An attempt by evangelicals to relate theology to the secular-humanist situation had better be done with eyes wide open.

Many evangelicals are being charged with adopting a new form of liberalism as they think through the ideas of modern secularists. What are we to make of this charge?

First, we must admit that the term “liberal theology” is often used loosely and pejoratively. Loosely, it designates any position theologically to the left of one’s own. A person who denies the reality of God will seem liberal to the one who denies only the deity of Christ. The defender of scriptural infallibility will seem liberal to the person dedicated to biblical inerrancy. Furthermore, like the term fundamentalist, the adjective liberal has taken on a negative connotation for many people, one that signifies a weakness of conviction, a willingness to compromise principle. As a result, most of those we call liberal today are reluctant to accept the designation. We must begin therefore with an attempt at definition.

Religious liberalism was originally a nineteenth-century response to the cultural revolution we call the Enlightenment, a response characterized by a high degree of accommodation. More important than the Reformation in the shaping of the modern mind, the Enlightenment was a revolution in the direction of human autonomy in all areas: politics, philosophy, science, art, music, theology, and so on. It represented a flourishing of man-centered, critical thought, opposed to any received dogma or authoritarian symbols.

Its impact upon Christian thought was devastating and total. Almost every pillar thought to undergird the system of revealed truth came under attack and was seriously undermined. God was no longer seen to be sovereign, man to be unique, history to be providentially directed, or miracles to be possible. The new humanist mentality demanded a response, and liberal theology was an attempted reply.

That response was marked by a willingness to concede to the humanistic orientation a considerable degree of validity. It tended to retreat from those orthodox positions that were most vulnerable to criticism, and set up Christianity’s defenses at points where the attack was not so much concentrated. Liberals like Schleiermacher sought to revise theology in terms of universal human religious experience, making faith somewhat private and existential, and thinking that the new ideal of human autonomy would thereby not be disturbed but rather attracted. A liberal like Ritschl saw in the humanist concern for morality an opportunity to present Christianity as a social (we would now say political) theology, also in the hope of Christianizing the new cultural mood. It would not be too harsh to say that liberal theology was a new form of Christianity, occasioned by the Enlightenment, which believed it necessary to abandon the old orthodox lines of defense and to shift the discussion to some new ones.

Religious liberalism is not really a theology in the sense of being a creedal formula. It is astonishingly diverse. It is really an approach or a method in theology rather than an ideology. It is noted chiefly for its openness to modernity and its willingness to accommodate Scripture to it. Even if its fortunes decline in one particular expression, liberal theology does not pass out of existence, but merely changes its shape in response to altered cultural conditions. Liberalism is super flexible, always ready to move into neoliberalisms.

Evangelicals feel religious liberalism is willing to pay too high a price to achieve relevance. Of course we see the apologetic problem. After all, what do you say to the person affected, as all are, by modernity, who has difficulty believing biblical teaching about Creation, demons, miracles, or hell? It is not necessary to regard all liberal theologians as people eagerly destroying faith and lusting after novel humanistic theologies. There is a large hermeneutical problem here with which liberals are trying to come to terms. What is wrong cannot be that they tried to give honest answers to honest questions. Bultmann and Schaeffer are both trying to do that.

What is wrong is that liberals tend to kill the theology patient while trying to save him. They lack a certain robust confidence in the truth of divine revelation that ought to guide them more profoundly in forming the answers they give. They tend to panic under pressure, and surrender far too much. They should know that one cannot defend Christianity while giving up on the incarnation and the bodily resurrection of Jesus without jeopardizing the thing they are out to defend. Religious liberalism is right to respond creatively to the Enlightenment (we all ought to do that), but wrong in the way it responds. It simply does not do sufficient justice to the norms of special revelation in the Bible, and therefore does not offer the coherent response so badly needed.

The antidote for all this involves a culturally creative and biblically faithful response to modernity and the range of questions it raises for all sensitive, thinking people. It will fall more and more to evangelical Christianity to give answers to questions raised in the modern world. The challenge is: How do we formulate answers that are not substantially the same as liberal proposals and, in terms of the Bible, equally deviant?

The militant conservatives in our midst are not imagining everything when they charge some of us with surrendering too much in our response to challenges of biblical criticism, evolution, feminism, political theology, and the like. There are signs that some evangelicals are on the way to becoming religious liberals, not because they chose to do so in one great step, but because in working out their ideas they have innocently covered most of the ground by smaller shifts. Suppose evangelicals start saying the Bible makes mistakes, is pluralistic theologically, culturally relative, offers basically an existential experience or some small core of truth. It is not alarmist to ask whether this is evidence of an essentially liberal theology arising among us.

I make no charges, but I appeal to our community of faith to work at our response to modernity with our eyes wide open, and not to repeat the mistakes of liberal theology. We need to heed the scriptural word, “let any one who thinks that he stands, take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). There is no law in stone that says evangelicals cannot become liberals. There is, in fact, a great deal of evidence that they have done so. Liberal theology could easily be called post evangelical theology, because that is almost always exactly what it has been historically. I urge my evangelical sisters and brothers to proceed with caution now that we have our place in the sun, so we do not repeat the mistakes of liberal theology.

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

Communication requires the risk taking involved in any relationship where understanding is the goal.

We want to communicate; it is our business, our calling. We dream of holding an audience spellbound as we present the gospel. We study the “how-to’s” of sermon preparation. We spend hours researching, organizing, and developing our messages. And yet, we feel sometimes they get across and sometimes they don’t. This tension between our need to communicate effectively and our inability to do so consistently drives us to search for a communications method that really works.

But that is our problem: we search for some formula that will enable us to become master preachers. But there is none. Communication by itself is too complex a process to be squeezed into a formula or model.

If we are to increase our effectiveness we must not look for a process, but look rather at the process of communication. The question is not, “How do we communicate?” but “What is communication?”

What is the function of communication? Is it to move people to commitment? Is it a means of getting people to integrate information? Is it correct to see communication in terms of behavioral changes?

We talk about “getting the message across,” and there is the rub: too often pastors—by the very nature of their training—see communication only in terms of the message. We think communication is the process of getting our message to the people. Effective communication must therefore occur when the receivers (the people) receive 100 percent of the sender’s (preacher’s) message.

Early studies in the field of communication show this same focus on the message. The Shannon-Weaver model of communication (1949), which has dominated the direction of thinking in communications for years, focuses its study on getting the message to the receiver. Based on the technology of the Bell telephone system, it presents a logical, accurate description of what happens to a message when the “information source” encodes the message and sends it through a channel where the “receiver” decodes it.

As communicators worked with this model, they began to realize that what works with a telephone does not necessarily work with a person. Some scholars began to add to, modify, and eliminate parts of the model to make it more human. Others abandoned the model and focused almost entirely on the studies of human behavior.

Then came the studies of Marshall McLuhan. In the 1960s, he shook the foundations of communications studies with one statement: “The medium is the message.” With this single statement, McLuhan pointed to two basic facts: (1) the message is not central to the act of communication: and (2) the communicator (the medium) is.

Communication is not simply the sending and receiving of the content of a message. If it were, the process would have been mastered ages ago. Communication is nothing less than the establishment and nurturing of the relationships between the parties involved. It is the interaction between human beings—their personalities, their self images, their environment, their total being.

Communication is an event, not a content. It is more than a matter of transferring information. It is better symbolized by a handshake than a telephone. The key phrase is interaction between people

By stressing interaction, we focus on all the technological input of the science of communication, from syntax to feedback, which is symbolized in the Shannon-Weaver model. As interaction, we are looking at an act that is, by its very nature, dynamic, irreversible, and contextual.

When we stress people in the key phrase, we bring to bear the complex field of human behavior. We therefore recognize that communication involves the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social-cultural aspects of being human.

When we stress between, we acknowledge that communication is a matter of quality, not quantity. It is not a question of how much information (message) is transmitted, but rather of the quality and depth of the interaction (medium) itself. It is not so much a matter of encoding and decoding as it is of reducing differences, becoming transparent, and creating an open environment. Effective communication is not when 100 percent of the information has been received. It is when two parties understand each other.

The best communication takes place when two parties are together. Through their interaction, they have, for one moment and on one frame of reference, come together. Together does not mean agreement, or even a sharing of the same goals, information, or convictions. In this context, together means that they understand where they themselves are, where the other party is, and what their relationship to each other is in terms of a specific frame of reference. Thus, the goal of communication is not merely to become unified in thought or action, but to understand each other, to be together.

A handshake, for example, is a dynamic interaction between people. It may be a greeting, a test of strength, a seal of agreement, or an act of love. It depends on how the two people perceive themselves, the other person, and their relationship. It is dynamic because their perceptions may change during the event itself.

That is why communication can be effective even if the particulars of the communicative act (the structure, cultural backgrounds, vocabulary, etc.) are not precise.

Communication becomes a matter of plunging in. Those who wish to communicate must be willing to plunge into an interaction between people. How deep is the initiator willing to plunge? How much of himself is he willing to risk?

When you step into the pulpit, how much of yourself are you willing to share? How deeply are you willing to interact with the hearts and souls of the people?

It is not just a matter of how deep you as the iniviator are willing to plunge. It is also a matter of how deep the people (the responders) are willing to allow you to plunge, and then to plunge into the interaction themselves. Because the interaction is dynamic, the intentions of both parties may change as the interaction takes place.

This is not to say that the message is unimportant. Christ died and rose so we would have good news to preach. And McLuhan was wrong: the message is central, but it does not occupy the center alone. With it is the interaction of speaker and listener.

The person who is absorbed in the message must think of the personal aspect of communication. The person who is absorbed in “interaction” must reconsider the message he is charged with presenting.

If you have been focusing simply on the message—and many of us have been trained to do just that—take the plunge. The next time you step into the pulpit, remember: communication is not just a matter of dropping the anchor of content into the sea. You must plunge into the sea yourself.

WALTER J. KIME¹Mr. Kime is pastor of the United Presbyterian Church in Dalton, Ohio.

Because God works almost always in hidden ways, we are free to decide for him or against him.

Frederick Buechner (pronounced Beekner) has been writing for 30 years. To date, he has published 17 books. In each of them, fiction and nonfiction, he explores, defines, and celebrates the Christian faith.

“I don’t write novels particularly for evangelicals,” he told us in a recent interview at his home in the mountains of Vermont. He was saying that many religious readers have found his fiction disturbing. Yet the time is long overdue for Christians to be aware of the work of this skilled and deep-sighted writer. He is an ordained Presbyterian minister who has given his life to presenting the gospel to the secular reader.

Buechner has received significant critical praise for his latest book, Godric (Atheneum, 1980), his tenth novel, which is a fictional biography of a twelfth-century saint. Godric is a startling departure from the four novels preceding it, all of which are centered in a character named Leo Bebb, an irrepressible evangelist, founder of the Church of Holy Love and a mail-order religious diploma mill.

When Flannery O’Connor was asked why she, a dedicated Roman Catholic, wrote stories about Protestant fanatics, she replied that if you are a Catholic and have this intensity of belief, you retire to a cloister and are never heard from again—whereas if you are a Protestant, you go about the world getting into all sorts of trouble. After following one of these Protestant fanatics around for four novels, Buechner has pursued one of the Catholic saints into the inner sanctum of his private consciousness—and he is heard from again, telling his own story at age 100. We asked Buechner:

What led you to write about Godric?

I found it hard to complete the Bebb books. I kept writing sequels. When I finally finished, with no conscious thought of what I was going to do next, I sat down exactly where you’re sitting and picked up the little Penguin Dictionary of Saints. I had done a book on theological words and I thought I might do—maybe not a book—but something on saints. I opened it up just by accident to Godric, whom I’d never heard of. I was just enchanted by him. And then it suddenly occurred to me that this was Bebb in an earlier incarnation. Of all my books, it’s the one I like best, and it was something I didn’t have to struggle for. It was on the house.

If Godric is a twelfth-century Bebb, that would make Bebb a twentieth-century Godric. Where did the notion of Leo Bebb as saint come from?

Perhaps it began with the reading of Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory, which of all the novels I’ve read, with the possible exception of The Brothers Karamazov, has had the greatest effect on me as a writer. I sometimes think my whole literary life has been an effort to rewrite The Power and the Glory in a way of my own. Part of what I was about in the Bebb books was to create a kind of whiskey priest. Or it became that. When I first began I thought of Bebb as an Elmer Gantry figure whom I would expose in the process of writing about him. But I came to like him more and more and to see more clearly what was saintly about him.

What exactly do you mean by saint?

I would think that the New Testament meaning of saint would be different from what one means by “the saints,” like Saint Francis or Saint Augustine. When Godric resists being classified as a saint, he’s thinking of Saint Cuthbert and other giants he had known. My view is that Godric is a saint in the sense that through his life the power and glory of God is made manifest in a very special way, even though like all the rest of us he is standing up to his ankles in mud.

In The Alphabet of Grace you say that at its heart most theology, like most fiction, is essentially autobiography. How autobiographical is your work?

By and large, I haven’t drawn very heavily on my own life in my novels—except my fantasy life. There are certain exceptions, of course. In The Final Beast the conversion experiences of the minister Nicolet were very much my own. And Kuykendall, the clergyman-professor in The Return of Ansel Gibbs, was modeled on a Union Seminary professor who had a tremendous influence on my life in every way.

What has influenced you in a literary sense?

I’ve already mentioned Graham Greene and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare’s King Lear. As for poets, the one I come back to more than any other is Gerard Manley Hopkins.

He’s also one who has had an influence on my style.

How have your books sold? Have any of them been best sellers?

Only the first one. The nonfiction books do quite well, but with the exception of A Long Day’s Dying, none of the novels has gone much beyond a few thousand copies.

Have you found that discouraging?

I think I’d write even if there were nobody to read. Fortunately, there have always been enough people who’ve responded to my novels the way I’ve wanted them to, so I’ve never felt entirely neglected. Further more, writing is more than a craft for me. It’s my ministry.

If writing is your ministry, who are the members of your parish?

I think of myself as addressing two different kinds of audiences. In the nonfiction, it’s more on the order of a congregation in a church. In the novels, I’m trying to reach the people who wouldn’t be caught dead in church or reading a religious book—the people Schleiermacher called religion’s “cultured despisers”—in a language I think they will understand.

Even though your main role as a novelist is that of a Christian apologist to unbelievers, it seems that with your stress on the mystery at the heart of existence and on the risk of faith, you have something important to say to the clergy.

Perhaps so. In my book Telling the Truth, I speak of a certain kind of minister as being like the captain of a ship who’s the only man aboard who doesn’t know the ship is going down. Everybody in the congregation knows that in addition to faith there are doubt and despair, and if in some sense the minister doesn’t acknowledge this in what he says, he shuts people off. There’s always the element of risk and doubt and mystery. It’s never easy for me. I can’t affirm anything easily.

Do you think your novels have anything to say to Christians in general?

Yes, I think so. I hope so. What I’m saying to Christians in my novels is what, if they’re honest with themselves, I think they know already. I’m saying that yes, God indeed does so love the world that he is at work in it continually, but almost always in hidden ways, ways that leave us free to decide for him or against him. When he does his work through human beings, they are apt to have feet of clay just as much as Leo Bebb or Godric, because that’s the only kind of human beings there are, saints included. My novels are not Sunday school stories with detachable morals at the end. They are my attempt to describe the world as richly and truly as perhaps only fiction can describe it, together with the truth that God is mysteriously with us in the world. That is in essence what I am saying to Christians and to anybody else who will listen.

SHIRLEY AND RUDY NELSON¹Mrs. Nelson is a novelist, and her husband a professor of English at the State University of New York in Albany.

The ECFA proves its viablity and tests its clout.

After three years of existence, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) appears to have won a permanent role in promoting uniform accountability and full disclosure of financial information among Christian organizations that solicit contributions from the public.

Over the last year, member organizations increased from 90 to 181, their combined incomes totaling $706 million. And ECFA’s fund deficit last year of $18,000 has been erased. The ECFA member seal has become a familiar sight. (One group that recently sent out a promotional mailing with only the ECFA emblem appearing on the envelope was admonished to include its own name as well.)

But although the fledgling entity’s acceptance seems assured, it is still staking out its turf between secular watchdog groups on the one hand, and certain religious trade associations on the other.

Most prominent among the former is the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The CBBB traditionally has concentrated on consumer fraud complaints. But about a decade ago, it got into oversight of charities because of many public inquiries seeking to learn whether fund raisers were legitimate.

Christian organizations critical of the CBBB complain that while the council says it does not evaluate the purposes of groups or even their operating standards, its publications give the impression of blacklisting. The CBBB Philanthropic Advisory Service issues a pamphlet, “Give, but Give Wisely,” that lists organizations that do and do not meet its standards for charitable solicitations. Organizations, for instance, that have more than 25 percent of their board of directors on their staff will be rejected right along with groups that refuse to divulge financial information and strong-arming cults.

The ECFA, by contrast, lists its members, but will not reveal those rejected or even those in process of applying.

At this year’s annual meeting of the ECFA in Washington, D.C., last month, representatives of the CBBB were invited to address the group. But the invitation came over the deep misgivings of several board members. Nancy DeMarco and Helen O’Rourke warned the group that the Better Business Bureaus are in the process of issuing more stringent standards on controls and use of funds. (The discussion draft outlines a requirement that at least 60 percent of total income be spent on programs directly related to the organization’s purposes, that fund raising and administrative costs not exceed 40 percent, and that fund raising and development not exceed 30 percent.)

The CBBB spokesmen acknowledged that the ECFA had come closest of any self-policing group to having a measureable impact on the number of inquiries the Better Business Bureaus receive. This, they said, was because evangelical organizations are in the forefront of those in public fund raising.

Luncheon speaker Jerry Falwell, well-known pastor of the Lynchburg. Virginia, Thomas Road Baptist Church, articulated the anti-BBB sentiment of many evangelicals. Using 2 Corinthians 4:2 as his text, he urged public disclosure because “it’s right.” “No one can ultimately cripple your ministry but you,” he declared, “by defensively refusing to play by the rules and giving the appearance of wrongdoing.” But he went on to suggest that Christians cannot submit to secular watchdog groups. “This world is still no friend to grace,” he said.

Those with an antigospel bias, Falwell said, will always oppose effective Christian ministry, no matter how far above reproach its methods are. But the ECFA is vital, he said, for the millions who are neither antigospel nor progospel. “We need to be a part of exposing those organizations that are fraudulent,” he said, adding puckishly that soon “everyone will be forced to join ECFA voluntarily.”

That is essentially the idea behind the launching of ECFA. The man most directly responsible for its inception was also a speaker at this year’s meeting: Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-Oreg.).

Hatfield recalled that on July 29, 1977, Billy Graham, Stanley Mooneyham of World Vision, and the leaders of five other Christian organizations met in his office to discuss pending legislation. Former Rep. Charles H. Wilson’s (D-Calif.) bill would have tightly regulated all public fund raising, requiring financial disclosure with every advertisement, commercial, and at the point of personal solicitation. Hatfield euphemistically said that he “decided to hold off on my alternative bill to allow voluntary disclosure a chance.”

Those present got the message. The preliminary meetings that eventuated in the ECFA were held that December. It was organized in September 1979. One observer wryly remarked that ECFA is Mark Hatfield holding a gun to the head of the evangelicals.

This year Hatfield, an evangelical himself, continued to apply pressure with the utmost courtesy. He reminded participants that he had called for the voluntary watchdog group to name violators and departures from the spirit as well as the letter of its standards. He also had called for genuine disclosure at the point of solicitation as well as in annual reports, he said.

Hatfield went on to insist that Christian organizations cannot surrender their control to professional fund-raising organizations that may pragmatically plan “emergencies” to increase income or build a campaign based on fear—“the homosexuals are talking over” or “Christians are being driven off Capitol Hill.” He also challenged the gathering to ponder whether moneys raised above the amount required for a stated goal can be diverted to other purposes.

Evangelicals, Hatfield concluded, “cannot go on blithely building our own kingdoms and power bases.” “The Lord,” he said, “is the final grantor of the ECFA seal of approval,” and may withhold his blessing from those abusing their trusts.

Christians, bewildered at the prominence this issue has assumed over the past few years, may wonder if believers are trailing far behind their secular counterparts on funding accountability.

The answer is no, according to a third speaker, William Warshauer, chairman of the nonprofit industry services division of Price Waterhouse and Company, a prominent auditing firm. As recently as 10 years ago, he said, no professional standards of accounting for nonprofit groups existed. The first guidelines in the field were issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as recently as 1973 and 1974. Since then the field has been narrowed somewhat by treating hospitals and educational institutions separately from other nonprofit organizations. That still leaves groups as disparate as foundations, labor unions, museums, and local governments lumped in with charities in one category. But it did allow the AICPA to draw up a Statement of Position in 1978: nonbinding standards of accounting for the field.

The associated group empowered to set mandatory standards is the Financial Accounting Standards Board, located in Stanford, Connecticut, which the Wall Street Journal has labeled “the most prolific rule-making body in government.” It turned its attention to the nonprofit sector only in 1977, and so far has developed only a “conceptual framework” as a basis for developing a consistent set of accounting standards. Warshauer said that this is an “intricate, confusing, time-consuming process.” He added that although he is sure uniform standards will evolve, the input period is likely to be protracted in an effort to achieve wide acceptance of the result.

ECFA not only needs to gain recognition comparable to the longer-established Better Business Bureaus. Certain evangelical professional associations also see it as unnecessary for their constituents, while welcoming it for others.

The Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, for example, began working on its comprehensive Accounting and Financial Reporting Guide for Missionary Organizations in 1975, completing its work in 1979, just one month after the ECFA was organized. Both the IFMA and its counterpart, the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, while officially neutral, have informally taken the position that their standards are as comprehensive as those of the ECFA and that mission agencies belonging to them should feel no obligation to join ECFA.

An observer with an accounting background who is sympathetic to both groups notes that such a response misses the point. The missions associations are trade associations, he says, concerned with a broader range of member agencies’ interests, while the ECFA is more narrowly designed to certify integrity to the “watching world.” He judged that half of the member IFMA missions have not met the organization’s own reporting standards over the past 10 years, and that a significant percentage is still struggling to meet them. But no action has been taken, he says, because it is very difficult for a trade association to decimate its own ranks or even to be tough in enforcement.

IFMA executive director Edwin L. Frizen, Jr., differs. He acknowledges that a number of member agencies’ reports were less than full audited reports, but says they were always prepared by certified public accountants. With the completion of the Guide, he estimates that less than 20 percent did not immediately meet the standards spelled out for the first time. But, he says, all have taken steps to bring them into full qualification within the next year. Moreover, he adds, the IFMA has dismissed a half dozen or so members over its 64-year history.

The ECFA has attempted to respond by finding ways to be helpful to the so-called faith missions. In early April, it hosted a meeting with eight mission agencies representative of the diversity in this grouping. Chaired by World Vision executive Ed Dayton, it explored the fund-raising philosophies and problems of the nondenominational missions with their executive and financial officers. The philosophies ranged from faith alone, to faith plus full information, to energetic solicitation.

Fund-raising problems were evident. At least one agency reported that a decade ago its accepted candidates typically had raised their support and were off to their overseas assignments in about one year with few if any dropouts in the process. Now, it typically takes two years to obtain the required support and as many as half of the candidates grow discouraged and withdraw in the interval.

ECFA executive secretary Olan Hendrix felt the ad hoc consultation proved positive in that the participants were not defensive and that fund-raising obstacles were identified.

Even without a coalescing of views in this sector, however, the ECFA’s prospects look bright. At the three-year mark, the ECFA has set itself the goal of 250 member organizations by the end of 1981. The recognized seal-of-approval role it seeks in accrediting evangelical organizations that solicit from the public is almost within grasp.

Personalia

Robert Cooley, an archaeologist at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, has been elected president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. The announcement ends a two-year search for a successor to Harold J. Okenga. Cooley is from an Assemblies of God background.

Ron Cline was elected president of World Radio Missionary Fellowship (HCJB in Quito, Ecuador), to succeed in 1982 Abe C. Van Der Puy, president for the last 20 years. Cline has served with the mission for five years.

R. Michael Steeves was appointed general secretary-treasurer of the Baptist Federation of Canada. Steeves has been pastor of churches in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia. The Baptist Federation includes four conventions and unions, and has 120,000 active members across Canada.

Texas multimillionaire T. Cullen Davis threw his weight behind a proposal to make Texas public schools teach creation science along with evolution science. Davis, a recent convert and close friend of evangelist James Robison, sent a letter to each member of the Texas legislature indicating his support for the bill. He added. “As a businessman with many employees throughout the state, I will be most pleased if I can report to my associates in your area that you have affirmed a position on these bills.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Robert A. K. Runcie, titular head of the world’s 64 million Anglicans, completed a 21-day tour of the U.S. earlier this month. Much more low-key than Pope John Paul II’s U.S. tour 18 months earlier, the visit was called “pastoral” by Runcie, 59, a nonevangelical traditionalist and World War II veteran who breeds Berkshire pigs as a hobby. His trip ended with a call for unity among Christians during the week-long meeting of the world’s 28 Anglican primates in Washington, D.C. It was the first time the bishops convened in the U.S.

Results include flow of Bibles into Socialist Nicaragua.

The Nicaraguan government flew in the parts for a plastic swimming pool earlier this month. The pool was not to be built at the home of some Sandinista elitist—far from it. Its destination was a large prison in Managua, where 700 prisoners were waiting to be baptized.

Their new faith in Christ, and the revolutionary government’s apparent encouragement of it, are among several remarkable developments in the Central American nation. The most recent is the revolutionary government’s request for 800,000 popular-language New Testaments.

The first 100,000 entered the country from Colombia earlier this month, mostly through funds provided by the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI). Now the United Bible Societies is raising funds for the remaining 700,000.

The New Testaments will be distributed free through local churches, and are earmarked specifically for prisoners and the thousands of Nicaragua’s new readers. In the unprecedented 1980 “Great National Literacy Campaign,” literacy in the nation of 2.4 million nearly doubled—from 48 to 88 percent.

Alberto Cárcamo, general director of the UBS office for the Americas (one of four regional headquarters) in Mexico City, said interior minister Tomás Borge Martínez requested the Bibles, realizing that “if the new readers don’t get material to read, they’ll lose what they’ve learned. “But Cárcamo also attributed the choice of reading materials to Borge’s “Christian principles.”

Borge, himself tortured and his wife and daughter killed by guardsmen of deposed dictator Anastasio Somoza, attests to a personal experience with Christ, coming largely through the ministry of the FGBMFI. He has attended a number of FGBMFI’s functions in Central America, most recently a one-day event in Panama to which he flew.

Observers say Borge’s spiritual healing is most evidenced in his reconciliatory measures toward former enemies and his treatment of political prisoners. Borge publicly denounced and apologized for the executions of several hundred Somocistas by revenge-bent Sandinista guerrillas soon after the June 1979 change of government. He emphasized that revenge and murder is not the Sandinista policy. He secured early release for some of the 7,000 political prisoners, and hopes to better the conditions in overcrowded prisons where the estimated 4,200 prisoners remain.

At a meeting of the local Managua Full Gospel Business Men’s chapter last July. Borge voiced his burden for the prisoners and asked FGBMFI officials for help (CT, Sept. 19, 1980). The charismatic-oriented group, with headquarters in Costa Mesa, California, responded by sending in several thousand Bibles, as well as local pastors to minister to the prisoners. These efforts are not hurt by the fact that the government’s head of prisons, Chester Alvarado, is a Christian. FGBMFI director for Central and South America, Newman Peyton, Jr., said he recently prayed with Alvarado to accept Christ as Savior.

Peyton, based in Houston, said the FGBMFI’s vision for Latin America is to reach its heads of state with the gospel. He directs this work with Latin America Mission affiliate Jonás Gonzalez, the Texas-born FGBMFI Latin America coordinator based in Costa Rica, who joined FGBMFI 13 months ago after extensive ministry with LAM-related agencies.

FGBMFI-sponsored prayer luncheons and meetings with Latin American political and government leaders are low-key. Usually a well-known figure shares his personal testimony, and meetings are often on a one-to-one basis. Peyton emphasized the apolitical nature of FGBMFI—that the group will extend the gospel to anyone, regardless of a person’s politics: “We’re not anti-capitalist, anti-Communist, or anti-anything—just pro-Jesus Christ.”

FGBMFI officials prefer not to publicize their meetings with Latin American heads of state, but there are indications that this behind-the-scenes witness is making a substantial impact. According to Peyton, FGBMFI officials met in late April with provisional president Policarpo Paz Garcia of Honduras and “God touched him.” At FGBMFI’s request, Costa Rican president Rodrigo Carazo Odio was host to a December 1979 dinner meeting that brought together Honduran and Sandinista leaders at a time when their respective nations were involved in a bloody border dispute.

Largely because government leaders of Guyana have been influenced favorably for the gospel, that “whole nation is going through a born-again experience,” Peyton asserted. He mentioned again the positive effect of Borge, who, while not a member of the three-man ruling junta, is the “real power” in Nicaragua as its Minister of the Interior.

United Bible Societies officials hope Christians will take advantage of the open door for Bible distribution in Nicaragua. Many observers believe free nations earlier missed their chance by not answering the Sandinista government’s request for teachers during the literacy campaign. Cuba did, however, sending in at least 1,800 teachers who taught reading, as well as the Marxist line. Christian leaders want to pump in Christian materials to keep pace with the prevalent Marxist ones. Right now the government allows the churches almost complete religious freedom.

The version being sent to Nicaragua is Dios llega al hombre (literally “God comes as man,” and is the Spanish equivalent of Good News for Modern Man). (U.S. supporters can contact the American Bible Society, 1865 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10023 about the Nicaraquan project). The Bible cover carries the seal of Nicaragua, and the words of the national hymn. Time will tell whether the New Testaments bring a spiritual revolution with as much impact as the political one in Nicaragua.

Scotland

Luis Palau Returns For Glasgow Crusade

The motto of Scotland’s largest city is “Let Glasgow flourish through the preaching of the Word and the praising of his name.” The acids of modernity in recent years have abbreviated that to the opening three words, but Luis Palau opted for the original version when earlier this month he opened his five-week crusade in Kelvin Hall.

A revival of wintry weather kept attendance down to about 4,500. To his listeners, the 46-year-old Argentinian spoke of a different kind of revival that would restore Scotland to past spiritual greatness—when its preachers trusted the Bible and its missionaries were sent all over the world, including Palau’s own Latin America.

Palau has strong Scottish links: his maternal grandmother was a Balfour. A Scots businessman’s testimony was used in his own conversion as a boy, and he has already conducted crusades in northwest and southeast Scotland. He stresses, nonetheless, that he does not see himself as “a missionary to darkest Britain.”

But Palau expressed concern at the Glasgow meeting that 2,000 Scottish churches have been closed since 1929, and that a large segment of the population in the land of John Knox is not being reached by the gospel. “It’s either back to the jungle or back to the Bible.” he told his Scottish hearers.

Palau is convinced that “many people have images of what evangelical Christianity is all about that are twisted and totally misleading.” He left those first-day listeners in no doubt about his own concept, and several dozen responded by going forward for counseling at the close of the meeting.

This largest crusade in Glasgow since Billy Graham came to the same hall in 1955 has a budget of some $700,000, of which almost half had been raised before the 900-strong choir rose for the first hymn.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Zimbabwe

Shattered During War, Evangelicals Regroup

The Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe (EFZ)—then Rhodesia—collapsed in 1978 at the height of the liberation struggle, when it was difficult to call meetings. In addition, most of the officers of the fellowship, which was born in 1963, were missionaries, some of whom left the country as the guerrilla warfare intensified.

Last month—just a week before Zimbabwe celebrated its first anniversary—delegates from 10 evangelical denominations and mission organizations met in Salisbury and determined to revive the organization (which had 25 member bodies before its collapse). They elected an interim executive committee, with Philemon M. Kumalo, ordained in the Brethren in Christ Church and principal of Ekupheleni Bible Institute, as chairman. Bishop Joshua Dhube of the United Baptist church and a member of Parliament in Prime Minister Robert Mugabe’s government was elected secretary; Wilbur Beach, a TEAM missionary, was selected as treasurer.

According to Dhube, the general citizenry views favorably the liberal-leaning Zimbabwe Christian Council. Some member denominations in the ZCC identified with the nationalists during the protracted warfare, whereas some evangelical missions were sympathetic to the Ian Smith regime.

One of the EFZ’s weaknesses, argues Willfred Strom, EFZ chairman from 1968 to 1972 and one of the committee members in the interim executive, “was that it was too mission oriented. Now, it should reflect the new reality in Zimbabwe.”

The resurrected EFZ’s success or failure, supporters say, may depend on its ability to interpret the orthodox Christian message within the context of African experience.

NGONI SENGWE

Mexico

Protestants Are Tormented Still In The Villages

Hostility against the thriving Presbyterian church had been building for some time in San Lorenzo Temexlupan, a small town in the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico. More than 300 people had accepted the message of salvation—even though only a small part of the New Testament had been translated into their language, one of the many Zapotec dialects, through work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Wycliffe).

Then in March, hostility exploded. The president of the congregation, Valentino Martinez Marcial, was found dead on the road beside his burro, seven bullets in his body. Valentino, 28, had been the SIL translator’s principal translation assistant for the local language.

Soon after, another member of the church, Vicente Marcial Francisco, 26, was also murdered. Strangely, the authorities reportedly did not bother to write up the deaths as crimes that needed investigation.

A few days later, a mob armed with sticks, axes, and machetes marched on the simple Presbyterian chapel and destroyed it. Another member of the church was shot, but escaped; a fourth victim, beaten badly about the head and left for dead, also survived.

By that time, the believers got the message and fled. A group of 47 sought refuge in the town of Santa Rosa Mata Galtinas where in past years several believers were killed. But the town fathers held a meeting and voted that no refugees could stay. Fleeing again, a large group of believers from San Lorenzo arrived at the gates of San Pablo Presbyterian Church in the city of Oaxaca, capital of the state. They requested food and shelter for an indefinite time. Others fled to Mexico City and other parts of the country.

Realizing local authorities were against the believers, the San Pablo pastor, Saul Velasco Cervantes, and other Presbyterian leaders sought an audience with the governor of Oaxaca. He offered to send soldiers to escort the people back to their homes. But leaders in San Lorenzo swore to kill every one of the Presbyterians as soon as the soldiers departed.

Despite the deaths, the news got out slowly: Pastor Velasco told a local reporter what was happening, and on April 29 a Mexico City evening paper, Ovaciones, headlined in letters three inches high: “HOLY WAR,” adding incorrectly that two Presbyterians had been burned to death. Some radio stations around Mexico picked up the story, but most of the press ignored it.

The “war” aspect was typical of Roman Catholic attitudes toward the introduction of teachings other than their own in rural Mexico, but Oaxaca Presbyterians are not clear whether the persecution is being directed by Communists or Catholics. However, as recently as June 1979, the Catholic archbishop of Oaxaca publicly attacked the Summer Institute of Linguistics without supporting evidence, accusing the translators of being agitators, “proselytizing and provoking violence and deaths in Oaxaca upon inducing the Indians to division …”

On April 30, the National Assembly of the Presbyterian Church began to consider what action to take regarding the Oaxaca incidents, said its president, Juan Garcia. If enough funds were available, there was a strong possibility of publishing full-page statements in major Mexico City newspapers to make the public aware of the problem and lead the authorities to take corrective action.

ELISABETH ISAIS

World Scene

A mass evangelistic rally in West Berlin scheduled for June 5–7 has created a furor in advance of the event. The heavily advertised Berlin ’81 is to be held in the 78,000-seat Olympic Stadium. It is the project of Volkhard Spitzer, charismatic pastor of the 500-member Christian Center in Berlin. The German Evangelical Alliance, the Berlin Ecumenical Council, and a number of Lutheran church entities have disassociated themselves from the rally. They cite Spitzer’s claim to divine instruction in launching Berlin ’81, his handling of prophetic topics, and advertisemets that show as participating some leaders who have declined to attend. Spitzer said he is shocked that a meeting designed to reach people for Christ could “still meet with such opposition in Germany,” and insisted he has no plans to develop a new movement.

Evangelicals in Yugoslavia have taken a step toward cooperation, but are finding harmony elusive. Last December an evangelical council formed, with members (churches and individuals—not denominations) from among the Baptists, Brethren, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, Assemblies of God, and other Pentecostal groups. But soon afterward, certain Baptist leaders opposed the council, accusing it of ecumenism. In Yugoslavia, “ecumenical” would indicate the inclusion of Roman Catholics, Serbian Orthodox, or Muslims, but none of those are part of the new evangelical fellowship. A Yugoslavian correspondent attributes the discord to a personality conflict between Baptists and Pentecostals rather than a matter of conscience, noting that those seeking to undercut the council previously served together at the international level with no qualms.

The Hungarian Bible Council is incensed that mission organizations have pirated its ecumenical version of the Hungarian Bible. The council, which represents Reformed, Lutheran, Free, and Orthodox churches, first published the version in 1975, and so far has printed 80,000 copies. But council president Tibor Bartha, a Reformed bishop, says the churches are “deeply grieved” that the version, protected by international copyright law, “was being printed without our knowledge in a printing press somewhere in the West, and being regularly smuggled into our country.” He stated that rumors that the Bible is in short supply in Hungary are false. The thousands of copies of the pirated edition flooding second-hand bookshops at almost half the official price, he said, are undercutting the economic viability of producing the new version, and also threaten to bring all Bible distribution in Hungary into disrepute.

American Protestants have launched a TV station in Southern Lebanon. Sponsored by television evangelist George Otis’s High Adventure Ministries of Van Nuys, California, it began beaming its signals last month into the heavily Palestinian Tyre and Sidon region. The same organization installed a radio transmitter in Major Saad Haddad’s so-called Christian Enclave along the Israeli border in 1979. The Israeli-protected strip is populated equally with Maronite Christians and Shiite Muslims.

The Brother Andrew organization has been strongly criticized by a new Hong Kong-based grouping of Christian organizations that focuses on assisting the church in mainland China. In its first newsletter, the Fellowship of China Ministries takes Open Doors to task for releasing a book with “an unneccessarily agitative title, God’s Smuggler to China, despite warning from the fellowship. The FCM expresses deep regret and discourages the distribution of this book in Hong Kong.” An officer of the fellowship (whose members are Asian Outreach, the Chinese Church Research Center, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Christian Communications Ltd., Far East Broadcasting Company, and Trans World Radio) noted that it is not illegal for Bibles to enter the People’s Republic, and that to suggest that this is the case is to tag Christians who distribute them as violators of the law.

Opponents count votes, weigh tactics and Constitutions.

When does one’s life begin?

At conception (fertilization)? At implantation in the uterus? At viability, whatever that is? At birth?

For U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and hosts of antiabortionists, the answer is obvious: at conception.

Helms’s legislative proposal S. 158, dropped into the hopper several months ago, would make that answer a matter of public policy.

Amid charges of a stacked deck of witnesses, the first round of hearings on the bill were held last month by a subcommittee chaired by Helms’s protégé, John East (R-N.C.). Seven of the eight medical-scientific authorities who testified upheld the contention that human life begins at conception—the foundation slab of the Helms bill.

(Corresponding bills have been introduced in the House by Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois and Democrat Romano L. Mazzoli of Kentucky.)

In defining the fetus as a “person,” the bill would extend to all unborn the due-process protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It would permit states to ban or otherwise strictly regulate abortions, in effect reversing the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that struck down statutes outlawing or greatly restricting abortion.

The bill in a separate section would prohibit lower federal courts from involvement in abortion cases.

Until S. 158, many antiabortionists were pinning their hopes on an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. But that route requires two-thirds approval of each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states. Advocates of a constitutional amendment have been unable to agree on wording or strategy, and none of the many versions has been reported out of committee.

Ardent antiabortion activists themselves are hopelessly split: some want exceptions for such reasons as rape and incest included in the wording; others are holding out resolutely for no exceptions. And some Catholics among them have blended their opposition to unnatural contraception with their antiabortion views, further clouding the amendment cause.

In contrast, a legislative bill needs only a simple majority to pass each house, and it can be enforced after the President signs it. (Ronald Reagan has expressed support for the goals of the Helms bill.)

Proabortionists generally see little chance of an amendment being passed in the near future, but a statute is conceivably within easy reach since both houses are ruled by a conservative majority. Some antiabortionists fear that debate over a statute, whose continued existence would be subject to the ideological whims of future congresses, will distract from efforts to win an amendment. Others—including some stalwart antiabortionists on Capitol Hill—believe the Helms bill is unconstitutional.

Originally, the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution chaired by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was to have cosponsored the hearings on S. 158 with East’s subcommittee on the separation of powers. Expressing qualms about the bill’s constitutionality, however. Hatch quietly bowed out.

The two-day-long proceedings were held in one of the largest hearing rooms on Capitol Hill, and the wheelchair-confined East—an acknowledged born-again Christian who says he attends “an independent. Bible-believing church”—had to face the capacity crowds virtually alone. His Republican colleagues had schedule conflicts, and the Democrats stayed away, complaining that East had refused to call witnesses they recommended.

The first witnesses, all doctors, were: Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at Rene Descartes University in Paris; medical researcher Micheline M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School; professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the medical genetics department of the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota; Watson Bowes, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine; McCarthy DeMere, a plastic surgeon and lawyer from Memphis; Chicago clinic operator Jasper Williams; pediatrician Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and dean of medicine at the Catholic University of Puerto Rico; and Leon Rosenberg, chairman of genetics at Yale University School of Medicine.

With the union of chromosomes at conception, said Lejeune, a new autonomous human has come into being.

Citing the “criteria of modern molecular biology,” Gordon declared that “all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”

They and Matthews-Roth, who quoted from numerous textbooks, insisted that they were only telling East what is taught in every university in the world.

However, Rosenberg, who said he was invited to testify only a week earlier, said he knows of no scientific evidence that “bears on the question of when ‘actual human life’ exists.” The “notion embodied in the phrase … is not a scientific one, but rather a metaphysical one,” he said. Science and medicine, he continued, should not be invoked to justify an antiabortion position. “Go ask your minister, your priest, your rabbi, or your God,” he declared, “because it is in their domain that this matter resides.”

Under questioning by East, Rosenberg said that human life ought to be protected at the point of viability—“when one can exist on his own outside the uterus.” He acknowledged that no consensus exists as to when a fetus becomes viable. He pointed out that contraceptives like intrauterine devices (IUDs), which prevent the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus, would be outlawed under the bill (as would so-called morning-after pills and suppositories for self-use in the first five weeks of pregnancy, now undergoing nationwide testing).

Rosenberg, who received loud and sustained applause, insisted that his was the majority view of the scientific community.

Twice, during Gordon’s and Matthews-Roth’s testimonies, small bands of female demonstrators interrupted the proceedings, waving unfurled banners they had smuggled in and chanting protest slogans: “A woman’s life is a human life. Stop the proceedings!” They were arrested.

Taking credit for the outbursts was the Women’s Liberation Zap Action Brigade. Declared a spokeswoman: “Members of Congress, members of the medical profession who have testified, and the church have no right to interfere in a woman’s personal decision to have an abortion.” That view was echoed by other groups, including the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.

East was deluged with written protests from many groups before and after the hearings. Many complained about his initial plan to restrict the hearings to scientific and legal testimony. In response, he announced plans to hold additional rounds of hearings, and to include philosophical, theological, and sociological testimony. He indicated all sides would be represented.

A number of legal authorities, ranging from counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union to Americans United for Separation of Church and State and even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, questioned the constitutionality of the bill, citing what they said were serious conflicts or deficiencies.

Following the first round of hearings, East seemed to appreciate witness McCarthy DeMere’s analysis: “Senator, you have opened a can of worms.”

Church-and-state issues

Lawyers Are Challenged To Battle Secularist Inroads

Christian lawyers were called to action on many fronts and from many perspectives during a four-day convention sponsored by the Christian Legal Society late last month. The meetings were held on the campus of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.

The theme of religious freedom was the centerpiece. In particular, focus was on ways the Constitution is used today as a noose to strangle that freedom, even though it was written as a shield to protect it. One reason that bobbed gently to the surface from time to time was that some lawyers who believe in Christian principles have been asleep at the switch.

“What is a Christian lawyer?” asked theologian Francis Schaeffer in an address to the lawyers. “Is he someone who puts Christian magazines on the table in his waiting room?”

Schaeffer said the purpose of the First Amendment, in its two references to absolute religious freedom, was to prevent the establishment of a state church, not to obliterate the influence of religion on government as is being done today. “To suggest a viable state separated from religion to these [founding fathers] would have utterly amazed them,” Schaeffer said. “In these shifts that have come in the law, where have the Christian lawyers been?… [To] a nonlawyer like myself, I think I have a right to feel let down a bit.”

Schaeffer said the country is far along in becoming a totally humanistic society, with a system of laws being used as the agent to force humanistic beliefs on the country. He said repeatedly that Christians need to see their faith governing all aspects of life and cultures: “The Lord is lord not only of religious life, but of totality.”

Schaeffer said evangelical leadership as a whole has not been as strong as it should be: “Its main concern has been not to rock the boat.” He said some church leaders (whom he did not name) actually sought to prevent people from attending his second film/lecture series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, a powerful presentation of the medical and social ethics that result from humanistic philosophy.

William Bentley Ball, a Pennsylvania lawyer known for his success in defending Christian liberty in the courts, spoke of a “tidal wave” of secularism that is assaulting Christian freedoms. He called it the natural result of a society that has pushed God from its center and has tried to solve its problems by itself. According to Ball, secularism holds that rights come from society, not from the individual, regardless of what the Constitution says about those rights.

Its promoters are careful not to appear antireligious, Ball said. Every government attorney he has faced in court proclaims that people are free to believe whatever they wish. “However, when one acts in the name of religion, the state’s interests come first,” he said. “I am always amused by this marvelous simplism: an American is religiously free—inside his head.”

Ball named four arenas in which he believes secularism seems to be most threatening: (1) abuse of the federal tax power; (2) wrong use of the state’s licensing power; (3) sex discrimination rulings; and (4) the denial of religious liberty in public institutions. He said the matter of religious discrimination is especially significant since all Christians do not hold women as identical to men in matters of church office. Neither do all Christians believe in the spirit of the Equal Rights Amendment—that there must be no discrimination based on sex. Ball reminded the lawyers that “many of the sex discrimination cases thus far have not been well defended, and … the cement of bad case law is starting to harden.”

Charles Colson, White House advisor to President Richard Nixon who became tangled in the Watergate scandal and wound up in prison—and who emerged from his ordeal a Christian committed to prison reforms—spoke harshly about the failures of American prisons. “How [does a Christian] get involved in issues of criminal justice?” Colson asked rhetorically. “A better question is, how do you not get involved? You have to care. Jesus cared. The more I read [the gospel accounts] the more radical I get every time I walk into a prison.”

Colson said that many experts believe harsher sentences will reduce crime. But that has not been the case: the average sentence in federal prisons in 1945 was 16.5 months, and in 1975, 45.2 months; yet crime is increasing. Colson described in detail the revolting conditions of some prisons he has been in. He said, however, that the chief cause of bitterness among the nation’s prisoners is not those conditions, but unfair sentencing practices of the courts. He called that system “insane” and “ludicrous.” Colson said experts have long believed that poverty, racism, and oppression are at the root of crime, but then referred to a massive study done by two staff members at the George Washington University medical school showing that this view is wrong. The study found that it is a deliberate decision by an individual to do evil and not to do good that causes a criminal act, said Colson. The solution the researchers discovered, he said, was to convert the criminal to a more responsible lifestyle. The study cited by Colson is in two volumes, entitled The Criminal Personality, by Stanton Samenow and Samuel Yochelson.

TOM MINNERY

Columbia Bible College

Graham Association Donates Land For Education Center

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has given 1,447 acres of wooded property near Asheville, North Carolina, to Columbia Bible College in Columbia. South Carolina. The Graham organization invested more than $4 million in the property.

A fire destroyed part of Columbia’s Ben Lippen High School and summer conference center in Asheville, and the new land will be used to relocate the school and expand the conference center into a year-round retreat and training center for lay people. The programs are to include discipleship training, leadership development, spiritual renewal, family building, and “tentmaker” training for missionaries headed for countries closed to traditional missionary ventures. Plans include weekend retreats and weekend workshops and seminars.

J. Robertson McQuilkin, president of Columbia, said Graham talked with him several years ago about developing the facilities jointly, but that Graham feels led to concentrate his efforts on evangelism.

McQuilken said much more money will have to be raised before the property can be developed, but professed astonishment at the expressions of interest from across the country—especially from people not connected with the college. “This will be an entirely new approach,” he said.

Ben Lippen is primarily a residential high school for children of people in full-time Christian work overseas. In a newsletter about the gift of land, McQuilken said, “As you may know, we have been very limited at Ben Lippen, no room to expand, aging buildings, and a noisy, bustling community fast closing in on all sides. But we never had thought of moving until God let our past go up in smoke, clearing the way for something far better.”

North American Scene

A Texas state judge in Austin has ruled that fundamentalist pastor Lester Roloff of Corpus Christi does not need licenses to operate his three homes for wayward children, thus ending for Roloff an eight-year run of court appearances. Judge Charles Matthews ruled that the children’s homes are part of Roloff’s church, and therefore exempt from state licensing requirements. The victory is important for fundamentalists across the country who have been fighting to keep their schools free of government regulations on grounds that the schools are inseparable from their churches.

The fight over biblical inerrancy that has been boiling in the Southern Baptist Convention has taken on new partisan overtones with the announcement that Abner V. McCall, president of Baylor University in Waco, Texas, will challenge Bailey Smith for the presidency of the 13.6-million-member denomination. The SBC president is traditionally unopposed for election to a second one-year term, but moderates are unhappy because they believe Smith, elected last year, has put too many “fundamentalists” on convention committees.

The United Methodist evangelical caucus Good News established a legal defense fund after two Pennsylvania pastors were dismissed on charges they violated church discipline. The pastors had told their congregations they could not support payment of the UMC’s World Service apportionments on grounds that funds often were used to support Marxist groups (CT, April 10, p. 60). The Good News executive committee set up the fund “to investigate and to assure that justice and fair play prevail for pastors who are being oppressed.”

Lee College officials say the school figures to recover its $1 million investment with a Miami, Florida, corporation that has been charged with bilking some 400 investors nationwide. President Charles Conn of the 1,400-student Church of God school in Cleveland, Tennessee, said that Lee made every effort to insure the safety of its investment. But he charged that the school received fraudulent documents from the company. Conn wrote a complaint letter to the ABC television network, which had described the alleged pyramid financial scheme in a way he felt portrayed the school as “gambling” with its endowment fund money’s and as “a villain, rather than victim.”

An immediate end to federal subsidies for second-class mailings for nonprofit organizations is part of the Reagan budget approved by the House of Representatives earlier this month. Unless reversed, that means that postage rates for religious magazines will double as of October 1. Editor John Stapert, who has monitored legislative developments for religious press organizations, recently queried publishers as to their plans if that occurs. More than half said they would reduce frequency of publication; about a quarter would cut back the number of pages per issue. Out of 85, 6 said they would consider ceasing publication. The rest would try to absort costs in other ways. Third-class direct mail promotional costs would also rise for nonprofit organizations.

Theologically liberal denominations are biased toward the extreme left and promoting views contrary to those held by most local churches, charged a new group of conservative theologians and intellectuals. The Institute on Religion and Democracy, formed to give grassroots churches the other perspective, singled out the National Council of Churches as funding and publicizing in such a way as to contribute to a leftist revolution in El Salvador. United Methodist evangelist and institute director Edmund W. Robb said the liberal churches’ support of Salvadorian antigovemment factions is a “new form of cultural imperialism imposed by U.S. church groups” and they “will no longer go unchallenged.” The institute’s organizing members include evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry, Catholic professor James V. Schall, and journalists Richard Neuhaus and Michael Novak, among others.

“The largest convocation of biblical scholars ever assembled to inform … on … the authority of God’s Word,” is what James M. Boice calls a planned Congress on the Bible to be held in San Diego in March 1982. The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, of which he is president, is sponsoring the event, and has already confirmed the names of 35 speakers. The council, which met last month in Atlanta is eager to move beyond the inerrancy-infallibility discussion to reinstating the Bible as God’s authoritative Word in the lives of individuals.

Some schools don’t claim to be much of anything, some claim to be what they are not, and some are gamely trying to become something.

In large numbers, ministers are returning to school for graduate degrees. They want to “keep up” in their field, and achieve the recognition an advanced degree offers in this accomplishment-conscious society. The Association of Theological Schools reports that 11 years ago there were 201 students enrolled in doctor of ministry (D.Min.) programs; today there are 5,551. In that same period, the number of Ph.D. students rose 54 percent, despite the well-known shortage of teaching positions for which such degrees are usually obtained.

But a minister who believes he cannot afford to go back to school in an accredited program is not barred from getting a certificate for his wall. The reason is that a thicket of unrecognized theology schools has sprung up to meet the demand—nearly all of them with standards below those of the accredited schools. These unaccredited institutions generally offer correspondence courses for master’s and doctoral degrees, even though recognized accrediting agencies do not believe home study should qualify for graduate credit.

Unfortunately, some of the schools make misleading statements about their accreditation, and their students mistakenly believe the schools are fully recognized. The students who attend usually have no basis on which to judge the education they receive, allowing even poor schools to produce satisfied students.

Unaccredited graduate schools of theology generally fall into three categories: schools that don’t claim to be much of anything; schools that claim to be what they are not; and schools which, despite the clamor of critics from established academia, are gamely trying to become something.

If all a person wants is a degree for the wall, the first group is his ticket. He sends in his money and gets a degree—either by doing nothing, or by completing a few correspondence courses, or by writing a paper or two. For $1,000, the California Christian University in Adelanto, California, will award an honorary doctorate. For $45, Western Cascade University in San Francisco offers a doctorate in any subject the student chooses. For another $50, Western Cascade will throw in a transcript of credits drawn to anyone’s specifications. A doctorate may be obtained from the International Bible Institute and Seminary in Orlando, Florida, for writing a 60,000-word paper, or three 20,000-word papers. But that’s no piece of cake: there must be at least seven books listed on the bibliography. The cost is $550, with a 10 percent discount for cash payment.

These kinds of places seem to flourish in California, probably because that state has a law allowing practically anyone with at least $50,000 in property or equipment not only to set up shop, but to advertise that they are “authorized” by the state to award degrees. (They must also file annual affidavits with the state fully disclosing pertinent facts about themselves.) Some states have tougher laws; others don’t. Still others, despite their best efforts, have been unable to police the landscape as well as they would like. For example, to weed out diploma mills, Florida passed a law requiring all colleges to have state licenses, but certain religious groups objected on First Amendment grounds. They were excluded, and now the only substandard schools in Florida are religious schools (all religious schools in Florida are not substandard, of course).

The schools in the next category, those claiming to be more than they actually are, cause special concern, because students can more easily be misled by them. These usually offer graduate degrees by correspondence, but the courses require genuine effort and the cost is considerable. They definitely are not diploma mills, and a student can finish a degree at one of these schools, learn a lot, and feel proud of his accomplishment. The only real problem is that the people who run them usually have insufficient credentials for teaching graduate-level courses, and the courses themselves fall far short of generally accepted standards for graduate education.

Because of these factors, a student could run into trouble if he tries to get into a ministry that requires accredited training—a military chaplaincy or a pastorate in some denominations, for example—or if he tries to transfer his credits to a recognized college.

Many of these unrecognized schools sport credentials from impressive-sounding accrediting agencies, but usually these are worthless. The only generally recognized accrediting agency for theological graduate schools is the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) in Vandalia, Ohio. It is one of about 80 specialized accrediting bodies in the country that scrutinize individual programs of colleges and graduate schools in particular fields of endeavor. In addition, there are six regional accrediting agencies (the North Central Association, the Southern Association, etc.). Each has authority to accredit entire colleges and universities within its region. Sometimes small theology schools, usually fundamentalist, will publicly refuse to seek accreditation from any of these, under the mistaken notion that the groups are connected with the government. They are not; they are all private. (This excuse is sometimes convenient when a school cannot possibly meet the standards.)

Although several bogus accrediting agencies exist, only those agencies that have passed the scrutiny of the Council on Post-Secondary Education (COPA) or the U.S. Department of Education are generally recognized as legitimate. So it is not enough to know that a school is accredited. The all-important question is: Accredited by whom? (These accrediting agencies are not supposed to question the doctrine of the schools they scrutinize, only the teaching standards.)

One school that advertises frequently and presents itself to the unknowing student as being more than it actually is, is Toledo Bible College and Seminary in Tennyson, Indiana. The school offers 15 academic programs, including four master’s degrees and four doctoral degrees, all available for home study on cassette tapes. It has about a thousand students, nearly all of them in the correspondence courses, making it one of the larger schools of its kind. Three men do most of the teaching.

Because the Toledo school illustrates a number of problems students should be aware of when contemplating an unaccredited school, a close look at its credentials to see what it claims to be, and what it actually is, is of value.

The founder of Toledo Bible College and Seminary is John D. Brooke. He lists himself in the course catalogue as a graduate of Detroit Bible College, and as having a B.A. from Great Lakes College (not to be confused with Great Lakes Bible College), a Ph.B.D. degree from Pioneer Theological Seminary, and a Th.D. from Toledo.

Actually, Brooke received a three-year diploma from the Detroit institution in 1949 when it was a three-year Bible institute. Pioneer Theological Seminary was named on a list of diploma mills issued by the federal government in 1961, and it closed shortly afterwards. For all practical purposes, Brooke awarded himself the Th.D. from Toledo, since he received it not long after he started the school. Brooke did receive a B.A. from Great Lakes College in 1957. That school later merged into Michigan Lutheran, which merged into Shaw College of Detroit, which still exists.

The second teacher is William Franklin Milton, Sr., who received three degrees in three years from Toledo: a Th.B., Th.M., and Th.D. He has no other degrees, according to the catalogue.

The third teacher is Thomas Rodgers, the vice-president and director of the off-campus division. He has a recognized degree from the University of Detroit in business administration, and is probably the most respected teacher at Toledo. He has a genuine ability to motivate students say some who have taken his classes on campus. Rodgers also has four theology degrees, all from unrecognized schools, including two from Toledo. One degree, a Ph.D., is from California Christian University—a dubious place where, as noted earlier, an honorary doctorate may be bought for $1,000 (Rodgers said he took correspondence courses for his Ph.D.).

The fact that Rogers would even list that degree in the catalogue says something about Toledo. According to a book entitled The Alternative Guide to College Degrees and Non-Traditional Education, by John Bear, the founder and president of California Christian is Walter Rummerfield, who, according to Bear, lists his pedigree as B.S., Ms.D., Ps.D., GS-9, D.D., Ph.D.M., Ph.D., D.B.A., S.T.D., J.C.D., and J.S.D. Bear asked Rummerfield about those nine doctorates and was told, “Well, I’ve really been around.” Bear says in his book that he has seen California Christian diplomas signed by Ernest Sinclair, whom Bear identifies as “the notorious felon who has spent much time in prison for running degree mills.” Rummerfield denied to Bear that Sinclair was connected with the school. Bear writes, “That this school operates legally says more about California law than about California Christian University.” (More about that California law later.) Asked about his degree from California Christian, Rodgers said he isn’t proud of it and that he will not list it in the next edition of the catalogue.

Brooke started Toledo Bible College and Seminary in Toledo, Ohio, in the late sixties. He operated it there until 1978 when, for all practical purposes, he was forced out of the state by the Ohio Board of Regents for awarding degrees without a state certificate of authorization. (Unlike California, “authorization” is an academic accomplishment in Ohio.) The certificate depended on the school’s passing an academic inspection by the state, an unlikely event, and Brooke was made aware of it. Nonetheless, he had applied; but shortly before the Ohio Board of Regents was to rule, Brooke withdrew the application, packed everything up, and the school was moved suddenly to Indiana, making it almost literally a fly-by-night operation. The shift took place a few weeks before the 1978 fall semester was to open, and a number of students were left high and dry. The students were never given a clear reason for the abrupt relocation of their school.

During its years in Ohio, the school did not distinguish itself academically. Interviews with several former teachers reveal that students were admitted who could barely read. One of the teachers, Larry Evans, was dumbfounded to learn at graduation that some of these students were awarded doctorates.

Richard Hopkins taught at Toledo in the early seventies, but it was not until the preparation of this article that he learned some dismaying news about its accreditation claims. The school’s current catalogue says it is “fully accredited by the International Accrediting Commission of Schools. Colleges and Theological Seminaries, and the American Association of Specialized Colleges.” Since other unrecognized schools carry credentials from these agencies, a closer look at them is worthwhile.

The first agency, the international commission, was known in earlier years as the Accrediting Commission for Specialized Colleges. It exists in the home of George S. Reuter, Jr., of Bellwood, Illinois. (He has a legitimate Ed.D. from the University of Illinois.) Reuter said 50 schools are accredited by his commission; however, at their request, he said, he could give out no names to this reporter. That is highly unusual, since schools are generally proud of their credentials.

According to John Bear’s book, a school can become a “candidate for accreditation” with Reuter’s organization by paying $110. Full accreditation, says the book, is not much more difficult. It goes on to say that Reuter once went to Saint Louis to visit one of his schools, but couldn’t find it: its address was a mail forwarding service.

The commission’s letterhead shows commissioners who appear to have legitimate educational credentials. One of these is Gerald Stover, a curriculum development specialist from Pennsylvania. Stover, however, said that Reuter does not keep the commissioners apprised of what he is doing, and commented, “if a school sells a bill of goods on its worth, he accepts it.” Stover said he has advised Toledo to drop its affiliation with Reuter, which it does not intend to do (at least at press time). The move could be touchy, since both Stover and Reuter are listed in the Toledo catalogue as adjunct faculty members. When Brooke applied for his Ohio certificate of authorization, he filed a lengthy evaluation of his school done by an “educational consultant.” The study said Toledo was strong academically, and it noted the school had the approval of a national accreditating agency. The author of the study was one George S. Reuter, Jr. (Rodgers said Reuter will be dropped from the list of adjunct professors because there could be a conflict of interest.)

The second accreditating agency Toledo lists, the American Association of Specialized Colleges, is even flimsier than the first one. The latter is actually the parent of the former, and its founder, Gordon DaCosta, is one of the more colorful flimflammers in the annals of phony degrees. In the 1960s, DaCosta created a degree mill in Gas City, Indiana, called Northern Indiana University, to supply Ph.D. diplomas to people working in New York City as psychotherapists. DaCosta also created the Accrediting Commission of Specialized Colleges to lend credence to it. DaCosta’s exploits were more fully exposed in a 1973 issue of the National Observer.

Besides the accrediting agencies, Toledo also claims in its catalogue to be “an Indiana State Chartered Degree Granting Institution.” All that means is that Toledo is incorporated as a business and paid a filing fee of $26. It has, therefore, only a business charter, and is “state chartered” just as a pizza parlor or a dry-cleaning store is “state chartered.” It is not “state chartered” in the sense that the state gives it any recognition for the degrees it offers. Because it is a Bible school, it needs no recognition under Indiana law. When it was suggested to Brooke that, just possibly, some prospective students might be misled by this claim, Brooke insisted he had no intention of misleading anyone, but just the same he would remove it in the next edition of the catalogue.

That is not the only change Brooke plans to make. He is changing the name of the school to Trinity Bible College and Trinity Theological Seminary. The change is justified, he said, since there is no longer any connection with Toledo. Ohio.

Despite all its problems, Toledo seems to be making a gradual effort to improve itself. Course requirements are being toughened, and an effort is being made to recruit a teacher or two with recognized graduate degrees. Rodgers himself is completing a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary, and is taking M.A. courses in continuing education from a recognized college in Evansville, Indiana. Still, it seems as though it will be some time before Toledo Bible College and Seminary is taken seriously by any legitimate accrediting body.

There is no question that students at schools such as Toledo genuinely benefit from their courses. The point is, schools like these cheapen the system of awarding degrees for academic accomplishments. At Toledo, for example, you could get a master’s and two doctor’s degrees at home in your spare time by taking about the same number of credits that a full-time student at a recognized seminary takes for just his M.Div. degree.

The credentials of Toledo Bible College and Seminary have been microscopically scrutinized because of its large student body, and because the claims it makes for itself appear in the catalogues of other schools as well. The International Bible Institute and Seminary in Orlando, for example, not only lists DaCosta’s organization as one of its accreditors, its catalogue also claims “all degrees are valid and transcripts can be used in future resumés for Christian work applications and degree programs.” Bible students who believe in literal interpretations are likely to be surprised if they really try to put that statement to the test.

The other category of nonaccredited graduate schools are those that are trying hard to make something of themselves while not misleading students about what they represent. Luther Rice College and Seminary in Jacksonville, Florida, is a good example. The great majority of its 4,000 students are enrolled in home study courses leading to M.R.E., M.Div., M.M. (master of ministry), and D.Min. degrees. Its faculty and staff are all Southern Baptists, although the school is unconnected with the convention. It was founded in 1962 to fill the educational void created by the fact that Southern Baptist ministers must satisfy no educational requirements to be ordained. As a result, says outgoing president Robert Witty, of 30,000 Southern Baptist pastors, 16,000 have had no seminary training and 21,000 have had less than two years. The school aims at that clientele and has clung to its mission despite the legitimate question of whether such home study as it offers is valid for graduate academic degrees.

Witty has taken the criticism to heart where he feels he can, and the school dropped the Th.D. and Ed.D. degrees it once offered. Year by year the seminary division is gaining ground academically, and it now has 10 full-time and 5 part-time faculty members, many holding recognized doctoral degrees. The seminary requires its students to attend four three-day meetings with professors, as well as other face-to-face meetings with fellow students, thereby breaking out of the home-study-only mold.

What separates Luther Rice from schools such as Toledo (in addition to the academic standards) is that it does not claim to be more than it is. Information sent to prospective students states frankly that the seminary holds no academic accreditation, but that its goal is to become accredited, and with the recognized agency. It is far from certain, however, that ATS will soon accredit the school, given the agency’s mistrust of correspondence course programs.

Not only does Luther Rice fail to make false claims for itself, it is even more modest than it needs to be. Several well-known people hold its degrees, yet the school does not advertise that fact. Its doctoral graduates include Stephen Olford, the evangelist; Charles Stanley, pastor of Atlanta’s First Baptist Church and a widely known television teacher; and Kenneth Meyer, president of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. All hold D.Min. degrees except Stanley, who has a Th.D.

One characteristic Luther Rice does have in common with other external programs, such as Toledo, is that it has reversed the meaning of a common academic term. The Luther Rice catalogue says candidates for its D.Min. degrees must be in “residence.” By that it does not mean on campus in a classroom: it means at home, on the job in one’s ministry, thereby making a virtue out of a deficiency since students are isolated from their peers and their professors.

There is one unaccredited theology school a continent removed from Luther Rice that defies all conventional classifications and produces sharp disagreements over the value of the education it offers. That school is California Graduate School of Theology, or “Cal Grad School,” as it is known, located in Glendale, California.

It was founded in 1967 by a group of ministers who had made some sweeping generalizations about seminaries. They decided that most seminaries do not provide adequate training in practical skills, that many faculty members are people who “have not experienced great success” in church ministries, and that “common problems,” including church growth, evangelism techniques, and church architecture, are usually overlooked.

The founders finally decided that graduate theology degrees were unfair because it takes longer to get them than it does to get equivalent degrees in secular fields. This means, according to the school catalogue, that “the minister’s professional degree leaves no symbol of educational standing that has social acceptance.”

Other seminaries might debate whether their church education professors are unsuccessful ministers, or whether their graduates find their degrees socially offensive—or even whether church architecture is one of those everyday problems pastors face. The claim that theology degrees are unfair deserves a closer look.

The school’s brochure says that “the average seminary student upon graduation is simply awarded a bachelor’s or at best a master’s degree.” That used to be true, but it became untrue just about the time Cal Grad School was founded. Last year 23,486 students graduated from three-year, preordination seminaries. Only 173 received bachelor’s degrees (B.D. or S.T.B.); most were Roman Catholics in Canadian schools. All the rest received M.Div. degrees (except for 75 who received in-sequence D.Min. degrees).

The rest of the complaint is valid. Medical doctors, lawyers, and dentists normally receive their doctorates before theology students do.

What Cal Grad School did about this was to lower the standards for its master’s and doctoral programs. Presently it offers a D.Min. or Ph.D. after about the same number of credits that traditional seminaries require for M.Div. degrees, the standard degree for professional pastoral training. (Starting next year, Cal Grad School will require another 18 hours for its Ph.D.)

In addition, a credit hour at Cal Grad School is not the same as a credit hour at an accredited school. Normally, a three-hour course meets for three hours a week over a 10-week quarter for a total of 30 hours—not including outside assignments, which usually are expected to take up twice the time spent in class. A Cal Grad School student, however, can take in an entire three-hour course by attending a two-day seminar from 9 A M. to 4 P.M. each day, plus outside assignments. That makes only 14 class hours, not including lunch break. This procedure is, in fact, common at the eight extensions Cal Grad School operates around the country. At the school’s headquarters building in Glendale, the three-credit-hour classes meet for one hour each week instead of three. Classes are held on Mondays and for a half-day on Tuesdays. The schedules are designed to accommodate working students—mostly pastors—as well as the faculty, most of whom are guest lecturers from surrounding churches. Sometimes the guests are nationally known authorities Cal Grad School can get because they do not have to commit themselves to an entire quarter in order to teach a complete class at the school.

For example, Elmer Towns, an authority on church growth, gave a one-day seminar on his subject in January, for which two hours’ credit was offered. While some may question whether a one-day seminar is worth two credits toward a doctoral degree, there is no doubt that the seminar was valuable for the students. A former Cal Grad faculty member said that at traditional schools, “students have faculty members who solve problems by checking 27 books out of the library. At Cal Grad School, the professor is somebody who can tell the students, ‘here is how I solved the problem in my church last week.’ ”

A few of the required doctoral courses at the school are taught by its president, Holland London, who, as far as can be determined, has no earned college degrees, although he has a good reputation as a preacher. (London lists a B.D. and a Litt. D. in the school’s brochure. The latter is an honorary degree awarded by the school. The source of the former is unclear; school officials say they don’t know its source and Holland was unreachable by phone. Newspaper articles have said it came from a now-defunct Nazarene school in Kansas. London spent two years at such a school, Brezee College in Hutchinson, in 1926 and 1927, but according to school records he did not graduate.)

Cal Grad School is unaccredited—sort of. Its brochure says it has been “authorized by the State of California Department of Education to operate under section 94310(c) …” But as previously noted, to say in California that a school is “authorized” is to say practically nothing academically. The brochure goes on to state that two of its three programs, the M.A. and the D.Min., have been “approved” under section 94310(b). That is true, and it does mean something. It means that qualified representatives from the state education department have spent two days on campus, have checked things out, and have found them in good order. That is why the staff at Cal Grad School insist verbally that the school is accredited. The state, however, insists that it is wrong for them to say that because, according to a spokesman, the state does not accredit. In fact, the highest rung on its approval ladder is section 94310(a), which is reserved for schools that have been approved by recognized accrediting agencies. But it does seem that when the state “approves” a school, without accrediting it, the confusion is understandable.

The demand for off-campus graduate training in theology is obvious. If accredited schools don’t figure out a way to enter the market and make the business respectable, then the substandard schools will proliferate. If one were to venture a guess it would be that in coming years, schools such as Luther Rice and Cal Grad School may be looked upon as visionaries of the movement, and may themselves have become respected, but in the process will have raised decisively the quality of their programs.

At the same time, however, most of these schools exhibit a marked preference for the practical aspects of ministerial training at the expense of academic work. This is unsettling, because so many of the tools an accomplished minister needs are academic tools. Slogging through Greek and Hebrew courses is hard work, and it is difficult to see how any but the rare self-starters will learn the languages well enough to be useful by studying on their own at home. Seminary students often survive these courses only because of the daily pressure of quizzes and the daily coaching by professors. If home study becomes the standard, these tools are almost certain to go by the board, and there are no more valuable tools to enrich a preacher’s ministry than the ability to read and understand the Scriptures as they were written.

Finally, it seems that the growth of home study education might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. A student feels called by God into the ministry, yet he wonders how he can possibly afford the time and the money. He sees an advertisement for a correspondence school that tells him students are finding traditional schools too expensive, and that there is an easier alternative. So he takes it.

But there are large numbers of students walking the grounds of traditional seminaries who also know they could not really afford to be there were it not for the miracles of money and part-time work God provides through friends and strangers. The spiritual lives of students such as these grow richer as they learn that if they are in God’s will, he will provide when they are in need. There are enough testimonies like these to fill books. One hopes that before a student enrolls at a short-cut school, he will be sure that he is not shortchanging God in the process.

The parable of the sower depicts the different ways the human heart responds to hearing the good news.

Jesus never wrote a book. This is another remarkable sign of how much he emptied himself as he worked to save mankind. Jesus did not insist that we have the absolutely definitive version of his words and actions as written and checked editorially by his own hand. In the language of communication, the Gospels are feedback. They were editorially controlled by the Holy Spirit through men—for instance, using Luke’s gifts as an investigative reporter and historian.

This means that Jesus’ message was not just proclaimed. It was heard and understood and retold to a reporter (Luke) before it went down on paper. In the business of communication, the best way to make sure something will be understood is to have it fed back from somebody who has heard and understood it.

Through the agency of his disciples, Jesus got across to Luke his love for people—all sorts of people.

Note the people Luke mentions. He talks about men and women, old and young, children and even babies. He talks about fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters. He refers to engaged people, a bridegroom, husbands, wives, mothers-in-law, daughters-in-law. He mentions the barren, the divorced, and the adulterous. There are neighbors, relatives, and friends.

And what a variety of occupations Jesus moves among. Luke speaks of shepherds, farmers and their laborers, pig breeders, and fishermen. There are soldiers and their officers, guards, and police. There are those who make their living as thieves, prostitues, and beggars. He speaks of doctors, bankers, managers, tax collectors, and other officials. There are innkeepers, water carriers, housewives, builders, teachers and pupils, masters and slaves, landowners and their tenants, merchants and servants, priests and Levites, elders and teachers of the law. All these people grace Luke’s pages. Kings, governors, rulers and judges are not missing; even the party men are there, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians.

Luke also describes the conditions people were in. There were hungry people, gluttons, and drunkards. There were the humble and the proud, the poor and the rich, the ignorant and the learned. There were wicked people, respectable people, greedy people. Some were blind, lame, crippled, deaf, demon possessed, or paralyzed. There were debtors, lepers, people with tom clothes, cheaters, and hypocrites. There were wise and foolish, dishonest and violent. They laughed and they cried, both the evil and the good. And there were Greeks and Romans, Jews and Samaritans, Galileans and countrymen, citizens and foreigners. Some were hated, some were in prison, some were oppressed and ill-treated, some were cursed by others and heartbroken. These were the people Luke registered as coming to Jesus from one town after another.

How did Jesus see these people? He tells us in the parable of the sower (Luke 8:5–15). They all fit into four categories of soil that he mentions.

Group One: Along The Path

Jesus notes demonic influence in some hearers: “The seeds that fell along the path stand for those who hear; but the Devil comes and takes the message away from their hearts in order to keep them from believing and being saved” (Luke 8:12, TEV). Even Jesus’ communication was not always successful. Sometimes his message got no more than the attention of his audiences. He explained this by pointing out the role of the Devil.

It is the Devil who makes the first kind of hearer Jesus describes different from the other three. We should not be deceived about our task or the origin of its difficulties. These hearers were brainwashed. They automatically closed their minds to what Jesus was saying as soon as they heard it. They were programmed to do this, and it was demonic. Paul gives the same analysis (seeing Satan’s activity behind all unbelief, in fact): “They do not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Clearly, it will take more than the technical skills of communication to convince this kind of hearer. There is someone who does not want them to believe and be saved, and he is hard at work. Let us look at his method.

The method of the Devil is to harden. “Grass does not grow on busy streets.” It is traffic that prevents the seed of the Word from getting into the soil where it might germinate and grow. Traffic is many feet padding over the pathway. The traffic Jesus is referring to has to do with other thoughts and other ideas. That dominance of other fixed ideas is the main means Satan uses to prevent the good news from penetrating the minds of those to whom God speaks. In Luke’s Gospel, what hearers are like the path? They are the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the teachers of the law, the priests, and the political leaders like Herod and Pilate. These were the people who turned off Jesus as soon as he had spoken.

The target of the Devil, then, is the opinion formers. They may be people who are obsessed about money and property. The man in Luke 12 no sooner hears Jesus speaking about courts than he ignores Jesus’ real subject and speaks about the court case uppermost in his mind. He asks Jesus to tell his brother to divide with him the property their father had left them (Luke 12:13). He had a one-track mind and could not hear what Jesus was saying.

Those who are preoccupied with social class have this hardness. In Luke 15, Pharisees object that Jesus is welcoming outcasts and eating with them. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, he paints these Pharisees as the elder brothers whom the most generous of fathers could not convince.

They may be those whose prejudices have immunized them against the power of the gospel. In Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem, Luke gives us examples of people who wanted to discuss questions of authority, taxation, life after death—all as a device to avoid the truth Jesus lived and taught.

They also include those who are caught up in power politics. In chapter 23, Luke shows that the chief priests and leaders of the people, Pilate, and Herod are all faced with Jesus, and entirely miss his significance.

Yet Jesus does not write off these opinion formers. When Peter despairs of the rich, asking if it is possible for them to be saved, Jesus confidently answers, “What is impossible with man is possible for God” (Luke 18:27). These antagonistic opinion formers provide the points against which Jesus defines his message. Sizable blocks of his teaching come in response to their opposition.

We have Jesus’ opponents to thank for the story of the Good Samaritan, and for other vital parts of his message. He defines the gospel in relation to money and property, and tells us about the rich fool in reply to that man who asked about his inheritance (Luke 12). In response to the people who are obsessed with social class, he tells us the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. To people with philosophical and religious prejudice, he speaks about authority and priorities and resurrection and how we ought not oppress widows. In contrast to those who were in the power politics of the time, he gives us rules about how his followers are to lead. It was his opponents who clearly brought out the fact that the good news has nothing to do with race and class, and is not imprisoned by legalistic attitudes. It is about love and grace and forgiveness, and not about merit and censorious attitudes.

The positive approach to opinion formers who do not welcome the good news is to ask why they reject it, and to state the message as an answer to their position. This is logical. The opinion formers influence everybody else. Their views will need to be combated if anyone else is to respond to the good news. For example, today we need to be defining the gospel against those who are propagating a gospel of consumerism, against our media moralists, our Marxists, our behaviorists in education, and so on. That is the only way we are going to have an effective work among all in whom God is interested.

Group Two: Rocky Ground

Jesus registered next the dazzled hearers. “The seeds that fell on rocky ground stand for those who hear the message and receive it gladly. But it does not sink deep into them; they believe only for a while but when the time of testing comes, they fall away” (Luke 8:13). Jesus provoked an instant emotional response. Luke points out how people were affected by the words of Jesus: “He … was praised by everyone” (4:15). “They were all well impressed with him, marveled at the eloquent words that he spoke” (4:22). “People … were filled with anger” (4:28). “People … were amazed (4:36). “Full of fear, they praised God” (5:26). This convinces me that the unforgivable sin in the preacher is to be dull!

Jesus compares the positive response that was mainly emotional to seeds that spring up too fast to last. “They believe only for a while.” The responses we note in Luke are from “the people,” “the crowd,” or “them all.” It is a collective response described by collective nouns. The heat in which these seeds germinate is group heat. The moisture that is eventually lacking is the ongoing support of other people. The time of testing shows that nothing has changed enough for it to be worthwhile for them to continue believing, so they wither away.

We need to recognize that this is how Jesus began. He went to all the people because God loved them all. He attracted and spoke to crowds. He was a mass evangelist. The popular response was vital in gaining the widespread attention he needed for his message. It was vital to challenge the set ways of the people, the tiresome traditions of their elders, and the partisan power play that went on in society. Jesus allowed himself to be mobbed, but he was not taken in by his apparent popularity. Luke shows us how he dealt with this immediate response.

Within the crowds, the interest narrows either to people who are named, like Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1), or unnamed persons to whom something specific happened (like the woman with the hemorrhage in Luke 8:43–49). The group response then becomes the context that enables personal change to occur. The other way in which Jesus combats this superficial response is to establish a second or specific level of commitment that he calls discipleship. From the crowds he chose 12 (Luke 6:12–16) and later 70 (Luke 10:1), and took great pains to teach them by word, example, and experience how to mature in the faith and to last.

There is, however, another more serious factor. False expectations of the gospel are the source of superficial response. Luke says that the moment of truth comes with these dazzled hearers at times of “testing.” Matthew and Mark analyze this further by the two words “trouble” and “persecution.” This implies that somehow people felt that following Jesus would give them a trouble-free life and on a popular path. Neither of these was true, but they got that message from what he said. Even toward the end of Jesus’ life on earth his disciples still thought of the kingdom as the way to personal advancement (Luke 22:24–27). The parable of the sower is an indication of how soon Jesus felt it necessary to start teaching the opposite. This is a clear warning of how easy it is for the good news to be heard wrongly with sad results. Dazzling presentations of the message can too easily end in dashed hopes by hiding the inevitability of the cross.

Group Three: Among Thorns

“The seeds that fell among thorn bushes stand for those who hear; but the worries and riches and pleasures of this life crowd in and choke them, and their fruit never ripens” (Luke 8:14). The hearers in this third group last longer than those in the second. They are not hardened or prejudiced like the first, or shallow and superficial like the second. But they want the best of both worlds, and they make a great attempt to get it. Luke implies that the fruit or seed forms on some stalks, but it never ripens. It remains green and bitter and gives pleasure or profit to no one. It is in the church situation that the green and bitter fruit is found. The problem is that two crops are competing in the same soil. The people are double-minded. Luke indicates three factors that insure that these Christians will always be immature: “worries,” “riches,” and “pleasures.”

The immature church is strangled by domestic worries. In the other places where Luke uses the word “worries,” it refers to worries at home. We are warned not to worry about food and clothes (Luke 12:22–30). Jesus cautions Martha against worrying too much about house and home (Luke 10:38–42). Church, family, and health are always potential rivals for our first loyalty. Putting Jesus before family without question is the only way to avoid the bitter fruit of immature Christianity. Churches where the human family dominates will continue to be unfruitful and the people immature.

The immature church is strangled by economic ambition. Riches constitute the second kind of thorn bush that keeps the fruit of Christianity bitter and void of nourishment. The rich young ruler is evidence that riches can close minds to the entrance of the good news (Luke 18:18–30). Judas is evidence that riches can be a powerful source of trouble within the fellowship of those who follow Jesus (Luke 22:3–6). The situations of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and of Demas (2 Tim. 4:10) demonstrate the same truth. There is no real growth in the faith of Jesus that is not matched by a lessening of greed in the disciple.

The immature church is also strangled by unregulated leisure. The third kind of thorn bush that saps the vitality from the true wheat is hunger for pleasure. Luke uses the word from which we get the word “hedonist”—one who lives for pleasure. He does not use this word again in his Gospel. He pictures the headlong pursuit of fun by the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:13), and the luxury and indulgence of both the rich fool and the rich friend of the beggar Lazarus (Luke 12:19; 16:19). Clearly, Jesus thought it right for his followers to enjoy themselves. Yet happiness in the kingdom was not an end in itself, but a by-product of a commitment to right attitudes. “Happy are those who are poor.”

This is a striking picture of the nominal church where self-interest is rife, and people are looking for God to advance their own economic and leisure concerns. Jesus pronounces inevitable immaturity on this kind of church—to say nothing of its ultimate loss. In the end, the fruit never ripens and the thorn bushes are burned up. To the outsider, churches of this kind are unattractive and bitter, and make people go “ugh” because they are a living contradiction of the good news.

How did Jesus deal with such people? In the case of the rich young ruler, he did not lower the standard for following him; although he loved the man, he let him walk away sad (Luke 18:18–29). He trusted Judas with the money within the company of the disciples, and then kept teaching specifically about wealth. And he loved Judas to the end (John 13:29–31). Where family tensions were concerned, he made it clear to the man who wanted to bury his father before following him that this was the wrong way around (Luke 9:59–62). In his relationship with his own family, Jesus showed the same priority (Luke 2:49; 8:19–21). When the Zebedee family within the fellowship got it wrong and wanted the top jobs, he taught them and the others specifically on the subject (Matt. 20:20–28). The scene at the cross where John took Mary to his own home indicates that Jesus’ teaching was making a difference (John 19:27) even in the Zebedee family.

In the realm of pleasure seeking, Jesus had nothing to do with Herod, and would not gratify his love of the spectacular (Luke 13:31–33; 23:6–12). And to his disciples he taught the folly of the people of Lot’s day, comparing it to the way it would be when the Son of Man came (Luke 17:28–30). We may sum up by saying that Jesus let the demands of following him be clearly known to those who inquired. Once they joined his company, he kept teaching specifically on those areas of double-mindedness in his disciples.

Group Four: Good Soil

“The seeds that fell in good soil stand for those who hear the message and retain it in a good and obedient heart, and they persist until they bear fruit” (Luke 8:15). It is in Luke’s translation of this saying of Jesus that his Greek culture shines through. When he speaks about the hearer receiving the message into “a good and obedient heart,” he uses words that the Greek philosophers had used for centuries to describe the ideal at which people should aim. It implies a moral discontent with what we are, and a wholehearted commitment to something better.

We must watch for these hearers. They will listen to what is really being said (v. 16). They will listen with humility because they want something more and something better (v. 17). They will make sacrifices to get it (v. 18). They are often the most unlikely people. Look at those described just before the parable of the sower (Luke 8:1–3). The twelve disciples were an unusual mixture of unlikely people whom most leaders might well have rejected out of hand. The fact that there were women among his hearers, and that they were noticed, was unusual. When we think of their previous lives, ranging from demon possession to court life, we are encouraged to believe that there is hope for all. The one thing they had in common was their devotion to Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Luke and a good part of Acts are devoted to the development of these people: first in the inner company of Jesus, later by the inner working of the Holy Spirit. They are characterized by their decisive response to the good news. That decisiveness needs to be maintained in a multitude of little decisions, each leading to growth, just as the passing of days and nights leads to growing grain. It is for those hearers that the positive implications of the message need to be spelled out. The other sizable blocks of teaching in Luke come in response to the questions or needs of the disciples. Some of the teaching, like the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20), is initiated by Jesus just because he saw they needed to know. He taught at least as much, however, because of their questions, like “teach us to pray” (Luke 11:2–4) or because of a situation that called for it when they were squabbling about who was the greatest (Luke 22:24–25). Over a period of time, this teaching integrated with their experience became what we know as the Gospel of Luke.

The parable of the sower is Jesus’ major reflection on the different kinds of hearers he detected in the vast number of people to whom he spoke. Luke follows this parable with a story about Jesus’ mother and brothers trying unsuccessfully to get to him. And he says in that context, “My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (Luke 8:19–21).

Hearers become family. Audience becomes community. The move is from communication straight through to community. Notice the similarity of the two words: communication is effective only when it establishes and strengthens community. And the people to whom God speaks do not remain a number of individuals. They become a people, the people of God together doing the will of God.

When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

On my way to China, I stopped to visit friends in California. The grandmother had spent 53 years in China; her children, all born there, are now with her here, but her two grandchildren are still in Peking. While they have their government’s permission to leave, they are waiting for our state department to process their visas.

The day I visited was the grandmother’s eighty-eighth birthday; I wanted to get pictures of her and the family to take along for the two members in Peking. Thinking how nice it would be to surprise her, I had earlier called the White House to see if anything could be done to get the grandchildren out of China in time for a birthday surprise. They promised totry.

But the grandmother’s birthday arrived without the grandchildren. I felt free to tell them that at least we had tried. The pretty young mother, in her charming broken English, said, “I would like to tell you a story:

“Once there was a kind seller of cherries. A small boy stood watching him. The small boy loved cherries, but he had no money to buy with, only his eyes. And the kind seller of cherries saw the small boy and asked, ‘You want some cherries?’

“The small boy nodded his head. ‘Hold out your hands,’ said the kind seller of cherries. But the small boy would not.

“ ‘Hold out your hands,’ repeated the seller of cherries. Still the small boy did not move. So the kind seller of cherries gathered both hands full of cherries and told the small boy to hold out his shirt, and filled it with cherries.

“When he got home, his grandmother asked, ‘Why did you not hold out your hands when the kind seller of cherries told you to?’

“ ‘Because,’ said the small boy, ‘his hands were bigger than mine.’ ”

And the pretty young mother smiled. “His hands are bigger than ours. We can wait.”

Among some Protestant groups, the Christian day school is a relatively recent discovery. Among others, Christian education through the agency of a day school is a long tradition. While the primary purpose of the Christian school will always be education, there is currently an added dimension. The Christian day school today is taking on a new face: unchurched people are lining up to enroll their children in Christian day schools, and these schools are forming a new and exciting horizon of opportunity to reach children—whole families—with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Traditionally, Christian day schools have been nurture oriented. Christian families supported the school to insure a good, Christian education for the children of the parish. Many immigrants to the U.S. settled in communities of people like themselves, and America blossomed as a multiethnic smorgasbord of pluralism. The church played no small part as a solidifying factor in these pockets of ethnicity in America. In this role, the Christian day school was often central. Geared primarily for the Christian child, it presumed that, theologically, the child was already one of God’s people. It simply reinforced what the child learned in Sunday school and at home from Christian parents.

In the last decade, however, things have begun to change. Public education has lost much of its good reputation. U.S. Supreme Court decisions banning prayer left a bad taste in the mouths of evangelicals; the emphasis on evolution to the exclusion of creation also concerned them. But the most significant force influencing the growth of outreach in Christian schools has been the increasing discontent of unchurched people with public education.

The mood surrounding education at this point in history has generated a powerful felt need in thousands of parents. The Christian church has an unprecedented opportunity to reach out with evangelistic efforts through the Christian day school. Many denominations are taking steps to seize the opportunity: a new Christian school is now opening on the average of every seven hours.

Two missiological principles lie at the core of this opportunity:

First, whenever the church meets a felt need, people are more receptive to the gospel. Right now, many people are grateful for an educational alternative for their children. They appreciate the dedication and commitment of Christian school teachers. They are thankful for the discipline that is a part of the Christian way of life, especially discipline that is couched in the love and forgiveness of the gospel. Parents are so grateful for what Christian education has to offer that they are willing to pay tuition for it. As the Christian school is meeting their felt need, they are generally more receptive, more open to new teachings—whether the new math or the “New Life.” God has provided a great open door for the gospel.

Many denominations are perceiving this felt need to be strong among people in multicultural urban settings. A number of churches see the Christian school as the best strategy for reaching cross culturally with the gospel. What could happen, for example, if evangelicals began educating the thousands of Cuban children who entered the U.S. in recent years? Besides taking enormous pressure off public school systems in Florida and elsewhere, the Christian schools would be a great context in which to present the gospel. Expensive? Yes, but it may be the most economical and realistic way to reach Cubans for Jesus Christ.

A second missiological principle that involves the Christian day school is what church-growth people call the web movement. As Donald McGavran has pointed out, God provides bridges of contact within the structure of society, over which the gospel flows. These bridges can be friends or relatives. Research shows that between 70 and 90 percent of all Christians trace their entrance into the church through the influence of a friend or relative. A web movement is simply the extension of Christianity through these natural relationships.

The Christian day school has an exceptional opportunity to capitalize on the principle of web movement. The Christian school that invites unchurched people to enroll their children has an open door into homes of thousands of people. The school child has a family—brothers and sisters, parents, grandparents—as well as friends. The child himself can be reached with the gospel, of course. Equally powerful is the God-given link that child provides to many others who may be unchurched.

Parents do not usually feel uneasy when they discover their children are being evangelized. Most parents expect their children to learn about Christianity—especially if the school has communicated its priorities clearly at the time of enrollment. These receptive family members are often delighted when their children come home with good news to share. The children become natural bridges God can use to spread the gospel. At Our Saviour Lutheran Church on Detroit’s near east side, baptisms quadrupled in number when the congregation used these natural bridges of opportunity by means of the Christian day School.

These two New Testament principles of outreach can be incorporated into the ministry of the Christian day school. But how does it happen?

The first step is to establish a philosophy of ministry that recognizes the day school not only as an agency of nurture, but also as a vehicle for evangelism. The people involved must establish and support an evangelistic attitude—pastors, teachers, Christian school board, congregation. For some, it will mean a change of attitude, expanding a whole tradition of Christian education once aimed only at nurture. For others, such an attitude means a new and fresh ministry. Laying a foundational attitude is critical.

A few years ago I was pastor of a congregation that decided to provide a day school as an agency for mission. One of our greatest mistakes was that we did not develop a written statement of purpose. We should not have been surprised that some church members totally misunderstood the nontraditional intentions of the mission school. Furthermore, some of the teachers called to that ministry were not prepared for outreach and did not really understand the philosophy of ministry for that school. We should have spelled it out, we should have written it down; all of those involved should have accepted and owned it. We must base the day school on an attitude of mission.

The second step in establishing a day school designed for outreach involves training a staff equipped for evangelism. Principals, teachers, and teacher’s aides may be well-taught, state-certified educators. But can they also present the gospel? Christian day school teachers are usually well prepared to teach Bible lessons in the classroom, but as more unchurched children fill the seats of Christian day schools, the challenge is more fundamental. The teacher is more than a teacher. The teacher is an evangelist, a witness, a missionary. The congregation needs to provide training that will equip staff people to use their God-given opportunities for witness, both in the classroom and in their students’ homes.

The third step is to develop a job description that goes beyond the four walls of the classroom. Christian day school teachers, who sometimes suffer from chalkboard myopia, must be challenged and stretched to ministry beyond the classroom setting. When unchurched people send their children to a Christian school, it is not the pastor or evangelism board member who represents God’s primary contact with that family: it is the teacher. He or she is the key to reaching unchurched people through the Christian school. As the teacher develops rapport with the parents, opportunities to witness multiply. He is the primary carrier of the good news, not only to the child, but also to the child’s family and friends. In this way the web movement will carry the gospel across bridges that God has provided.

Clara exemplifies the teacher who is evangelist, witness, and missionary. She teaches in the inner city of a large metropolitan area. Her vision of ministry stretches far beyond the classroom. She knows the families who send their children to her for Christian education. She cares about their spiritual welfare. She visits their homes and shares the gospel in a natural way through the open door provided by the child they have placed in her classroom. She is concerned about their material needs as well. She is often involved in projects that extend God’s love beyond the child to the child’s friends and relatives. One summer she helped the children turn a vacant lot into a garden—a lesson in creation, and food for the families.

All of this was accomplished beyond the classroom, beyond the school year—but most important, beyond the mindset that believes a teacher is just a teacher. In her work with children and their families, Clara is a prime example of a teacher who serves beyond the chalkboard. As a result, many children and their families have heard and seen the gospel. Through her ministry many have become Christians and responsible church members.

The fourth step is for pastors, traditionally plagued by a separation of church and school mentality, to be reprogrammed to catch the vision of the Great Commission as it relates to the Christian day school. The school cannot be separate from the church. The school is not an agency of the church; the school is not an arm of the church; the school is the church in action. The Christian day school is the church in ministry. The two must be welded together to become a team ministry under the banner of making disciples.

The fifth step is to recognize that the ministry of outreach through the Christian day school can reach its maximum potential only if it is aimed at the Great Commission goal of making disciples. While discipleship is surely a lifelong process, there is an initial stage of training through which the new Christian must be helped with special care. Some churches call this confirmation; some refer to it as instruction to join the church. Yet we are beginning to see that we have underestimated the challenge of the Great Commission in two respects: we have limited the preparation for church membership primarily to the learning of doctrine, rather than doctrine plus training for ministry; and we have grossly underestimated the enormous length of time this process normally takes. For example, the Master spent years training his disciples—not just in the classroom, but in the marketplace of everyday life.

Discipled people know their spiritual gifts, and therefore, know where they fit in the body of Christ. In addition to knowing Bible stories and some basic doctrine, discipled people can use their Bibles—not only for personal devotions, but for ministry to others. Discipled people not only know the old, old story of the gospel, but they can share it with others in new, relevant ways. Even more, discipled people can show others how to witness. Discipled people are truly equipped, not only as agents of addition to the kingdom, but also as ambassadors of multiplication—in evangelism, in stewardship, in every area of the Christian life. Indeed, discipled people are equipped to be the church. The Master Teacher took three years with his twelve. It may take us a bit longer—8, maybe 10 or 12 years. How absurd to think people are equipped to be the church after 6 or even 16 weeks of an instruction class!

We must perceive the ministry of the Christian day school as an experience, not a building. Christian education—discipling—requires

on-the-job training. Field trips are not new to teachers: educators often take children to museums, the circus, the zoo. In discipleship training, the Christian day school will add other field trips—into the harvest fields of the nursing home, the hospital, the funeral home, the jail, the homes of the needy. The Christian day school is potentially a ministry that not only tells about Christianity but shows how to live the faith. It can send out people prepared for the Christian life, in action as well as knowledge, becoming thereby a mission agency of the church, a training ground for a future generation, preparing an army of discipling people to fulfill the Great Commission.

But this type of ministry has its price—discipling always costs. It cost Jesus his life. A burden for the world carries with it the cost of the cross. And the Christian day school is expensive. The enormous expense of a building, curriculum, and staff salaries is only the surface. The real cost lies with the pastors, principals, teachers, and lay people who serve sacrificially for years in a demanding ministry.

But the cost is justified if Christian day schools (1) are used as agencies of outreach as well as settings for nurture, and (2) graduate not only doctrinally knowledgeable people, but disciples equipped to carry out the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The cutting edge of kingdom growth always costs. Yet, where else can the church today find people standing in line to pay tuition so that we may have their children for some of their most formative years? The harvest beyond the chalkboard is ripe with opportunity.