• On November 13, the Far East Broadcasting Company will launch the first full-time Christian radio station in the Muslim nation of Indonesia. The station will be programmed locally in Jakarta, reaching more than 8.6 million people with 12 hours daily of Christian music, news, and local programs.
• Gospel to the Unreached Millions founder K. A. Paul, with support from 1,000 Kenyan churches, held three nights of evangelistic meetings at Nairobi’s Uhur—Park, August 28-30. Paul, born in India, led the final night’s crowd of 500,000 on a prayer march to the site of the U.S. Embassy bombing. An estimated 400,000 individuals, out of the 800,000 total attendance, made Christian commitments.
• Nineteen of 41 nations in Europe are violating the religious rights of minority groups, according to the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (www.ihf-hr.org). Violations may involve granting special protections to majority or traditional religions, particularly in countries where most of the populace is Orthodox or Muslim. Also, some countries create stiff registration requirements to limit religious practice.

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

A worldwide coalition of religious leaders is joining a campaign for the cancellation of the international debts of developing nations.

“Debt reduction can bring good to the populations of rich as well as poor countries,” says Bill Peters, vice president of Jubilee 2000, which is calling on the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international creditors to set aside the foreign debt of developing countries.

The problem is especially acute in Africa, where about 20 countries owe more than $220 billion to foreign creditors. In Zambia, for example, the government owes $7.1 billion and spends more on debt service than on education and health services for its people, 70 percent of whom live in poverty.

Zambian Christians recently issued a joint statement calling for debt cancellation, saying the country’s total debt is unpayable and hurts mostly the poor. Jubilee 2000 openly connects its goal of debt remission with scriptural mandates for the celebration of jubilee as a universal time to clear unpayable debts.

Under the Jubilee 2000 plan, debts would be forgiven on a sliding scale with 100 percent remission for countries with the poorest economies.

Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, and Roman Catholic organizations have been signing on to lobby internationally for the effort.

“Jubilee symbolizes a fresh start for the poor and re-establishes justice and equity in the world,” says Joan Harper, chair of the Office of Justice and Peace of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Jubilee 2000 reasons that the dozens of international financial institutions that originally loaned the money should now forgive the debts because: the rescheduling of loan payments has failed; debtor countries have learned hard lessons from the debt crisis; and life-saving services for the poor could be restored if debt service was curtailed.

Peters, a retired British diplomat, says, “The concept of jubilee is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian thought. [It is] a time not only for leveling inequalities, but also for rejoicing and celebrating the start of a new phase with past obstacles to community swept away.”

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

After six years of teaching Christian ethics and morality to public-school educators in the former Soviet Union, CoMission is going global with new programs in Africa and East Asia.

Under the new name of CoMission International, the coalition of eight missions agencies is launching literacy training and English as a second language classes at the invitation of local missionaries. “Literacy is a tool to get people reading the Bible,” says Rex Johnson, a professor at Talbot School of Theology and a leader of CoMission International’s work in Africa. Mozambique, one of the new ministry areas, has a 75 percent illiteracy rate.

Evangelism and discipleship continue to be goals of the partnership, says Alan Nagel, director of global resources for Campus Crusade for Christ and chair of CoMission International’s leadership council. Language and literacy classes help build relationships and provide opportunities for Christian witness. “If that’s the open door, great—we’ll take it,” he says.

The coalition has relied on a volunteer corps of lay leaders, many of them second-career adults, to commit to one-year terms of service. Since its inception in 1992, CoMission has deployed more than 5,000 lay missionaries.

CoMission was founded as a five-year partnership between 85 Protestant organizations to teach Christian ethics in public schools in Russia and neighboring countries. During that time, CoMission held 136 weeklong convocations where trained lay leaders presented the Jesus film and an ethics curriculum to more than 44,000 educators in 116 cities.

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

A group of Christian house church leaders, who function without government registration, has issued a public appeal to China’s leaders, calling for the release of imprisoned Christians.

The handwritten appeal was released to two journalists in Zhengzhou, a city in China’s central Henan Province. According to Religion News Service, the document calls for the unconditional release of house church Christians in labor camps, for dialogue between government and church leaders in hopes of recognition for house churches, and for a clear-cut definition of religious cults.

“We have been persecuted so long, we just have to fight the last fight,” says Zhang Rongliang, a Christian farmer who is spokesperson for the group. “We have been silent too long.”

Shen Cheng-en, associate general secretary of the China Christian Council, says repression of Christians is mostly a local, not a national problem. “I don’t think persecution is everywhere. The policy of the central government is to ensure religious freedom.”

Nelson Graham, head of East Gates Ministries, which assists in Bible publishing within China, says, “This declaration reveals a great level of political naivete.”

Meanwhile, Compass Direct News Service reports that in July an unnamed senior staff member at one of China’s leading seminaries openly vented his criticisms of the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), the official Protestant ruling church body.

The senior staff member said China’s leaders have rehabilitated the tspm without openly noting how its leaders were actively involved during the 1950s and 1960s in persecuting Christians on a “massive scale.”

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

President Clinton last month asked three pastors to meet weekly with him in the wake of his admission of a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The three are Tony Campolo of Eastern College in Saint Davids, Pennsylvania; Gordon MacDonald of Grace Chapel in Lexington, Massachusetts; and Philip Wogaman of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C.

On September 13, MacDonald, author of Rebuilding Your Broken World, told his congregation, “I am in a position to talk the language of repentance and what it takes to find a deeper and more purposeful walk with God in the midst of personal tragedy.” In 1987 MacDonald resigned as president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship after acknowledging that he had had an adulterous relationship with a friend while pastor of Grace Chapel (CT, July 10, 1987, p. 38). He eventually returned to Grace in 1993.

Campolo and Wogaman have at times been spiritual confidants to Clinton. Although Clinton is a Southern Baptist, he often attends Foundry, near the White House. Campolo says the purpose of the meetings is to counsel the President and “to hold him accountable for his behavior.” Campolo says, “We want to provide all the help that we can to spiritually strengthen him against yielding to the temptations that have conquered him in the past.”

Clinton’s admission of a sexual relationship with Lewinsky has triggered extensive commentary from American religious leaders. Top Southern Baptists have called for Clinton’s resignation. Some have demanded that Clinton’s home church, Immanuel Baptist in Little Rock, Arkansas, “discipline” the President, but it has no plans to do so. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ called on Clinton to “truly repent and seek God’s face.” Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine and Call to Renewal says, “The real issue here is moral accountability. How could his genuine repentance—and ours—begin to teach our nation something about real spiritual values?”

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, edited by Colin E. Gunton (Cambridge University Press, 307 pp; $59.95, hardcover; $18.95, paper). Reviewed by Elmer M. Colyer, assistant professor of historical theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary.

The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine is the first book in the series Cambridge Companions to Religion. Colin Gunton, one of the most important theologians in the United Kingdom today, has assembled an impressive array of essays by an equally significant cadre of authors. Gunton notes in the preface that it is a propitious moment for this volume, since Christian doctrine is no longer in the “doldrums,” marginalized by the “apparent victory” of modernity. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the term postmodern and its variants are sprinkled throughout the book, signaling the massive cultural shift that has made the particularity of the Christian tradition a persuasive point of departure.

The two-pronged aim of the book is to “develop the promise inherent” in this “changed intellectual situation . . . and at the same time to provide an introduction for students and others of some of the central topics of theology.” The tension between these two intents, however, tends to cast the book somewhat at cross purposes and undermines its conceptual and organizational clarity. The new reader or nonspecialist would be well advised to shift the order of the essays and, after reading Gunton’s excellent introduction to Historical and Systematic Theology (chap. 1), turn immediately to the more introductory chapters of part 2 on the Content of Christian Doctrine. Within part 2, Geoffrey Wainwright’s elegant essay on the Holy Spirit should be read before Robert Jenson’s chapter on the Church and the Sacraments.

Each of the eight chapters in part 2 addresses a major topic within traditional Christian doctrine. Following the essays by Wainwright and Jenson, the reader might take up Ralph Del Colle’s essay on the Triune God, a splendid overview of the biblical foundations, patristic development, medieval consolidation, and modern conversation concerning this doctrine.

Some of the essays in part 2 are lengthy and constructive. Kevin Vanhoozer’s essay summarizes classic Christian anthropology, modern and postmodern alternatives, the anthropologies of Rahner, Barth, Pannenberg, and recent relational (Trinitarian) perspectives, all before developing Vanhoozer’s own constructive proposal, which centers on human beings as “communicative agent[s] in a web of communicative relationships with others.”

Other essays in part 2 are concise summaries. Trevor Hart’s essay on Redemption and Fall discusses biblical metaphors before outlining three main theories or models for redemption (deification, satisfaction, self-realization) in the history of the church. In discussing leading representatives of each model, Hart briefly considers the extent to which social location may have influenced the theories’ expression of this doctrine.

Kathryn Tanner’s essay on Jesus Christ (chap. 13) summarizes the entire history of Christology in a page and a half. The body of the essay is a sophisticated critique (beyond the level of beginners) of modern theology’s unself-critical and habitual transposition of Christology into modern epistemological idioms. All of this is supposed to serve Tanner’s agenda of pushing Christology “in a new, postmodern direction,” but the constructive element never gets off the ground in this essay.

Other chapters in part 2 deal with Creation (Colin Gunton) and Eschatology (David Fergusson). Both present the biblical backgrounds of the respective doctrines, trace their trajectories through the history of Christian thought, and identify current issues that require further attention.

After completing part 2, the theological novice can return to part 1 and make better sense of the other generally more difficult essays found there. Gunton’s essay on Historical and Systematic Theology delineates these disciplines in relation to one another and discusses several questions related to theological method, including the relation between theology and culture (Irenaeus/Origen), faith and reason (Anselm/Aquinas), and content and method (Schleiermacher/Barth). Gunton is clear in his preference for Irenaeus, Anselm, and Barth as providing the most fruitful way forward for Christian theology in the aftermath of the postmodern criticism of criticism.

Stanley Hauerwas’s essay on Doctrine and Ethics is not an introduction at all, but rather a clever apologetic (beyond most beginners). Hauerwas offers a carefully constructed and scintillating genealogy of the relation between doctrine and ethics, showing what led to their divorce in the modern period and calling for their reunion.

Gerald Loughlin’s fine essay (again not for beginners) on the Basis and Authority of Doctrine acknowledges the postmodern context of current work in theology but rejects dogmatic postmodern pluralism. Loughlin calls for an understanding of doctrine as “the grammar and rule, the stage-direction, of a traditioned performance of the story that alone calls it into being: the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The remaining three essays of part 1 include Francis Watson on the Scope of Hermeneutics, Bruce D. Marshall on the Jewish People and Christian Theology, and Jeremy Begbie on Christianity and the Arts. All three present outstanding constructive proposals.

The fragmentation that remains after the collapse of modernity’s pretensions to universality is somewhat exemplified in the multiple visions encoded in these essays. The postconservative, postliberal centrist perspective that holds the collection loosely together repeatedly comes into tension with the multiple philosophical commitments, ecclesial traditions, and university communities of the various authors.

Make no mistake-this is a stunning collection, one that I will include on the collateral reading list for my course on Christian doctrine; but I fear that what makes this Cambridge Companion a complex and intriguing friend for a seminary professor like myself creates a companion with a rather complicated personality that may well bewilder the new reader or nonspecialist. Then again, maybe this complexity is what makes this text an ideal initiation into Christian doctrine in the postmodern context: though fruitfully diverse, it is in danger of being frustratingly plural.

Was Hitler the Antichrist? (Some still think so.) Or was it Gorbachev? (He had a mark on his forehead.) Not too many evangelicals think of the pope as a good candidate, though he topped the list among Protestants for several centuries. Then there’s Bill Gates.

I told one evangelical leader that CT was marking the fiftieth anniversary of the modern State of Israel. He was excited. I then explained we were exploring how dispensationalist eschatology shaped America’s pro-Israel stand (see “How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,” p. 38). He winced. He was embarrassed by the prophecy charts, Rapture movies, and Antichrist spotting of his youth. He didn’t relish being reminded how this end-times obsession has characterized popular Christianity.

If you hang out among evangelical leaders or at our colleges and seminaries (including even today’s Dallas Theological Seminary), you seldom hear end-times senarios discussed or see Daniel’s prophecies charted. A few years ago, you might even have imagined that Scofield’s notes had been, uh, marginalized. But then there was a Gulf War and suddenly Christian bestsellers told how Saddam Hussein and Iraq (ancient Babylon) had been foretold in the Bible. And the latest Christian publishing sensation is a seven-volume post-Rapture, dispensational soap opera.

I understand why my friend winced. There are dangers to end-times obsessions: a disinclination to work toward long-term solutions, a propensity to focus on prophetic fulfillment at the expense of ethical concerns (something Israel’s prophets were never accused of), and a perverse satisfaction in cultural decay. However, these problems don’t compare with what should be celebrated.

I remember when I first read Revelation’s portrayal of the saints’ heavenly worship. I realized then that I was part of that crowd. My pulse quickened. Did John see me? Was I in the Bible?

I was, and I am. The most important contribution of dispensationalists’ eschatology is their emphasis that we worship an active God who intervenes in history, judges nations, and works out his purposes on earth. Our God is the Lord of history, and everything else.

Many of my dispensational friends will not be surprised if God surprises them at how Jesus returns. Prophecy literature is famous, after all, for changing with the circumstances. But what shines through the details of their scenarios is a bold confidence that God is actively preparing his church for Christ’s return. And this is a ministry to us all.

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Confronting Negative Influences

* I had just returned home from visiting two teenagers recently sentenced to life in prison for murder when I found my issue of CT with the cover story “Trained to Kill” [Aug. 10]. It was a wise choice to include this informative article. I have often cautioned our church families to employ discretion in what they allow their children to watch on television, and I found this article by David Grossman to supply additional and factual evidence for what many of us have suspected for a long time.

Though the most productive role of the church in influencing culture lies in the proclamation of the gospel, the church should be proactive in directly confronting the negative influences in our society. I concur with the opening comments stating “that parents, the church, scholars, and the government must come together” to address this issue. As a result of reading this article, not only do I intend to share this information with our church families, but I have scheduled an appointment with our state senator to discuss how we can encourage limits to the “probing lenses” of the network news media. Thank you!

Pastor Jack W. Bruce, Jr. Elizabethton Alliance Church Elizabethton, Tenn.

* Though I have spent many hours thinking about and discussing this issue with my friends and family, Lt. Col. Grossman shed new light on it. I have a much greater understanding of how violence specifically affects children (and the rest of us) and numbs them (and us).

Alison Rhodes Tinker AFB, Okla.

* Grossman loses focus when it comes to charting a response to the problem raised. Curiously, after describing the dangers of extensive exposure to violence on TV, he minimizes the impact of an individual’s decision to “just turn it off.” If we agree that exposure to TV violence is a causal factor contributing to violent crime, it is obvious that if fewer people were exposed to TV violence, we would experience somewhat less violence at large. Although the remaining victims would still be real people with real hurting loved ones, it is fallacious to say that “it wouldn’t have done a bit of good.”

I applaud Grossman for gathering and summarizing research and raising awareness on this issue. However, considerable work must be done towards charting a comprehensive and effective response to the problem.

Wayne Iba Redwood City, Calif.

Grossman says, “But it [killing] does not come naturally, you have to be taught to kill.” Sounds good. Who taught Cain to kill?

Jack Knaur Larue, Ohio

Seldom do I reread articles. This one I have read three times. Thanks to David Grossman for boldly speaking out to the TV networks, calling for them to assume responsibility for the evident impact that violent programming has on the lives of our children and to “have the moral courage to censure people who think that violence is legitimate entertainment.” This is an article that every parent should read and apply in ways that change the destructive trends in our culture. This is an article that calls for reprints for distribution to families in our churches and to the media that want to ignore the evidence of the effect of violent programing.

Pastor Richard Gerbrandt Mennonite Brethren Church Reedley, Calif.

* I think it’s time to quit arguing and address the real issue. It isn’t gun control or TV violence or violent computer games. They simply represent the serious and tragic consequences of the sin and godlessness that pervades our society worldwide. Whether we agree or disagree with some of Grossman’s findings, it is clear our generation is becoming more and more violent. I’ve turned off my TV in the evenings simply because of the violence and sexual situations. My Bible tells me to think on those things that are lovely, pure, wholesome, etc. Where is the insatiable hunger for God today?

Dick Olsen Sunnyvale, Calif.

* While reading “Trained to Kill” I was reminded of my experience while watching Saving Private Ryan the day before. In one scene covering the invasion of Normandy, a bullet struck a soldier’s helmet, but mercifully did not pierce it. In a daze, the soldier pulled his helmet off to inspect it and to feel the back of his head. While his head was uncovered, the soldier was struck in the back of the head and killed instantly by another bullet. The man sitting next to us in the theater laughed—and did so several more times during the movie, at equally horrifying moments. And he was not alone.

Brian Wells Oak Park, Ill.

Using Our Minds

* I was so pleased to read the article “Pray the Lord My Mind to Keep” [Aug. 10]. I have taught classes in church on the basis of CT articles and teaching guides, and then a less structured class, “Faith and Reason,” also drawing from CT articles. I am a scientist, and I worship Christ who created what I research, and I struggle with the tensions between beguiling worldly philosophies and Christianity. This article articulates my beliefs and concerns better than any I have ever read. Praise God for Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., and for CT for delivering this important lesson! The image in which we were created requires that we use our minds, that we love with our minds, that we worship with our minds. It is a joy to let God reveal his truth to me, not only through the Word, but also through creation and to do so in proportion to how submissive and adoring I am of him!

Patrick S. McIntosh Boulder, Colo.

What We Need to Know

“In Search of the Lost Churches of Paul,” by Wendy Murray Zoba, is a choice piece of writing [Aug. 10]. She reminds us of Turkey’s involvement in New Testament history and lucidly brings us up to date on why and how the present government operates. This is information the present generation of Christians needs to know.

Udell Smith Alexandria, La.

Christians are discriminated against in Turkey, and they experience many obstacles in simply trying to survive. The article refers to the Armenian genocide during 1915-16 which took the lives of over one million Christians. My father, a mayor of one of the Christian communities, was arrested, his family murdered, and the entire village completely destroyed. He managed to escape, and with the cooperation of British forces, saved hundreds of orphans by taking them to Cyprus.

The genocide is well documented in primary historical sources, yet the Turkish government denies it. Not only are Christians persecuted even now, but Turkey does not permit any criticism of the government and routinely arrests and holds dissenters without the benefit of a trial.

Turkey has much to answer for, and as Christians we must pray that it will really follow the teachings of the Qur’an, which preaches equality. Presently equality exists only for nondissenting Turkish citizens.

Jerry G. Keshian, Ph.D. Winston-Salem, N.C.

Those Proxy Baptisms

The new “Directions” feature adds a welcome practical relevance to CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

One point needs to be added to D. A. Carson’s otherwise fine explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 and the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead [“Directions,” Aug. 10]. Carson concluded that, “In any case, Paul’s clear emphasis is that people are justified by grace through faith, which demands a personal response.” In fact, Mormon teaching does include the need for a faith response to the gospel on the part of the deceased for whom proxy baptism is performed. But it teaches that they can make this faith response in the spirit world, where the gospel is offered to all (Doctrine and Covenants 138). According to Mormon teaching, their vicarious baptism ordinance has efficacy only for those deceased persons who respond positively to the gospel in the spirit world.

To really shut the door to this Mormon error two points must be made: (1) The biblical teaching that our eternal destiny is fixed at death (Luke 16:19-31; Heb. 9:27; 2 Cor. 6:2), and (2) The fallacious nature of the Mormon interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6, which they say establishes that the gospel is offered to all in the spirit world.

Rev. Luke P. Wilson Institute for Religious Research Grand Rapids, Mich.

I would like to add an opinion I have reached by researching this verse of Scripture since two of my children have been married to those of the Mormon faith.

In Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, huper is stated to mean “for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone or something.” Since there is no historical proof of anyone being vicariously baptized in the place of someone who is dead, can Carson’s “most plausible interpretation” really be the most plausible? I contend that the most plausible interpretation is that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then why are we baptized “for his sake” or “on his behalf?” After all, it is common for Christians to pray “for Jesus’ sake.” Could Carson be wrong about his “most plausible interpretation?” After all, I was baptized “for Jesus’ sake” to make his vicarious atonement efficacious for me.

Rev. Marvin L. Ellis Canton, Ga.

A False Dichotomy?

* After reading Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey’s “The Devil in the DNA” [Aug. 10], I’m continuing to discover (as I also found in Phillip Johnson’s Defeating Darwinism), that in regard to human origins, I’m left with two choices. Either I accept the naturalistic explanation with its “purposeless,” “materialistic,” “arbitrary” processes or I adamantly reject naturalism in favor of intelligent design. And by design, apparently one immediately decides that, in spite of a universe that seems to exhibit endlessly complex processes, human existence itself must have been the result of an “instantaneous” and “supernatural” event (another first cause which came after the first first cause). Consequently, I can investigate origins in some “atheistic,” “secular,” and “cynical” academic arena, or I can abandon the study of origins, arguing that explaining the means by which humans came into existence lies beyond the scope of scientific investigation. Can a false dichotomy be any more obvious? Evidently not. Clearly there is no middle ground, absolutely no possible harmonization. Is life this simple?

Forgive my “liberal” Christianity and my contentment with some ambiguity, but the descent of humans from other animal ancestors does not necessarily lead one to apostasy and “moral nihilism.” Buying into evolution isn’t surely boarding a one-way flight to the land of atheism any more than enjoying a hot fudge sundae certainly leads one to purchase a lifetime supply of ice cream.

Korey D. Kwilinski St. Louis, Mo.

Colson properly recognizes that evolutionism is inimical to Christian theism. But he also constructs a straw man, for no proponent of genetic determinism claims that the genes are the sole causes of actions. Even strict determinist B. F. Skinner recognized the place of environment in Walden Two. Others have noted that, were an adult cloned, the result could not be an exact duplicate of the original because the environment during development would be different. Further, genetic tendencies may be battled: most genetic determinists claim only that heredity plus environment predisposes, not that they produce unconditional consequences. The straw man was unnecessary and improper, for there are more than enough genuine problems in evolutionism and evolutionary psychology and silly claims by adherents, and Christians must be strictly truthful.

David F. Siemens, Jr., Ph.D. Los Angeles Pierce College Mesa, Ariz.

A True American Hero

Your article on Sen. Dan Coats highlights the important question of what is the proper role of faith in public policy or, put differently, whether the church (or synagogue) should be in and also of the world. Senator Coats who, together with Sen. Joseph Lieberman serves as chairman of our Center for Jewish and Christian Values in Washington, D.C., is truly an exceptional individual whose heightened sense of morality and evangelical Christian faith make him most worthy of lionizing.

What is not always recognized is that Senator Coats’s ethical ethos and public-policy posture stems from his distinctly religious sensibilities, not just political motivations. He is a congressional treasure, a true American hero, and a model public servant, precisely because he so effectively expresses his religious convictions in the public square. Moreover, he does so in a manner that is tolerant and respectful of divergent viewpoints and civil toward individuals with whom he disagrees. This demeanor should not be seen as the suspension of religious values but their greatest manifestation.

It is the affirmation of Coats’s Christian faith that shapes his morality, not faith’s denial. He is, in my book, a paradigm for public servants. The Senate, and our nation as a whole, will not be quite the same, bereft of his leadership.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein International Fellowship of Christians and Jews Chicago, Ill.

Male/Female; Left/Right

With regard to John Stackhouse’s article on evangelicalism today [“The Perils of Left and Right,” Aug. 10], I oppose a gender egalitarianism that erases real differences between men and women but holds to the full equality of both sexes under God and to women in ministry. There is no cleavage between Barth and myself on this issue (as Stackhouse’s remarks could imply), but we do part ways in some other areas of theology.

Donald G. Bloesch University of Dubuque Theological Seminary Dubuque, Iowa

* Stackhouse misrepresents my delineations of the evangelical theological landscape. I specifically avoided labeling the ideal types of which I wrote (in my essays in Christian Century and CT) with the polemical labels “left” and “right.” Furthermore, I do not see how calling for greater inclusivity through dialogue leading to mutual understanding and acceptance can fairly be called “divisive.”

Roger E. Olson Bethel College & Seminary St. Paul, Minn.

Orthodox “Converts”

In “Universities Question Orthodox Conversion” [Aug. 10], Scott Swanson continually states that evangelicals convert to Orthodoxy. In common parlance, conversion refers to changing religions. When Christians change churches, it is more appropriate to say that they joined another church. One could say that an evangelical converts to Orthodoxy if the Orthodox Church did not consider evangelicals to be true Christians. This emphasis defines salvation in terms of belonging to the right church. Inherently, this violates the ecumenical spirit. Since the Orthodox communion participates in the World Council of Churches, I doubt that it would publicly subscribe to this opinion.

In my dealings with Orthodox “converts,” most were attracted by the church’s colorful liturgy, rich tradition, and ecclesiology. They did not feel they were any less evangelical simply because they became Orthodox. As such, they were not converting from their old faith; rather, they were augmenting it. If Orthodoxy seeks to be more receptor oriented and less culture bound, it will attract many more searching evangelicals.

William P. Payne Parrish, Fla.

Two errors should be corrected: On page 18, column 3, paragraph 1, Swanson misquotes me by writing “He joined the Orthodox Church, even though he detected 10 points of difference between Orthodox theology and CIU’s doctrinal statement.” What I said was that I joined the church believing that there were no significant differences between the CIU ten-point doctrinal statement and my own understanding of Orthodox theology. Since I could still sign the CIU doctrinal statement and since that statement is the standard used to define the theological parameters of the university, there was no doctrinal reason for asking me to resign.

On page 18, column 3, paragraph 2, Swanson writes, “In November, the school agreed to allow Rommen to teach for a two-year trial period.” The veracity of this statement depends on how the terms school and university are used. If school refers to the seminary (CBS, a school within the university) the statement could be considered true, since the dean of that school and his provost approved and champion the proposal. If school refers to the university (CIU) the statement is false, since the university’s president rejected the two-year proposal and it was never brought to school’s board for approval.

Edward Rommen Columbia, S.C.

War and Drought in the Sudan

Thank you for your News article [Aug. 10] drawing attention to the tragic situation in the southern Sudan where war and drought have put 2.5 million people at risk of starvation. A word of caution, however. To portray this interminable war as Muslim persecution of Christians is to oversimplify a very complex situation. Religion is a factor. But differences in culture, language, race, and politics are also responsible for the conflict between the peoples of northern and southern Sudan. One key issue, for example, is control of the country’s centrally located oil fields.

No one’s hands are clean in this war. Fratricidal fighting among the Christian and animist “rebels” who claim to represent the Dinka, Nuer, and other peoples of the southern Sudan has also wreaked havoc on the civilian population. We can end the famine if we can stop the fighting. We can stop the fighting if we can deal with all the issues in all their complexity.

Dean R. Hirsch, President World Vision International Monrovia, Calif.

Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address if intended for publication. Due to the volume of mail, we cannot respond personally to individual letters. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 630/260-0114. E-mail: cteditor@christianitytoday.com* .

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Conservative United Methodists are relieved, but not overconfident, after the recent ruling by the church’s highest court that a prohibition against ministers performing same-sex unions for homosexuals is binding church law.

“We cannot be too jubilant,” says James V. Heidinger II, executive director of Good News, the oldest conservative coalition of United Methodists, based in Wilmore, Kentucky. “We know the fight is not over. But it is a bit of encouragement that we have at least clarified this.”

After a special session in August in Dallas, the nine-member United Methodist Judicial Council ruled that a statement saying ministers “shall not” conduct homosexual unions is ecclesiastical law. Methodist delegates approved the statement at the 1996 general conference in Denver.

“Conduct in violation of this prohibition renders a pastor liable to a charge of disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church,” the decision states.

Heidinger expects more battles, though. The 8.5 million-member church is deeply split over the issue, he says, noting that 240 United Methodist ministers earlier this year signed statements saying they would conduct same-sex unions if asked.

“I’m going to guess someone will try ecclesiastical disobedience and push a test case,” he says.

CREECH VERDICT FOLLOW-UP: Controversy over the ban erupted when Jimmy Creech, former pastor of the First United Church of Omaha, Nebraska, was narrowly acquitted in a church trial earlier this year after he defied the church’s ban and conducted a same-sex ceremony (CT, April 27, 1998, p. 14).

Conservative groups roundly condemned the jury’s verdict (CT, June 15, 1998, p. 15), and several Methodist bishops asked the Judicial Council to review the case.

During the council’s hearing, Creech and his supporters made emotional pleas, arguing that the prohibition was merely advisory. It appears in the Social Principles section of the Book of Discipline, the Methodist book of rules. And Creech said the Social Principles historically have been considered advisory.

Creech’s attorney, Mike McLellan of Omaha, argued that enforcing the ban would mean church leaders would be forced to invade the privacy of individuals. “Don’t allow the church to be drawn into a witch-hunt over this,” McLellan said.

Speaking to council members, Bishops Bruce Blake of Oklahoma City and Dan Solomon of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, argued that if the edict were ruled “advisory,” it would call into question the entire disciplinary system of the nation’s second-largest Protestant group.

“This embraces the very integrity of the denomination,” Blake says.

“Integrity means following a code. The strength of the United Methodist Church is that we have a code that binds us together.” Blake and Solomon represented the South Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops, which had requested the ruling.

In pondering its ruling, council members gave much weight to the “shall not” language of the same-sex union ban. Also, they cited the democratic nature of the general conference to make laws. They declared the statement is clearly prohibitory “notwithstanding its placement” in the Social Principles.

WARNING TO VIOLATORS: The ruling puts pressure on church liberals, such as Bishop Melvin Talbert of San Francisco. He has not disciplined ministers in the California-Nevada conference who have conducted same-sex unions.

Talbert says he is “deeply saddened” by the ruling, but he will abide by the discipline and action of the Judicial Council. No action will be taken against ministers who have performed same-sex ceremonies in the past, Talbert notes.

Creech is urging ministers to defy the ruling. “The church of John Wesley, founded upon principles of social justice and piety, will now be prosecuting pastors for praying God’s blessing upon same-sex couples who make covenants of love and fidelity,” Creech says. He is hoping those who disagree with the prohibition will organize to change it at the next general conference in 2000.

SECOND-CLASS STATUS? Homosexual-rights activists are discouraged by the ruling. “This is a sad day for United Methodism,” says Mark Bowman of Chicago, director of a nationwide Reconciling Churches program for 150 congregations that intentionally reach out to homosexuals.

“Lesbian and gay persons continue to be second-class members of United Methodist churches,” Bowman says. “They can sit in the pew and give their money, but their loving relationships cannot be recognized.”

But United Methodist bishops who backed the ruling say it does not mean homosexuals are not welcome. The ruling simply proclaims the validity of a church statement adopted by the general conference, the church’s highest legislative body, they say.

Another advocate for homosexual rights, Kathryn Johnson of Washington, D.C., president of the Methodist Federation for Social Concerns, says the church is regressing.

“At a time in history when gay and lesbian persons are gaining … greater acceptance in society, it is tragic that the United Methodist Church would be a place where they cannot experience full acceptance.”

Conservatives hope the decision signals a trend in the denomination. “This issue has been debated a long time, and this ruling makes it unquestionably clear what the position of the church is,” says Dean Posey, a United Methodist pastor in Bedford, Texas.

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

In a major ministry realignment, Promise Keepers (PK) will trim its full-time staff by 28 percent, from 250 to 180, as of October 31.

Last fall, the men’s movement, which is now eight years old, announced plans for a radical transition from fee-based to donation-based operations along with a shift in emphasis from emotionally charged stadium events to working in closer partnership with denominations, local churches, and grassroots networks.

“It’s a case of tapering and posturing ourselves so that we can be poised to move quickly and do what we were called to do,” PK founder Bill McCartney told CT. “As we see more clearly our vision, we don’t think we need as many staff to pull it off.”

That vision includes helping spark similar movements abroad, staging a simultaneous gathering at state capitol buildings on January 1, 2000, and continuing to promote racial reconciliation.

McCartney, who earlier served as chief executive officer of the Denver-based ministry, is now overseeing three divisions as president and founder. Randy Phillips has moved from president to the new position of vice president for global ministries, and Tom Fortson from chief operating officer to executive vice president of administration and operations. Raleigh Washington is now vice president of reconciliation.

ROLLER COASTER EMPLOYMENT: Following PK’s climactic Stand in the Gap rally in Washington, D.C., one year ago (CT, Nov. 17, 1997, p. 62), McCartney promised his staff they would stay together through the 1998 conference season. In February, McCartney announced that all 345 workers would be laid off on March 31 unless donations made up for a shortfall caused by eliminating the conference fees (CT, April 6, 1998, p. 18). The layoff came, but most of the workers returned two weeks later as $4 million in contributions gushed into the ministry (CT, May 18, 1998, p. 29). Through attrition the staff decreased to its current total of about 250.

Fortson says that last fall PK employees were told to expect downsizing, though the exact number of jobs had not been determined.

“We have identified core positions that we need for what we call ‘Team 2000,’ ” Fortson says. “We will give employees here at Promise Keepers the opportunity to interview for those positions.”

Some PK observers think the organization may have fulfilled its purpose as a catalyst for bringing men back into their families and their churches and should avoid the temptation of self-perpetuation.

Ken Abraham, author of Who Are the Promise Keepers? (Doubleday, 1997), says he looked for such a temptation in researching his book but could not find it. “I found a hands-off attitude [within PK], saying: ‘Hey, whatever the Lord wants us to do here, that’s what we want to do.’ I still hear that from many who signed on with Promise Keepers: ‘This is where I’m going to serve for the next five, ten years.’ Now suddenly they’re out of work.”

McCartney concedes that the changes will not be easy. “Morale is kind of up one day and down the next,” he says. “But I think God’s going to do this in a way in which people will feel like they’ve heard from God and are doing what they’re supposed to be doing.”

RALLY ATTENDANCE DIPS: Attendance is down at stadium events this year despite—or perhaps because of—elimination of fees, an attempt to encourage men to invite their non-Christian friends. Through 14 of the 19 scheduled conferences, half of the events have paid for themselves, but PK says it will meet its $48 million budget through additional income from resource sales, corporate sponsorships, and individual donations. Last year’s budget, supporting 452 workers, amounted to $117 million. “Our lifeblood is the month-to-month gifts,” says PK spokesperson Steve Chavis.

Abraham thinks that making the events free has not had its desired effect. “There is a perceived value when guys were paying $60 to go to an event; that’s not there when you take away that fee,” he says. “And for those who say, ‘Well, you were excluding certain parts of society,’ I was amazed at how many free admissions PK used to provide.”

This year, PK has attracted a different slice of the demographic pie. First-time attendees are more ethnically diverse, have lower incomes, and are slightly younger, Chavis says. Through the mid-August conference in Houston, 5,707 men have made decisions to become Christians.

PK will continue holding conferences, but they will be smaller and based on a Billy Graham crusade model that requires an invitation from a local network of churches that do most of the groundwork.

“In the past, convention and visitors bureaus may have been the leaders in soliciting a PK conference and church unity might have been a component of that presentation,” Chavis says. “We’d like to flip that around and see churches leading the charge.”

Some of those invitations may come from overseas. PK has launched national organizations in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (CT, June 16, 1997, p. 58).

In June, weekend conferences in Europe drew mostly favorable national media attention. In Denmark, 500 men attended what organizers believed to be the largest gathering of Christian men in the country’s history. Some 1,800 men met in Bern, Switzerland. Many came from other countries, including the Czech Republic. About 250 men gathered in Dijon, France.

Smaller scale activities, including training, have begun in Austria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, and Zimbabwe.

FUTURE EVENTS: The organization has also formed strategic alliances with groups such as Campus Crusade for Christ and Christianity Today International, providing a ready-made network of contacts and support.

But PK still has a penchant for high-profile events such as Stand in the Gap, possibly the largest religious gathering in U.S. history. At stadium events this year, participants are being recruited for a turn-of-the-millennium gathering of families at state capitols across the country. Some 90 percent of conference attendees say they will show up January 1, 2000, and most promise to invite 10 other families.

Racial reconciliation remains high on the agenda. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, resident scholar at the Center for Christian Women in Leadership at Eastern College in Saint Davids, Pennsylvania, says, “I give them credit for doing better than just about any other evangelical organization in keeping [reconciliation] front and center and not changing their message when they go to the South—simply saying: ‘God wants this, get used to it.’ “

But she wishes the message on gender reconciliation would be equally as clear. “They would never dream of trying to pull off racial reconciliation by having only white males speak for them,” she says. “But they think they can advance a new model of gender reconciliation without any input from women. I see it as being inconsistent.”

Fortson says that no women participate in top-level strategizing, but PK has female input from many sources, including his administrative assistant.

Van Leeuwen thinks Promise Keepers is fulfilling a continuing need. “The kind of questions that helped to bring about organizations like this still haven’t been resolved,” she says. “Men are still saying, ‘What does it mean to be masculine in a postfeminist, postindustrial world?’ “

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.