Bad-News Bearers

On February 24, more than 5,000 Boeing airplanes carried passengers safely to their destinations. One, however, lost its cargo door that day, and nine passengers were sucked through the hole in the torn fuselage, plunging to their deaths.

We know about that accident because it was carried on nearly every newspaper’s front page. None of the other 5,000 Boeing planes made the front page—or any page. The point, of course, is that most of what we consider news is the least flattering stuff of a generally smooth-running society. That’s because news is not necessarily what is new, but what is different. Stocks are traded every day, but when an unscrupulous broker trades on inside information, it becomes news. Greedy preachers and lecherous teachers make headlines, despite the fact that honest, hard-working men and women form the majority in both professions.

We rehearse these realities because we have recently reported a generous share of bad news. It troubles some of you; it troubles us. Why should a Christian magazine report bad things about fellow believers?

Truth And Consequences

The obvious answer is that we take our calling as journalists seriously. A journalist—Christian or secular—attempts to chronicle the activities of society. In our case, we try to tell the truth about Christians and their organized ministries. If all we did was report the successes of Christians, we would be dishonest journalists because Christians are not always successful. So when we are confronted with an unpleasant fact about something within the family of believers, we think it deserves our—and your—attention.

In this respect, our news philosophy is no different from that of a secular journal. And yet, we hope we are different from our colleagues in the secular media. How? For starters, we do not hide our agenda. We exist to affirm the classic doctrines of orthodox Christianity and would do nothing to undermine that foundation. If we believed publishing an article would damage the body of Christ, we would not publish it. Generally, secular journalists do not operate under such a narrow ideological framework (at least not as openly).

We also believe bad news about a fellow believer or ministry is tragic, and therefore must be reported responsibly—almost reluctantly. For example, when we published recent reports on problems within Christian ministries, we did not mention the additional racy allegations that cropped up as we tracked the many leads that came our way. We chose to set aside those issues because they seemed to shift the focus of those stories from the factual to the sensational. Yet such tittering about trysts usually becomes the hook upon which most publications hang their stories.

Finally, we do not actively seek out bad news. We have no investigative teams sniffing out scandal in high places, and when such stories come to our attention, we approach them with restraint.

That does not mean we are timid. Like most journalists, we prefer to “scoop” other publications, knowing that no one likes to read old news. If rumors of wrongdoing are substantiated, our news staff will pursue the story aggressively. But ultimately, we measure our success not in terms of being first, but in being fair.

As journalists, we will continue telling the truth about our movement. As Christian journalists, we accept this responsibility because we know truth really does set us free. But we also know that when the truth hurts, it hurts all of us.

By Lyn Cryderman.

It looks like we may win an abortion battle. By sometime in June the Supreme Court will rule on an appeal from the State of Missouri, asking that its right to regulate abortion be recognized (CT, April 7, 1989, p. 36). In the process of its deliberations, the Court could reverse Roe v. Wade, the 15-year-old decision legalizing abortion. But a more realistic scenario is for the Court simply to uphold the Missouri law, which would return some of the legislative power for regulating abortions to individual states. It would also call into question the controversial—and we think wrong—definition implicit in Roe v. Wade that a first-trimester fetus is unprotected by law. Such a decision would open a crack in the legislative door, closed for over a decade because of Roe v. Wade.

But even if the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the fight must continue, since the decision would simply hand the abortion question back to the states. Prolife groups will need to mobilize for 50 more battles.

Two Challenges

This change of venue from Washington, D.C., to state legislatures has some promise. Activists know it is easier to rally people around local issues that can be seen as immediate threats to home and hearth, than to gear up for battles being fought hundreds of miles away. You cannot lobby the Supreme Court like you can your local legislature.

But the change will also put demands on the abortion movement’s ability to control itself. Specifically, it will put a great deal of pressure on local leadership to keep the battle out of the hands of the radical fringe who may do more harm than good. How good a job have we done in training this level of leadership? Are the national organizations ready for this new challenge to mobilize troops for local battles?

Second, if we are successful in reducing the number of abortions, are we ready to deal with the problem of more babies being born out of wedlock? Estimates vary, of course, on just what the increase will be, though we do know that more than one million abortions are performed every year. It is safe to say we will have more babies on our hands.

If those babies are born out of wedlock, it will mean growing numbers of young mothers in tough times. Several organizations have already stepped up to this challenge, including the Christian Action Council’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Bethany Christian Services’ Lifeline, and Jerry Falwell’s Save-a-Baby program. More babies could also mean more adoptions, so we must have programs in place that encourage adoption. Will there be many prolife couples planning another child who would be willing to adopt instead?

If the Court decides in favor of life, we will feel good. The battle has been long and difficult for groups such as National Right to Life, Christian Action Council, Americans United for Life, and many others. More recently, Operation Rescue has succeeded in focusing the public’s attention on the horrors of abortion. They, too, should feel good about a favorable Court decision.

But those good feelings may present the biggest challenge. Is it possible to feel too good about this?

Indeed, if more battles and more babies will test the cohesiveness and effectiveness of antiabortion institutions, the question of how we handle these great gains will be a good indicator of our movement’s spiritual maturity. Pride goeth before a fall, the Scriptures say. Can we avoid the fall and move on to the next, even bigger challenge that awaits us in kingdom building?

If we win the abortion battle, we will be near the pinnacle of a medium-sized temple, at least. Will we say no to the Tempter? Or will we grab a chestful of pride and miss the directions to the next battle?

By Terry C. Muck.

Is “lifestyle necessity” an oxymoron? Perhaps it is when applied to people whose income exceeds $100,000 a year.

“I just couldn’t live without my Cuisinart,” said a friend (whose income does not exceed $100,000) as she fed rock-hard chunks of Parmesan cheese into the growling maw of her food processor. It is amazing just what we think we cannot do without.

And so it is across the country. Earlier this year, in six major U.S. cities, 600 adults whose households bring in more than $100,000 a year were queried by the Roper Organization about what they consider “the most important lifestyle necessities.”

The answers display the torrid American love affair with gadgetry: Seventy-nine percent of those polled said they couldn’t live without a microwave oven. Forty-nine percent said they couldn’t survive without a telephone answering machine. Thirty-six percent wouldn’t make it without a VCR.

These were not answers to poorly worded questions. The study asked the affluent to distinguish between luxuries—“things they may enjoy owning, but could live without”—and necessities—“things or services that have become so important they are thought to be necessities.” Wealthy Americans believe they cannot do without their diet of speed-cooked frozen food.

The choice of what constitutes a necessity showcases the rapid pace of affluent life. In contemporary society, getting more money usually does not mean finding more time to smell the roses. Life in the lap of luxury is rarely leisurely. It is spent returning phone messages on a cellular telephone while scurrying between appointments. If one is to relax at all, it would not be during prime time when the networks beam their trendiest fare at America’s La-Z-Boys. Thus the videotaped delay of “thirtysomething” made possible by a VCR becomes “essential.” The real imperative behind More! is Faster!

And the faster you travel the more things become distorted. Among the same affluent citizens who could not contemplate life without the microwave, only 30 percent rated quality education for their children as a necessity.

We grow too soon old, and too late smart.

By David Neff.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.