day after Paisley vowed to raise a “Protestant army to fight the Irish Republican Army.” It also occurred in the wake of a British government plan to create an advisory council for Northern Ireland, to consist of leading Protestants and Catholics. Although leaders of both religious groups immediately rejected the idea, 62 percent of Roman Catholics and 70 percent of Protestants favor the power-sharing concept, according to a poll published by the London Sunday Times.

Two subsidiaries of the Unification Church may soon lose their charitable status in Britain. Ninety members of Parliament have signed a petition, urging removal from the charity register of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the Sun Myung Moon Foundation. The church’s leader in Britain, Denis Orme, recently lost a libel action against the Daily Mail, which had accused the sect of brainwashing converts and breaking up families. The Unification Church has a registered annual income in Britain of about $3 million. It currently enjoys exemption from a corporation tax, which, at a rate of 30 percent, adds up to a saving of $900,000 a year.

Spanish Catholic church leaders insist their members refrain from obtaining divorces, though a new law passed by Parliament allows them to do so. A statement issued by the Bishops Conference warned that “those who do so will put themselves in an irregular situation before God and the church.” The new law ends a 40-year ban on divorce dating from the regime of dictator Francisco Franco. When the law takes effect this month, up to 500,000 Spaniards are expected to file for divorce by mutual consent following a period of legal separation.

The largest Roman Catholic publisher in Yugoslavia recently published an Albanian New Testament in contemporary language similar to Good News for Modern Man. Krscanska Sadansjost (Contemporary Christianity) is distributing 10,000 copies of the book in Kosovo, an autonomous province where one million Albanians live (another 2.8 million Albanians live in Albania). The area has recently been the scene of unrest among Albanians lobbying for the formation of Kosovo as a separate socialist republic within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Approximately half the Albanian population of Kosovo is Catholic. The other half is Muslim. The New Testament, which sells at a reasonable $3 per copy, has been well received by the Catholics.

Uganda Army troops killed at least 86 persons, mainly women and children, at the Ombachi Catholic Mission near Arua, in the West Nile province in June. More than 70 others among about 10,000 refugees under Red Cross protection were wounded. The district, former president Amin’s home ground, received favorable treatment during his rule. Since his overthrow, however, the Acholi-dominated army has severely repressed the Nilotic tribes. Much of the hostility is directed at Catholic missions, as the church is closely identified with the opposition Democratic Party. Six missions have been looted since last October. Army sources said they thought the casualties at Ombachi were guerrillas, but eye-witnesses maintain that the soldiers ran amok.

Unknown attackers used explosives and flammable liquid to destroy an Anglican seminary complex in Namibia in June. According to Bishop James Kaulama, the attack occurred in the early hours of the morning. Residents of the compound reported hearing doors being forced open and windows smashed. A night curfew enforced in the area prevented them from investigating the cause of explosions until the following day. Bishop Kaulama said that whoever destroyed Saint Mary’s Mission Diocesan Seminary belonged to antichurch forces in the country. He also said parish members had a forgiving spirit for the culprits.

Two denominations have decided to preach to soldiers on both sides in South Africa. Chaplains of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa and the Anglican church will serve the South African army and the fighters of the freedom movements, including the South West African Peoples Organization (SWAPO), and the African National Congress (ANC). Sol Jacobs, director of mission and evangelism for the South African Council of Churches (SACC), was recently arrested on his return from visiting South African refugees in Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, and Zimbabwe. There are between 60,000 and 100,000 black refugees in those countries. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the South African Defense Force has said that though the army has no objection to SACC’s plans, it cannot guarantee the safety of the chaplains.

The Malagasy Bible Society and the Africa Inland Mission have launched the Faharentana (Village of Sowers) Project on the island of Madagascar. Located 30 miles west of the Malagasy capital, Tananarive, and spanning more than 600 acres, the main concerns of the project are evangelism, and Bible teaching and distribution. A nucleus of 15 Christian families will pioneer the effort, growing rice and fruit, and producing cattle, chicken, and fish. Sixty families are expected to support themselves thus, and Faharentana may become a conference center for groups from all over the island.

Iran’s ruling Shi’ite Muslims have intensified persecution of Baha’is. By May of this year, at least 18 Baha’is had been executed for their faith. Several prominent Baha’i leaders have been arrested and imprisoned, and the government has seized Baha’i holy places, including the house of Bab, considered the holiest Baha’i site. Other properties seized include hospitals, youth centers, national headquarters, and cemeteries. Initially, Iranian courts charged Baha’is with collaborating with the U.S., Israel, or the late shah’s regime. Now, the rulers regard the Baha’i faith, which affirms the equality of men and women, heretical.

A mass conversion of India’s Harijans (Untouchables) to Islam has taken place in southern Tamil Nadu. The Hindu group, Arya Samaj, alleged that coercion and inducements were employed. However, the union minister of state, Yogendra Mackwana, said the Harijans, who previously embraced Christianity or Buddhism, found the oppression and humiliation they frequently faced in the country continued under those religions. Asked why they preferred Islam to Christianity, some converts explained that Christian missonaries took interest in them only until their conversion. The Islamic society, on the other hand, cared for them even after conversion.

Vietnam will receive 250 tons of wheat flour from the Mennonite Central Committee after all. The U. S. Department of Commerce has granted a license allowing the shipment, reversing an earlier decision.

With Poland at Crossroads …

Polish Pastors Meet And Pledge Evangelism Thrust

More than 100 pastors representing all eight denominations of the Polish Ecumenical Council (PEC) met in late June in Warsaw’s Baptist church to discuss new methods of evangelism in the face of unprecedented opportunities for spreading the gospel in Poland.

“I hope the speakers can give us some insights, and share useful methods that will help us see new ways of evangelism,” remarked Christian church pastor Konstantz Jakonink as the conference began. Five days later, assessing the impact of the meeting, Reformed Bishop Zdzislaw Tranda noted, “This conference has given us confidence and hope and instruction.

The conference, cosponsored by the PEC and World Vision International, came at a strategic time in the spiritual, economic, and political history of Poland. Long lines outside markets were a common sight throughout Warsaw, as people waited to redeem ration cards for butter, milk, sugar, and meat. The $25 billion foreign debt amassed by Poland had led to a scarcity of nearly all essential items. Politically, the nation was still tense. Several pastors bypassed the conference, fearing to be caught away from home lest the Russians invaded to squelch Poland’s political reform movement.

Yet a spirit of optimism pervaded the conference. The pastors were exhorted by Indian evangelist Samuel Kamaleson, World Vision president Stanley Mooneyham, former London Bible College principal Gilbert Kirby, PEC president Withold Benedyktowicz, and Bishop Tranda.

Many speakers dwelt on the preconditions—both social and biblical—for revival. Bishop Tranda decried the political and moral decline in Poland and called on the pastors to identify themselves with the country’s sins. “We must all ask forgiveness,” he declared.

Mooneyham told the crowd that “a redeemed, reconciled, reconciling community is the milieu in which evangelism takes place.” It was a challenging remark, considering the wide divergence of theological positions that are held by the various PEC members. Their positions have sometimes fragmented the ecumenical thrust of evangelism in Poland.

(PEC represents the Orthodox Church, the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession [Lutheran], the Polish diocese of the Polish National Catholic church, the Old Catholic Mariavite church, the Reformed Evangelical church, the Polish Baptist Union, the Polish Methodist church, and the United Evangelical church [which, among others, includes Pentecostals, Brethren, and Disciples of Christ]. Protestants comprise less than 1 percent of Poland’s 35 million people. The Roman Catholic church claims about 97 percent of the Polish population.)

Practical advice abounded and led to a variety of new ministry proposals. One pastor said he had received encouragement to begin an outreach to orphans. A women’s group representative spoke of expanding a small ministry to members of the health profession. A pastor’s wife said she would begin a ministry to mothers with young children. And Bishop Tranda spoke of translating more evangelistic education material into Polish.

Bible Society president Barbara Narzynska reminded the pastors that requests for Bibles this year by the Polish people is a good indication that the field is ripe for harvest. Last year, the society distributed about 200,000 entire Bibles, New Testaments, and Gospels. In the first five months of 1981, more than 200,000 were sold. “We could distribute a million more,” Narzynska said. She noted that the government places no restrictions on the distribution of Bibles, and all society material is printed at a government printing house. “All they ask is that we supply the paper and ink,” she said.

A renewed interest in the Bible began with Billy Graham’s visit to Poland in 1978, said Narzynska, and accelerated during last summer’s wave of strikes and economic woes. “The Bible is a source of comfort for people in troubled times,” she remarked.

Pastor Jakonink, however, who lives in Bielsk-Podlaski, near the Soviet border, called the election of Pope John Paul II a hindrance to evangelism in Poland. “Too many nominal believers, especially Catholics, think that because there is a Polish Pope, they can be proud and satisfied. With the exception of the Catholic charismatics and the ‘Oasis’ group, I don’t see a great thrust toward reading God’s Word. This makes it difficult to evangelize when people think they are already spiritually sound because they have a Polish Pope.”

But Jakonink said he was encouraged by the conference: “We are expecting and believing that God will use us for a greater work in Poland.”

KENNY WATERS

Editor at large J. D. Douglas lives up to his title. Before covering the Chinese Congress on World Evangelization in Singapore (p. 39), he filed this assessment from Salisbury.

Reflecting the piety of a past owner, my hotel in Zimbabwe had a little chapel on the top floor. In it I found a visitors’ book with an entry referring to the country’s first anniversary celebrations earlier this year. It said: “I pray that this land will overcome its problems of intolerance and political hooliganism. May all Black and White learn to respect each other.”

Some people are gloomily predicting a black backlash against the whites who have remained in the country (many have left for South Africa, Australia, and Britain). I saw no sign of this, apart from a couple of restaurant waiters whose surly attitude made me want to say, “I’m as good as you are.”

One hears of isolated incidents in rural areas, but on the whole, even critics of Prime Minister Mugabe have expressed surprise at Zimbabwe’s political stability. Unexpected confirmation of this came one morning when I saw Ian Smith, the last white prime minister, walking alone in a Salisbury street.

Asked how political events have affected the church, African Enterprise’s local team leader, Chris Sewell, said: “I think the church, like all of the white population, was apprehensive about its future when the present government came to power with a strong Marxist reputation behind it. So far, no statement has suggested the government is anti-Christian or anti-church. Christians have been loudly and clearly exhorted to tailor Christianity to the African tribal tradition of going to God through the ancestral spirits. That is a very definite point.”

A challenging task confronts Christians in this young country, which captured world headlines for some years. That they are facing up to it impressively can be seen from a monthly prayer leaflet I picked up. The wording is imaginative and discerning, pinpointing problems but doing it positively. Some sample requests:

“Pray for the schooling of children and for closer understanding between parents and education authorities. Pray for the Minister of Education.” And it names him.

“Pray for a good harvest and sufficient transport to carry the crops to market. Pray for the Minister of Agriculture.” It names him.

“Pray that all who handle public funds may be faithful stewards. Pray for the Minister of Finance.” It names him.

“Pray for the homeless, the destitute, the unemployed. Pray for the Minister of Labour and Social Services.” It names him.

“Give thanks for God’s hand on this land. Pray for the Prime Minister.” It names him.

The efficacy of prayer was underlined when I accompanied an African Enterprise evangelist to the rehabilitation unit of a Salisbury hospital, where he was to lead devotions. We greeted each of the physically handicapped people in this interracial group, and drank tea with them.

All the time, the telephone was ringing, and the department head, a vivacious lady of English origin, was answering it. Then an extraordinary thing happened just as my black colleague was about to start the singing. “Gibson,” she called to him across the room, “rebuke that telephone!” Gibson at once commanded the devil to come out of the instrument, and prayed that God would restrain potential callers until the end of the service. That telephone’s next ring was 30 seconds after the benediction.

It has been suggested that the future of Christian evangelism in Zimbabwe is very much in the hands of young people. Confirmation of this is found in Operation Foxfire (the name comes from Judges 15), one of the ministries of African Enterprise. Its young evangelists, average age 20, go out two by two, often into dangerous areas where guns have been more common than Bibles. “Never mind,” they say, “we wall go for Jesus.”

Foxfire started in June 1980. Its 16 members have had a remarkable impact wherever they have gone, preaching the gospel and living after the apostolic manner. Into areas ravaged by war they have brought a message of hope. They have inspired other young people so that a countryside accustomed to other slogans may resound with the chorus, “Alive! Alive! Jesus is alive!”

A school principal reports: “These two young men have been going into areas which have been ‘no-go’ areas for preachers. They have no fear. They have no time for anything except to preach the gospel. They have opened a floodgate. What these two are doing is better imagined than described in words. Last Sunday a whole congregation wept—including me—when they ministered to us. Men, women, and young people are inviting them into their homes. Never in my life have I come across young people of this quality. They are staying with me and I feel as though I’ve got God in my home.”

Part of the evangelists’ task is to keep a diary, which they send to headquarters weekly. Some excerpts:

“In the morning we went to Loreto Mission to visit the war refugees but we were forbidden to preach by Commander Comrade X. He told us he believed in science, not God.”

“We went to preach at the well where many people fetch water. One of us was preaching and the other drawing water for them.”

“We helped the Reverend to carry his manure to the fields.”

“They took us into the bush. They showed Steven where they were going to bury him. They said, ‘You are trained guerrillas.’ They circled us. Some of them went to take poles so that they may beat us. Others said, ‘Leave them!’ But some said, ‘Kill them!’ Then their leader said, ‘Depart from here, go back to Salisbury. Away with your Jesus! When you want me to worship Him, bring Him here!’ We said, ‘He is here!’

Foxfire is seen as a demonstration model of biblical evangelism: Christians dressed to blend in with the local culture, going to the people, living with them, working side by side with them, crying with them, rejoicing with them, caring for them, and sharing Jesus with them.

Leading the overall outreach of African Enterprise in Zimbabwe is Chris Sewell. During his former career as a policeman, he founded an organization he called TIC-TOC (“Take in criminals—turn out Christians”). He is anxious that the success of Foxfire not be the occasion of boasting.

“It’s our beloved Lord we are excited about,” he says. “It’s our Jesus we see walking through the fields of the tribal trust lands, in and out of the kraals, along the ridges, into the valleys, over the streams—touching the heart of a dejected minister, healing the asthma of an old woman, delivering a young girl from madness, bringing hearing to the ears of a deaf old man, encouraging the backslidden, dispelling their fear.”

In this young country, tribalism and political factionalism are responsible for much of the continued restlessness. Influential people are saying, moreover, that Christianity will have to be adapted to fit African tribal religion. This syncretistic outlook may be the first point of real conflict between church and state.

As that prayer sheet said, “Give thanks for God’s hand on this land. Pray for the Prime Minister.” His name is Robert Mugabe.

It was aimed at cults, but many churchmen opposed it.

Rarely has such unified alarm been sounded by Protestants, Catholics, and Jews as it was at a recent attempt in the New York state legislature to legalize “deprogramming.”

Both from within the legislature and from without, warnings of danger to religious liberty’ arose as the New York lawmakers passed a bill that sought to legislate a difference between religions and cults, between conversion and brainwashing, and between acceptable and unacceptable evangelistic activity.

The bill threatened freedom of religion, more than a dozen religious organizations said. Governor Hugh Carey agreed and vetoed the bill. He vetoed a similar bill last year.

The issue arose when a state assemblyman, Howard L. Lasher, a Democrat from Brooklyn, N.Y., proposed an amendment to the state’s mental hygiene law.

The amendment would have allowed a person to obtain temporary custody of a close relative and put him through a “program” devised to “enable” him “to make informed and independent judgments at the end of the period of temporary guardianship.”

The word “cult” never appeared in the amendment, which even specified that custody could not be “for the purpose of altering the political, religious or other beliefs” of the relative. But, like a rose by any other name, it was frequently called a “cult bill.”

In a joint statement, more than a dozen religious organizations warned, “This bill would inevitably lead to severe violations of the freedom of religion and association.… No single piece of legislation,” they said, had drawn such “unilateral opposition.” Organizations signing the statement included the New York Conference of American Baptists, the N.Y. Catholic Conference, the N.Y. Chapter of the American Jewish Congress, the N.Y. Episcopal Diocese, the N.Y. Area United Methodists, and the N.Y. State Council of Churches.

The American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress said that under such a bill, the sudden “transformation of Moses upon seeing the burning bush would have been grounds for the appointment of a temporary guardian by a court, since that experience was not a ‘gradual change’ resulting from ‘maturation or education.’ ”

The bill’s specific provisions would have allowed a state court to appoint a temporary guardian at the request of a close relative for anyone 16 or older who had “undergone a substantial behavioral change” and who lacked “substantial capacity to make independent and informed decisions or to understand or control his conduct.”

The guardian could then hold the person for 45 days and put him through “a proposed plan of treatment.” The order was subject to extension by 30 days.

The court would have considered whether the person in question had had an “abrupt and drastic alteration of basic values and lifestyle, as contrasted with gradual change such as that which might result from maturation or education.”

The court would also have watched for “blunted emotional responses,” “drastic weight change, cessation of menstruation, diminished rate of facial hair growth, and cessation of perspiration.”

The court would then decide whether any of these characteristics “resulted from, or could reasonably be expected to have resulted from, exposure to a systematic course of coercive persuasion.…”

In determining whether the proposed ward had been exposed to such coercive persuasion, the court was to look for “manipulation and control of the environment, isolation from family and friends, control over information and channels of communication,” along with “sleep deprivation, inadequate diet, unreasonably long work hours, inadequate medical care,” “performance of repetitious tasks,” and “lack of physical and mental privacy.”

The court was also to consider evidence of “pressure to induce feelings of guilt, fear of the outside world, childlike dependency, renunciation of self, family, and previously held values,” and a “simplistic polarized view of reality.”

Finally, if the court found that a person or group conducting the alleged systematic “coercive persuasion” regularly misrepresented its identity or activity, then a judge could order the temporary guardianship.

In effect, the bill put in legal language assertions that deprogrammers have been making about a wide variety of religious groups—some of them distinctly evangelical Christian—for nearly a decade.

No one disagreed that the Lasher bill was intended to be aimed primarily at members of the Unification Church, the Hare Krishna sect, and any number of less well-known fringe sects. Likewise, the 45-day “proposed plan of treatment,” everyone knew, was a euphemism for deprogramming.

Supporters of the amendment saw it as a way around legal problems that some deprogrammers have run into. “Deprogramming” involves holding a person against his will and forcing him, by confinement and psychological stress, to question and change his views.

Deprogrammers have been known to seize their subjects physically and haul them off handcuffed and blindfolded into prolonged isolation. Some deprogrammers have been convicted on charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment and have been caught in numerous civil law suits.

Since an identical bill had been introduced just a few weeks before in Connecticut, where it failed, proponents and opponents felt that if the New York bill became law, it could become a model for legislation around the nation. Both sides, therefore, mounted one of the most intensive lobbying efforts of this year’s session.

After working extensively with Governor Carey’s staff to avoid the problems Carey cited last year, and after rewriting the bill more than a dozen times, Lasher submitted it to the New York Mental Hygiene Committee, and the tumultuous debate began.

During more than four hours of debate in the assembly, Mark Alan Siegel said, “I experienced sleep deprivation, I experienced inadequate diet, I experienced unreasonably long work hours, I experienced inadequate medical care—all in support for Eugene McCarthy up in New Hampshire” during the 1968 presidental race.

On its initial test the bill narrowly lost, but was passed on the second vote.

In the senate, which passed the bill on the first vote, Joseph R. Pisani of New Rochelle, a cosponsor of the amendment, said “We accept the right of every person to follow their drummer, so to speak.” but there are “people held against their wills by use of very sophisticated, very scientific brainwashing techniques.” The courts, he said, should decide the bill’s constitutionality.

In its analysis of the bill, the New York Civil Liberties Union said, “The phrase ‘abrupt and drastic alteration of basic values and lifestyle’ … could describe the phenomenon of being ‘born again’ as a Christian. ‘Isolation from family and friends,’ ‘sleep deprivation,’ ‘unreasonably long work hours,’ and ‘performance of repetitious tasks’ might apply to certain Roman Catholic monasteries.”

Leo Pfeffer, a noted legal expert on constitutional liberties, said, “Our Constitution does not recognize any distinction between traditional and accepted religions on the one hand and hated sects or cults on the other. The use or abuse of law to destroy cults threatens the security of all religions.…”

Tomas Robbins, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University, wrote “The Soviet Union has a well-developed system of coercive therapeutic intervention against religious dissidents based on psychiatric mystifications. Will we go in that direction?” Lasher’s bill specified that the detention process be supervised by a psychologist or licensed social worker.

To these and other objections, Lasher responded, “I have been told that this bill would apply to Moses, this bill would apply to Jesus Christ, this bill would apply to Saint Paul. I say to you that is poppycock and nonsense. It is impossible to say these great men and religions talked about brainwashing, coercion, deceit, and fraud.”

Yet, just days before the bill was debated in the state assembly, a “cult clinic” in New York, operated jointly by the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services and the Jewish Community Relations Council, showed how delicate distinctions can be.

Ten parents discussed the problems they were having with their adult children; one was following an Indian guru. Another had joined a community of psychiatric therapists in New York City.

One mother complained of gaining 85 pounds since her son, a college student, had joined “a born-again Christian group.” Still another told how her 30-year-old son, a lawyer, had broken her rule against speaking of his religious beliefs in her house. Two years ago, she said, he joined Jews for Jesus.

Evangelical Orthodox Church vs. Spritual Counterfeits

New Denomination Debates Critic Over Authority

In 1973 a group of former staff members of Campus Crusade for Christ—including Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, and Peter Gill-quist—linked up to form a group known as the New Covenant Apostolic Order (NCAO), consisting largely of house churches scattered throughout the United States. A new denomination emerged from the NCAO in February of 1979 with the official announcement of the formation of the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) by Gillquist, presiding bishop of the new church and well-known Christian author. The stated aim of the new group was “the restoration of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

In the spring of 1979, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) of Berkeley, California—whose stated purpose is “to research and biblically critique current religious groups”—indicated in a letter sent to a select number of evangelicals their “serious concern” over the direction the EOC leadership was taking. Included with the letter was a report commissioned by the SCP on the Evangelical Orthodox Church and authored by Bill Counts, a former Campus Crusade associate of many of the EOC leaders and currently associated with the Center for Advanced Biblical Studies in Dallas.

The Counts paper was a preliminary draft designed to elicit response and input from those receiving it prior to its eventual release by the SCP. The cover letter expressed the SCP’s concern “to produce a report that is both fair and accurate.”

The EOC soon learned of the paper and charged that it was neither fair nor accurate. The EOC claimed SCP did not attempt to obtain input from EOC leaders before the preliminary report was distributed “in secret” among leading evangelicals throughout the country. In the view of SCP, the report was essentially a “working paper,” a copy of which was later sent to Bishop Jack Sparks for EOC feedback on the “factual information” it contained, before SCP’s planned distribution.

What followed was two years of extensive and sometimes heated interchange (almost entirely limited to correspondence) between officials of the EOC and the SCP and its board of reference. The two sides finally agreed to a public debate, which was held in EOC facilities in a Santa Barbara, California, suburb on June 22, 1981. The Spiritual Counterfeits Project was represented by Brooks Alexander and the author of the report, Bill Counts. The EOC representatives were Bishops C. Ronald Roberson and Kenneth G. Jensen. Moderating the debate was Curtis White-man, a member of the religious studies faculty of Westmont College.

The debate was divided into six one-hour segments, each dealing with a subsection of the SCP report: (l) History and Background; (2) General Theological Direction; (3) View of the Church’s Authority; (4) The Application of the Church’s Authority; (5) Evaluation; and (6) Recommendations. At the outset, one of the EOC representatives asserted that the SCP had resisted a face-to-face meeting. Brooks Alexander of the SCP denied the charge, stating that he had repeatedly tried to arrange a meeting with EOC officials to discuss the content of the report.

The “debate” was in fact an elaboration of previously stated positions and accusations. Neither side appeared to modify its stance on the complex and controversial issues raised in the Counts report. The exchange of charges and countercharges was orderly and businesslike. Bishop Roberson’s sometimes caustic comments were warmly received by an obviously partisan audience comprised almost entirely of EOC members and supporters.

From the perspective of the EOC, the Counts report was “a total and complete distortion of our views and church life.” In a previously circulated paper, entitled “The Anatomy of a Smear,” Bishop Roberson described the SCP staff as “little hatchet men” intent on the total destruction of the EOC. Both Bishop Roberson and Bishop Jensen categorically rejected the characterizations ascribed to their church by the Counts paper, calling the SCP publication “biased, sloppy, and false.”

The primary reason for the publication of the report, according to Alexander and Counts, was a genuine concern over the potential abuse of authority by EOC leaders, particularly as it applies to details of the daily lives of members. Counts stated that EOC leaders receive “authoritative words from God” telling church members what jobs to accept, where to live, and whom to many. The SCP report noted a “disturbing tilt toward extremism” in the movement as exemplified by demands of total loyalty, suppression of dissent, and a “willingness to suggest marriage breakups because spouses disagree with the EOC.”

Roberson argued that Counts had presented a distorted view of EOC authority. “It is not the central focus of our church life; we do not push people around.” Bishop Jensen explained: “We get involved in the lives of people because we care; we’re concerned. We are committed to those under our care.”

The EOC claims that much of the negative information in the Counts report is invalid evidence because it was obtained from dissidents and excommunicants. The church denies that excommunication is used to control people and claims that the SCP’s reporting of former members’ experiences is “one-sided” and “hearsay.” Those who left or were asked to leave the church were described by the EOC spokesmen as either guilty of serious sin or persistently “factious.”

Alexander suggested that the EOC had a built-in system for silencing or excommunicating those who disagree with or challenge the leadership. Counts described it as a situation wherein “you’re okay as long as you are one of us.” He claimed to have substantial independent verification of questionable actions on the part of EOC leaders toward members, and cited an example of a couple who had been subjected to abusive language by elders, including the use of four-letter words.

The EOC, by implication, linked Counts with a reductionist hermeneutic, which, it was said, is common to evangelicalism and which results in a “the Bible, me, and God” kind of mentality. In contrast, the EOC hermeneutic was described as including church tradition and catholicity. “We deny that Mr. Counts’s view of authority is biblical. Mr. Counts sees authority only in the Bible. We see secondary authority in the leadership of the church.”

In his concluding comments, Brooks Alexander stated that he had been subjected to more vilification and harassment from the EOC than he had experienced from any group the SCP had encountered. He asked members of the EOC in the audience to “please take heed” to the warnings contained in the Counts report, which he said were written out of a genuine sense of Christian concern.

Bishop Jensen challenged the SCP’s right to “criticize the rest of Christendom” and suggested that the real issue for the SCP was a fear of the sacramental resurgence taking place among Christians and the role of the Evangelical Orthodox Church in that renewal.

RONALD M. ENROTH

Biblical Authority Issue

Group Voices Alternative To Verbal Inspiration

The conference on “Interpreting an Authoritative Scripture” attempted, in the words of codirector Jack Rogers of Fuller Theological Seminary, “to move beyond debates about the authority of the Bible, which seem stalemated, and move on to a discussion of the interpretation of the Bible, where we all need insight.”

In spite of that intention, questions of authority and interpretation got about equal time.

References to Harold Lindsell’s book, The Battle for the Bible, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy surfaced regularly throughout the conference sessions and in informal conversations.

The conference was held in late June at the Institute for Christian Studies (ICS), a Reformed research-oriented graduate school adjacent to the downtown campus of the University of Toronto. It cosponsored the five-day conference with Fuller seminary.

The open, free-wheeling daily discussion and interchange indicated that the issues of biblical authority and interpretation are still lively ones in the greater evangelical community.

In the opening round, Rogers reviewed the controversy that swirled around Lindsell’s book and the charges and countercharges that followed its publication. He expressed dismay that some in the Lindsell camp represented him as holding that “the Bible, on occasion, was in error when dealing with matters other than salvation or the life of faith. That is not my position,” Rogers maintained.

“The Bible is authoritative,” Rogers stated in his paper. “I do not espouse the errancy of the Bible. Nor do I espouse limited inerrancy. If inerrancy means that the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, I believe in the full inerrancy of the Bible.”

He acknowledged that some of the misunderstanding might be traced to his own failure in responding to Lindsell’s allegations, to communicate his own viewpoint clearly. He added, however, that the Chicago Statement and subsequent pronouncements by inerrantists showed they “had a much more sophisticated doctrine of interpretation than I realized.”

Rogers and others lamented the chasm developing within the evangelical community over the issue. “Apparently an enormous problem of interpretation still blocks communication between some who consider themselves evangelical brothers and sisters,” he told the gathering. “My hope,” he concluded, “is that we might talk with one another more and at one another less in the future.”

Responding to Rogers, Ian Rennie of Regent College (now dean-designate of Ontario Theological Seminary in Toronto) concurred with the Fuller professor’s contention that Lindsell and others were historically inaccurate in stating that a rigid verbal inerrancy was the historic view of the church. He praised Rogers for affirming that “there is a view of biblical inspiration which stands between the verbal theory on the one hand, and on the other, those of existential inspiration, limited inspiration, and whatever else there may be, while at the same time upholding the full inspiration of the Bible, together with its full trustworthiness, truthfulness, and authority.”

Rennie contended that plenary inspiration was, until the eighteenth century, “the doctrine of virtually all English-speaking evangelicals.” Verbal inspiration, he added, was postulated as a defensive bulwark against militant liberalism. The Canadian professor emphasized that the advocates of both the plenary view of inspiration and the verbal view were committed evangelicals concerned for biblical authority and trustworthiness.

By the late nineteenth century, Rennie maintained, many evangelicals opted for verbal inspiration because “plenary inspiration, in some quarters, was increasingly shifting to some form of partial or limited inspiration, and if this was interpreted as an inevitable development in the plenary view, then verbal inspiration was almost the only live alternative.”

Rennie suggested that a resolution of the doctrine of biblical inspiration would likely contain emphases from the verbal view and the plenary view, with further refinements emerging from the ongoing discussion.

Gerald Sheppard, Old Testament professor at Union Theological Seminary (N.Y.), expressed impatience and frustration over what he regarded as an in-house quarrel among evangelicals over biblical authority. “Both terms, ‘infallibility’ and ‘inerrancy,’ for better or for worse,” he suggested, “have taken odd turns in the internal debates of evangelicals and no longer mean the same things they did either for [the signers of] the Westminster Confession or for the Reformers.”

Invited to respond to a presentation, which was made by Carl Armerding of Regent College in Vancouver, on evangelical scholarship and Old Testament criticism, the articulate Union professor was brutally candid. He contended that evangelical scholars faced a dilemma when they attempted to apply established insights of critical scholarship and, at the same time, to keep the confidence of their constituency. “This focus on a particular audience, with the fine line between diplomacy and hypocrisy which it demands of a scholar with a liberal education, often colors everything,” Sheppard suggested.

The result, he charged, was that most evangelical theology emerged as “a censored synopsis” of nonevangelical theology. “Evangelicals have been caught between precritical orthodoxy and the impious ‘objectivity’ appropriate to modern criticism, unable to make up their minds about the truth of each,” he contended.

He was also critical of the mechanical view of the Holy Spirit that he maintained was evident in evangelical formulations regarding Scripture.

James Olthuis, professor of philosophical theology at ICS and codirector (with Rogers) of the conference, presented an elaborate interpretative approach to the Bible that dealt seriously with the specific text within a broader framework.

Responding to Olthuis, Clark Pinnock, of McMaster Divinity College, complained that his proposed “certitudinal hermeneutic” seemed vague and imprecise, and questioned whether it dealt seriously with biblical authority. “I take the New Testament seriously,” Pinnock said, “when it warns that Satan is in the business of deceiving the church, and that we cannot be too … clear and forthright in a matter as crucial as hermeneutics.”

He expressed concern also at “the unseen presence in all of this of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy” which, Pinnock contended, seemed to restrict the Bible’s authority “to the pigeon-hole allotted to it.”

That exchange and others that surfaced daily throughout the conference indicated that evangelicals do indeed need to devote more attention to scriptural interpretation and to norms of interpretation.

Fuller professors Charles Kraft and Paul Hiebert (in a paper read in the latter’s absence) maintained that the current inerrancy debate was not really a battle over whether the Bible was the final authority and divine revelation at all. Rather, they said, it concerned the nature and purpose of divine revelation and, more specifically, the authority of human theologies.

The 120 participants covered a wide spectrum: theological and liberal arts professors, pastors, graduate students, and campus ministers.

Participants repeatedly expressed distress over the polarization developing in evangelical ranks over the inerrancy debate. Many wondered about the possibility of a similar forum in the future involving representatives of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in an attempt to have viewpoints presented and considered in an atmosphere of openness and respect. Contrary to some advance speculation, the conference established no organization or continuing committee.

For many, however, the major item on the evangelical agenda was dialogue with all in that community who took seriously the authority and trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

LESLIE K. TARR

A renaissance of spiritual vitality has begun to infect some major denominations at the grassroots and is slowly spreading upward.

There is a growing orthodox presence and influence in major denominations today, but many evangelicals seem to be unaware of it. The liberal momentum has halted, and dynamic ministries are developing in many churches. It is a new day.

Of course, theological liberals dominate denominational structures, and nonevangelicals almost completely control official schools. The emphases and programs of the boards and agencies are usually to the left of center theologically, politically, and socially. Church school literature often fails to keep faith with a denomination’s historic doctrines. Many conservative ministers face discrimination and prejudice.

But there is an evangelical renaissance taking place within the so-called mainline denominations. Lloyd Ogilvie, senior pastor of Hollywood Presbyterian church, recently predicted that during the 1980s, the life and vigor of the parachurch movements will invade these mainline churches.

A growing percentage of ministers receive their seminary training in evangelical schools of theology. For instance, Asbury Theological Seminary, an independent Wesleyan school, now trains more pastors for the United Methodist denomination than any official denominational seminary. Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, Trinity Evangelical, and Oral Roberts schools of theology are growing dramatically and making a notable impact on mainline churches as an increasing number of their ministerial candidates attend these institutions. Some authorities estimate that 40 percent of the ministerial candidates in the United Methodist church are currently trained outside the denominational schools. The new Episcopal seminary in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, is both an evidence of, and a contribution to, evangelical renewal in that denomination.

The type of students attending denominational schools is changing. Whereas in the 1960s seminarians were saying to their professors, “Prove to me there is a personal God!” today’s students often arrive at seminary with a Bible under their arms. Contemporary students are likely to be more conservative than those of a decade or two ago.

Theology And Experience Unite

Prior to 1950, many conservative pastors were less educated than their liberal counterparts, and they were limited to rural settings with small parishes. Often their interests were narrow and provincial. As a result, orthodox ministers were not involved in the decision-making process of the church. Their activity, frequently of their own volition, was confined to evangelism and missions; the highlight of their year was the camp meeting. The cultural pattern of the nineteenth century was considered the norm for conservative Christianity. Ethical concerns were largely limited to questions of the use of liquor and tobacco.

This is no longer the case. The advent of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in 1956 helped to bring change. The magazine represented evangelicalism at its best, and demonstrated that one could be thoroughly educated and still preach and teach a first-century faith.

Most evangelical ministers today, well trained and well read, have an intense interest in the church beyond the local parish. They occupy some of the great pulpits of America. The liberal establishment, which reigned supreme for a half-century, is at last being challenged. Though meeting strong resistance, orthodox churchmen are insisting on being involved in the decision-making process of their denominations. Their influence is being felt by the leadership in most mainline denominations.

Along with the reemergence of traditional theology, though not necessarily connected to it, stands the growing charismatic movement. I preach in many churches across America each year, and in almost every congregation there is a charismatic presence. In some it is strong. These are sincere Christians, whose zeal for evangelism and love for God’s Word stretch across denominational lines. I suspect more true ecumenism is occurring among charismatics than among any other Christians, including liberals.

Renewal Groups Organize

The United Methodist Renewal Service Fellowship is the national charismatic organization in my denomination. Over 3,000 people attended the national meeting last year in Louisville, Kentucky. There are similar movements in other mainline denominations, and these experience-centered groups will undoubtedly continue to grow.

Equally noteworthy is the emergence of highly organized, noncharismatic renewal groups. These movements, found in all mainline denominations, are often active in church politics, and are well financed from grassroots contributions. Nine such renewal groups met recently in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to formulate a strategy for working together wherever possible.

Pete Hammond of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship has called attention to the fact that movements of evangelical protest and renewal appeared simultaneously in four large denominations around 1967. These are the Fellowship of Witness (Episcopal Church); Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians (Presbyterian Church in the U.S. [Southern]); Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns (United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.); and Good News, A Forum for Spiritual Christianity Within the United Methodist Church.

There is also the Presbyterian Laymen’s League and the United Church People for Biblical Witness in the United Church of Christ.

The Covenant Fellowship in the Southern Presbyterian denomination has grown to a position of strength that enabled it to defeat the adoption of a new Confession. It will probably succeed in securing evangelical representation and in meeting of evangelical conditions in future union negotiations with the northern church.

Growth of the Good News movement in the United Methodist Church is no less than spectacular. Since its beginning in 1966, it has grown into a national organization with an annual budget exceeding a half-million dollars. Once just a magazine, Good News now carries on a wide range of renewal ministries, including a regular publication to seminaries, national convocations, a mission-supported agency, and publication of undated resource materials.

Evangelical Leadership Emerges

One of the more far-sighted efforts toward effecting change among United Methodists comes from A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE). This organization annually awards 15 John Wesley Fellowship grants to evangelical students engaged in doctoral studies. The aim of these grants, which average $7,500 per student, is to help prepare a cadre of scholars to teach in United Methodist colleges and seminaries.

In the past, the battle for the church has been lost in the graduate schools. It is there that committed young men and women, faced with the lonely and grueling ordeal of earning a Ph.D., have gradually slid into the liberal camp. To counter this pattern, AFTE hosts a “Christmas Conference” for its John Wesley fellows every December at Shakertown, Kentucky. The purpose is not to check their ongoing orthodoxy, but to provide the context in which a mutual support fellowship might develop.

The ascendance of evangelical theological leadership in the large churches was predicted by William Hordern in the 1960s. Now, denominational leaders like James I. McCord, president of Princeton Theological Seminary, are calling for a “rebuilding of the theological center” that will undoubtedly incorporate progressive and loyal evangelical ministers, who are now being appointed to study committees in increasing numbers. Young evangelical scholars are pouring out of our seminaries. Their distinctive orthodox emphasis is not only tolerated, but positively valued.

The failure of theological liberalism is one reason for the rise in orthodoxy within mainline denominations. It stands impotent against the onslaught of secularism. Contributions are fast falling behind inflation. Membership decline is a sad fact. One expert predicts that the United Methodist church, already more than a million members down from its 1968 level, will lose another 3.5 million members by the year 2000, bringing its membership rolls below 6 million. Most historic denominations are following similar patterns.

Major Denominations Have Strong Points

Faced with such troubling conditions, some evangelicals wonder whether the best course is to bail out. I think not, for several reasons. First, in spite of the problems of the mainline churches, there is within them this ground swell of scriptural Christianity.

Second, many times in the past the sovereign God has revived his church. He can do it again. Richard Lovelace reminds us, “All too often, evangelicals are unrealistically pessimistic about their growth and prepared to abandon a church that is just wakening up to the measuring of their success.” He continues, “The fictitious truism that ‘once a denomination starts downhill it never recovers’ is being steadily disproved. Those who doubt should look at the history of the Anglican church, which has blossomed again and again with new life when the tide of spiritual life rose in the people, and which has developed strong evangelical leadership again today.”

Too often evangelicals have adopted an outlook on history that predicted decline and apostasy in the nation and the church. They stopped praying and working for revival and proceeded to dig into spiritual bomb shelters and wait for the coming of Jesus. That’s a cop-out.

A third reason for staying within mainline denominations is the tremendous opportunities they provide. These churches are national in scope. Most civic and business leaders belong to them. An overwhelming majority of the members of Congress belong to them. Their colleges and seminaries dot the land. Their missionary agencies reach around the world. In short, the people and the organizational structures are there. What they need is for the dry bones to live again.

Fourth, there is pulpit freedom in mainline denominations, contrary to what evangelicals in smaller denominations and independent churches may think. In 30 years of ministry, never once have I been asked by church authorities or a congregation to alter my sermon. I have been able to lead my congregations in a distinctively evangelical emphasis that is faithful to denominational polity and tradition.

Fifth, the mainline denominations have a stability often lacking in independent churches. Local parishes within major denominations have a larger accountability, beyond their local level, and they can therefore be dominated less easily by a strong-willed personality. All of us can cite instances when independent churches, in their zeal for the gospel, have blundered in making decisions—often financial in nature—that cause harm to the larger ministry of Christ’s church.

Albeit mainline churches have organizational weaknesses, their system of accountability reduces abuse of privileges and responsibilities. Furthermore, their structure provides healthy avenues for voicing grievances, and at the same time protects the local parish from the turmoil and splits that independent churches are prone to have.

The organizational machinery in mainline churches is adequate for most stress situations. Usually a clear line of authority encourages responsibility; the denominational heritage gives guidance and a sense of roots. The body of Christ has been fragmented too much—there are no perfect churches! Evangelicals need to work within their traditions, seeking renewal and reform. Schism disrupts, alienates, and is a scandal to the gospel of Christ.

My Personal Experience

Although evangelicals in their zeal for evangelism and missions sometimes lose a sense of balance, that is another strength of mainline denominations. In the larger fellowship of mainline denominations there are corrective influences. In the earlier years of my ministry, for example, I had little appreciation for the sacraments: I emphasized the New Birth and witnessing. Dedicated Christians outside of my tradition, but within my denomination, helped my appreciation for the Lord’s Supper to mature; baptism has also taken on new significance for me.

A helpful aspect of being in a mainline denomination has been involvement with persons from different backgrounds. At one time I limited congregational singing to gospel songs and choruses, but worship in more liturgical services has become a blessing. I have learned to appreciate the great hymns of the faith. I have seen the theological shallowness of many nineteenth-century gospel songs and learned to love the hymns of Wesley, Watts, and Cowper with their great biblical truths.

I have gained in the fellowship of larger churches an appreciation for traditional liturgy and the ecumenical creeds. How easily our worship services become culturally shallow and essentially man-centered! I have found the ritual of my denomination to be Christ-centered and scripturally sound. I sense in the historic creeds a unity with believers across denominational and national lines. There is a continuity with the ancient church. Because of the influence of my denomination, worship for me is more than a Sunday morning spiritual pep rally.

The emphasis on the social dimensions of the gospel is another good thing in mainline denominations. While this sometimes has been abused and become the expression of radical secularists, it is still a legitimate concern of the faith. There are many evangelicals who have such a narrow, personalized view of the gospel that they have never seen the need for a socially prophetic voice. The mainline denominations tend to bring balance. I have become aware that there is but one gospel, with social and personal implications.

What about association with theological liberalism? Does that not require compromise of evangelicals? Not at all. I have found the presence of liberals has had positive influence on me. Because of their challenge, I must do my homework: I must reexamine my premise and make certain I am on solid ground. Liberals help to keep me intellectually honest and contribute to my growth; their hard questions force me to study the works of great theologians. Because of their witness, I have been saved from a merely provincial and cultural understanding of the faith. It is healthy to be in a denomination where everyone does not think alike.

Further, the official statements of faith of most mainline denominations are orthodox. The problem of most churches is not their doctrine, but their failure to proclaim it and remain faithful to it. It is the evangelicals within those churches who are truly loyal to the denomination. They are the ones who should continue to call for obedience to Scripture and adherence to the official doctrines of the church.

Yes, there are problems in the so-called mainline churches. But the Lord has not called us to run away from problems. He does call us to overcome them. “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

Tremendous opportunities for service await evangelicals in the major denominations. May the Holy Spirit raise up faithful ministers and lay people and through them bring biblical renewal to these mainline churches.