Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism As a Disease, by Herbert Fingarette (University of California Press, 166 pp.; $16.95, hardcover). Reviewed by James Alsdurf, forensic psychologist for the Hennepin County Bureau of Community Corrections, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The concept that alcoholism is a disease first gained popularity in the early 1960s, and many in the Christian community—almost by default—widely accepted this notion along with the rest of society. Now, however, a leading expert on alcohol abuse proposes that alcoholism is primarily a behavioral disorder rather than a physiological disease, and that the very concept of “alcoholism” is simplistic and arcane.

“Almost everything that the American public believes to be the scientific truth about alcoholism is false,” writes Herbert Fingarette, a consultant on alcoholism and addiction to the World Health Organization and a fellow of the Stanford Center for Advanced Studies and Behavioral Sciences. In this controversial book, Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism As a Disease, Fingarette writes that the disease model removes the problem from the realm of human responsibility and “denies the spiritual dimension” of alcohol dependency. For this reason, he charges, the church should strongly oppose the disease model for alcoholism.

No Scientific Evidence

Classic theory in the study of alcoholism holds that alcoholics cannot control their drinking and that the breakdown of self-control is the primary symptom of the disease. Yet Fingarette examines the body of experimental observation and asserts that there is no scientific evidence pointing to this loss of control. Fingarette writes that the very concept of alcoholism misleads us into believing that the condition is a medically treatable malady that follows a certain course.

There are “many kinds of heavy drinking that arise from many different causes and produce many different patterns of associated problems,” Fingarette asserts. The classic steps for developing alcoholism—which include social drinking; drinking in greater amounts; private, isolated drinking; and eventually periods of blackout and loss of control—do not describe even most heavy drinkers, according to Fingarette. He notes that many heavy drinkers with severe problems “mature out” of trouble and that the alcoholic’s descent to the “bottom” is not inevitable.

Fingarette traces the history of alcoholism-as-a-disease thinking and declares that cultural values, not careful observation or scientific evidence, determined the widespread acceptance of the disease model. As part of “collegial conviviality,” Americans drank much more alcohol from colonial days to the early nineteenth century than they presently do. But as social and cultural beliefs changed, largely affected by new scientific understandings of physics, chemistry, and anatomy, the concept of disease became a “touchstone in social thought,” Fingarette writes, and moral and social ills were “perceived as pathologies of either the individual or the body politic.”

The concept of alcoholism as a disease became entrenched when research physiologist E.M. Jellinek proposed an explanation of alcoholism in 1946 and 1952, which seemed to confirm major elements of the Alcoholics Anonymous view. This view held that some people have “a unique biological vulnerability to alcohol and they develop a special kind of ‘allergy.’ ” Fingarette reveals, however, that Jellinek’s nodal article slacked scientific foundation, as Jellinek himself apparently acknowledged in 1960. Furthermore, data were produced in the late 1960s that contradicted Jellinek’s paradigm and indicated that the disease concept failed to describe many heavy drinkers. Today, “no leading authorities accept the classic disease concept” for alcoholism, according to Fingarette.

Convenient Label

Although he rejects the idea of a “malign conspiracy,” Fingarette argues that political, economic, and health services interests have “actively promoted the scientifically discredited classic disease concept.” He also points to the general public as a major player in the prevalence of the disease model, because the public does not want to accept the limitations of science or technology. “We prefer not to hear that heavy drinking and alcoholism are merely labels that cover a variety of social and personal problems caused by the interplay of many poorly understood physiological, psychological, social, and cultural factors,” Fingarette writes. He does concede, however, that alcohol dependence lies on a continuum and that in scientific terms “behavior disorder” would often be a better semantic choice than the word “disease.”

Despite the fact that Fingarette rejects the disease concept of alcoholism, this enlightening and challenging book is a call to compassion for heavy drinkers. Fingarette’s bold message is certain to stimulate debate among those who have either a personal or professional stake in dealing with alcoholism, including Christians who minister to individuals with drinking problems.

Given the brevity of this clearly reasoned and well-researched book, and the ease with which both professionals and laypeople are able to grasp the issues presented, Heavy Drinking will no doubt become a seminal volume in the field of alcoholism treatment.

Land of Promise, Land of Strife, by Wesley G. Pippert (Word, 264 pp.; $16.99, hardcover). Reviewed by Elwood McQuaid, a conference speaker for Moody Bible Institute who has led numerous tours to the Holy Land.

As senior Middle East correspondent for United Press International from 1983 to 1986, Wesley Pippert moved among the foremost newsmakers of that critical region, gathering insights and impressions available to only a few chosen professionals. Pippert’s observations as an evangelical Christian journalist make this book on modern Israel’s first 40 years interesting—if somewhat controversial—reading.

The three-part work, which Pippert says “was shaped by almost every part of my life,” is an anecdotal analysis of Israel, Lebanon, and the occupied territories. Pippert portrays Jews and Arabs in conflict over the land, and he closes with a look at prospects for peace, “more as a hope than as a reality.”

Looking For Villains

Considering all the suffering on both sides, “neither Israeli nor Palestinian leaders work very hard for justice and peace,” Pippert writes. He devotes a full chapter to arguing the case that the real villain in the Middle East is the West: Britain and France take the first rap, and then America and the Soviet Union get their turn as “gun-slinging” military entrepreneurs.

Wars, terrorism, and internal battles among Jewish and Arab factions are traced from the 1948 War of Independence to the invasion of Lebanon—“Israel’s Vietnam,” Pippert calls it—and on to the traumatic Palestinian uprising. A brief historical sketch of regional developments since the late 1800s sets the background for discussing these conflicts.

The former bureau chief picks his way through a helpful, though at times repetitious, presentation of Israel’s people—Jews, Palestinians, and Christians—and sorts through some of the complexities regarding who these people are, where they came from, what they want, and the prospects for accomplishing their goals.

According to Pippert, the most explosive situation within Israel today is the controversy between ultraorthodox and secular Jews. “All other conflict, including that of Arab and Jew, pales into insignificance beside this,” Pippert writes. “It is a battle of zealots versus secularists, not dissimilar from the battles waged in Islam and Christianity. ‘Israel is fighting a holy war.’ ”

Israel’s 26 to 28 Messianic Assemblies (about 2,000 believers) live out their witness for Jesus in this turbulent environment. The author provides some snapshots of life among these congregations as well as the lives of missionaries and Arab believers.

Uneven Images

It comes as no surprise that most of Pippert’s journalistic peers are “more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than to Israel.” And while he claims personal “affection for both the Jew and the Arab,” Pippert leaves the impression that he doesn’t really like Israelis very much. His uneven treatment portrays “brash” Israelis living in a country “in which there is inordinate laziness and sloppiness.” Because of this, Israel has become an inhospitable “Goliath,” which almost always hits first in order to “draw first blood.” Arabs, on the other hand, are generally depicted as courteous and dignified. “Nattily dressed” storekeepers exhibit consummate “savoir-faire.” An Arab pickman on an archaeological dig is described as an “aristocrat.”

Pippert also raises eyebrows with some questionable observations, such as, “There have been perhaps even more Arab casualties of Jewish terrorism than vice versa.”

One might excuse some slant for the sake of balancing a record that frequently has romanticized the Israeli side of the story to the exclusion of Jewish flaws and legitimate Arab interests. One cannot, however, dismiss the author’s handling of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasir Arafat. In one paragraph, Arafat is extolled in terms that stand in sharp contrast to his record. Pippert wonders why Israel doesn’t stop calling Arafat a terrorist, and he seems to enjoy prodding officials in the Israeli Foreign Ministry about why Israel refuses to talk to the PLO.

This aspect mars an otherwise informative book, which provides a good look at the emotional, military, and political quagmire that is now the Middle East.

Pippert ends his book by assigning common guilt (even the “West, Christians included, must accept a huge share of the guilt”) and by challenging Jew and Arab to commit themselves to seeking peace, equity, and justice. Certainly the constant use of the word shalom represents the yearning of people and governments in the Middle East. But peace is more than the absence of war; it is the fulness of life.” In that sentiment, all readers may join with Pippert.

The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, by Gary M. Burge (Eerdmans, 269 pp.; $19.95, paper). Reviewed by Charles S. Gaede, assistant professor of Bible and theology, Southwestern Assemblies of God College, Waxahachie, Texas.

When I read a book, I mark its interesting and significant statements; thus the depth of my interaction with an author becomes visible. The pages of my copy of The Anointed Community reveal a thought-provoking book. They are filled with asterisks, checks, brackets, and underlines.

Gary Burge, professor of philosophy and religion at North Park College in Chicago, offers a scholar’s book and an academician’s delight. Based on the research for his dissertation, The Anointed Community is extensively documented with a bibliography of almost 750 entries, with both author and Scripture indexes.

Set in the context of Johannine literature, the synoptic Gospels, and the Jewish and Greek culture of the first century, The Anointed Community powerfully affirms the life in the Spirit for Christians of all times. If you generally focus on Paul’s letters to learn about the Holy Spirit, as I do, then you may be surprised to find Spirit-living Christians in the literature of John. Burge calls these Christians a “pneumatic community.”

Inseparable Personalities

Burge’s description of the pneumatic community contains three significant aspects. The first, which he develops from the Gospel of John, is the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Spirit. Burge carefully avoids the statement that the Spirit is Christ in another form, yet he presents these two persons of the Trinity as inseparable personalities. Based on this analysis, Burge offers three insights: (1) “Any experience of the Spirit in the Johannine economy which is not also a Jesus experience is rendered inauthentic”; (2) “Any theology which separates salvation from the life-creating Spirit is inadequate”; (3) “But at the same time the reception of grace and the birth of a Christian cannot be devoid of pneumatic experience.”

The second intriguing aspect of the pneumatic community is Burge’s proposed setting for the dialogue between John’s gospel and epistles. Burge does not present 1 John as a defense against a heresy that questions the incarnation of the Son of God, a common interpretation of John’s purpose. Instead, he suggests that a tension has arisen within the church concerning two functions of the Spirit. As Burge sees it, this tension is rooted in the “recalling” activity of the Spirit (“He will remind you of everything,” John 14:26), and the Spirit’s “revelatory” function (“He will guide you into all truth,” John 16:13). According to Burge, some Christians had claimed that the Spirit revealed truth to them which others did not understand. This new truth, however, was inconsistent with the gospel message of Jesus, which John proclaimed earlier. Burge calls this reception of inconsistent truth an abuse of the revelation function of the Spirit.

The setting that Burge develops for this tension is significant for at least two reasons. First, it may establish some parallels to the Corinthian church, in which case we learn that the problems of living the life in the Spirit during the first century were widespread. We also learn that even though different Christian groups struggled with different issues, both Paul and John centered the functions of the Holy Spirit in Christ.

Second, the early literature of modern Pentecostalism (1906–08) shows that this movement experienced a similar problem. My observations of the literature and practices of the more recent charismatic movement suggest that this group also wrestles with the issue of inconsistent revelation. These groups and other evangelicals will find Burge’s work both timely and applicable.

Resolving The Tension

The third exciting aspect of Burge’s book is that he attempts to develop a solution to this tension. He searches the epistles of John and finds evidence of the apostle’s efforts to instruct his converts. The apostle, Burge writes, appeals to the historical record of the life and teachings of Jesus (recollection) as the basis for evaluating the new truth (revelation). The recollection work of the Spirit is the “control” of the revelation activity, and we are reminded again of Paul’s efforts to keep his converts faithful to the true gospel.

If Burge’s analysis of the setting of John’s gospel and epistles can be sustained, then Burge has broadened our perspective of the spiritual life of first-century Christians. In conjunction with Paul’s writings, we see that life in the Spirit is both desirable and subject to abuse. John the apostle, however, neither condones the spiritual abuses nor restrains the roles of the Spirit in the Christian life. Instead, John affirms the necessity of the Spirit and gives instructions for living a positive, exciting spiritual life. Consequently, Christians of all ages are encouraged to enter the life of the Sprit with confidence and enthusiasm.

The tragedy of AIDS continues to challenge the church. Initially, many Christian leaders called AIDS “God’s judgment” against homosexuals. In recent months, many of those leaders have softened their rhetoric with statements of compassion and forgiveness. Often, such changes in attitude come when a close friend or family member has AIDS.

Last month, Scott Cox told the congregation of McLean (Va.) Bible Church that he was gay, a former drug addict, and has tested positive for HIV. Cox talked with CHRISTIANITY TODAY the week following his disclosure.

Tell us about your church background.

I asked Jesus Christ to come into my life in my teen years, and later I attended a Bible college where I was president of my class. Then, as a sophomore at Taylor University, I became editor of the university paper, and as a junior served as president of the student body.

When did you know you were a homosexual?

Around the beginning of my second semester at Bible college in 1978 I had a sexual incident with another student. He went to the dean to talk about it because he was afraid he might be gay. But when they found out about us, they kicked us out of college. My parents and I went back a week later to ask for forgiveness and help, but it was clear the school didn’t want to deal with me.

Did you continue with your homosexual lifestyle while you were a student at Taylor?

Toward the end of my time at Taylor I would drive an hour and a half to Indianapolis to go to gay bars. In fact, the gay bars in Washington and Indianapolis became my church because that is where I got fellowship, understanding, and camaraderie. But spiritually, I was trying to answer the question, “How can I be a Christian and be gay?”

When were you diagnosed as HIV positive?

After college I got a job as a law clerk working for a Christian attorney in Washington. One day he said, “You’ve got to go to the doctor, because your eyes are yellow.”

Tests showed I had hepatitis. At the same time, the doctor said I tested positive for the HIV virus. That was in 1983, when the AIDS problem started hitting the news. I told no one, and I never went back to see that doctor again.

How did you react to the news that you had AIDS?

I was scared to death. I was afraid to go to church because I had been kicked out of a Bible college—I knew how the church felt. From that point on, my life went downhill. I got involved in the drug scene, and of course had to find money to pay for the drugs. Somehow my mind kind of snapped and I was just doing anything to feel better—almost like I didn’t care. I went to California where I traded sex for money to buy drugs. I knew I was going to die, and I didn’t want anyone to know what I was going to die from. I just felt there was no way out. Eventually, I ended up in Richmond, Virginia, where I got caught taking money from my employer and was put on probation.

Had you completely turned your back on your faith?

My relationship with Christ was tied in to how I felt about the church. Because I felt rejected by the church, I felt rejected by God. To me, they were one and the same. I thought if the church wouldn’t help me, then obviously God wasn’t interested in me either.

What led you back to the church?

I knew I was in a mess and needed help. I wanted to get my life right with God. I resumed contact with members of my family and have been working daily to try to get my life right. I have decided it is impossible to live a gay lifestyle and be committed to the Lord. And if you really look at what the Bible says, you see that God renews the mind. He will provide a way of escape.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have struggles, but I can deal with them. My sin is no worse than others’, it’s just my sin.

From your experiences as a Christian young person who has struggled with homosexuality and who lives with AIDS what message would you give to other Christians?

Don’t say that homosexuality is right. It isn’t. But homosexuals are hurting people who need help and who need Jesus. If the evangelical community believes what the Bible says is true, then we need to overlook our biases and prejudices and really do what Christ would do.

Japanese Christians joined their fellow citizens in honoring Emperor Hirohito, Japan’s longest-reigning monarch, who died on January 7. And early indications suggest the nation may not experience a rejection of religious freedom, as was once feared by Christians.

During the several months that Hirohito lay gravely ill, there was speculation that ceremonies surrounding an imperial funeral and a possible two-year period of mourning would unleash a flurry of nationalistic fervor.

Responding to those concerns, the Japanese Evangelical Association (JEA) issued a public statement prior to Hirohito’s death, saying “the government does not have the authority to impose upon citizens a uniform manner in which condolences must be expressed.”

The statement also expressed fears that the funeral ceremony might push the nation in the direction of its Shinto roots, but a Foreign Ministry official noted that the funeral, scheduled for February 24, will actually include two ceremonies: one conducted by the Imperial Household, with Shinto traditions, and a second ceremony without religious overtones. Observers feel the government will try to keep all the ceremonies surrounding Hirohito’s death distinct from previous ceremonies when Shinto was the state religion.

Still, the subtleties of honoring the former emperor and entering a new reign trouble some Christians. For example, Hirohito’s son, Crown Prince Akihito, was installed as the new emperor in a ceremony that reportedly drew criticism from some Christian leaders because it was held in the presence of government officials. Both Shinto and state ceremonies will most likely be paid for by the government, which further clouds the church-state issue.

Most observers, however, say it is still too early to determine just what effect the emperor’s death will have on Japan’s religious climate.

Another major accrediting agency has issued a warning to trustees at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, as a result of trustees’ efforts to change the way the seminary selects faculty.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) has given Southeastern Seminary until December of this year to correct what the association maintains are procedural shortcomings. The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) in the United States and Canada previously noted difficulties at the school, but has yet to issue its final recommendations (CT, Oct. 7, 1988, p. 38).

Southeastern, one of six graduate theological schools affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), has been in turmoil since October 1987, when a new conservative majority of the school’s board of trustees altered the faculty selection process to ensure only biblical inerrantists would be appointed. The policy change led to the resignation of eight administrators at the school, including its president, Randall Lolley, and academic dean Morris Ashcraft (CT, Nov. 20, 1987, p. 46).

The Southern Association and the ATS sent investigating teams to the seminary in response to concerns about academic freedom and the governance of the institution. The Southern Association report concluded that Southeastern does not conform to accreditation criteria in three areas: faculty selection, academic freedom, and organization and administration.

At the heart of the conflict is the school’s implementation of the new policy on biblical inerrancy. Trustees, along with the seminary’s new administration, claim they have the right to set criteria for faculty selection. Faculty, as well as supporters of the seminary’s previous leadership, caution that changes must be accomplished through established, academically acceptable procedures.

The Southern Association report cites “changes in the makeup” of the SBC as the apparent source of trustees’ perceived mandate to change the seminary’s character. The report states that trustees have sought to bring about this change “by rather arbitrarily infringing upon the established traditions of the institution.” The report notes that the biblical inerrancy requirement “was adopted without consultation with the administration or faculty of the school, that there has been no formal board action, that the procedures for amending the bylaws have not been followed, and that published statements do not accord with present practice.”

Lewis Drummond, current president at Southeastern Seminary, acknowledged the school has problems that must be addressed. “There are some procedural questions,” he said. “We’re going to take whatever steps are necessary to correct those, provided they don’t violate our purpose, our documents, and the ultimate goals of the seminary.” Drummond called the Southern Association’s recommendations suggestions the school could “by and large meet.”

Robert Crowley, chairman of the seminary’s board of trustees, expressed displeasure with the fact-finding committee’s report, but said he believes the seminary will eventually be exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Mark Caldwell, one of the minority trustees still associated with the moderate wing of the SBC, is also skeptical. “The new majority on the board doesn’t understand the role of trustees,” he said. “They feel they have a mandate from the Southern Baptist Convention. They may have. Nobody’s questioning that. But they’re doing it in a reckless way. They’re simply moving ahead willy-nilly into a morass of accrediting and legal problems.”

By Mark Wingfield.

Surprisingly difficult religious concerns stalled the passage of any child-care bill during last year’s Congress, and as a new session convened last month, the issue got rolling again.

The need for federal legislation springs from the sheer magnitude of the issue. Until recently, most preschool children in America were cared for at home. That has now changed, owing to the increasing number of working mothers and the breakdown of the extended family.

Where less than one-third of all married women with young children worked outside the home in 1975, now well over half do. More than 10 million children under the age of six have mothers in the labor force, yet there are only about 2.5 million licensed day-care slots. These slots are getting increasingly expensive, exceeding an annual average cost of $3,000 per child.

These developments spawned three dozen different day-care bills in Congress during 1988. The leading Democratic proposal, called the Act for Better Child Care Services (or the ABC bill), was sponsored by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut in the Senate and Dale Kildee of Michigan in the House of Representatives. It attracted over 200 cosponsors and endorsements from 130 national organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the National Education Association. The bill earmarked $2.5 billion for new federal day-care spending, and appeared to be on a safe passage through Congress when nagging church-state issues arose.

Nearly 40 percent of children in day care go to church related centers, and some questioned whether those centers could receive government aid. The original ABC bill dealt with this issue essentially by requiring all centers receiving federal funds to be nonreligious. Efforts to include church-operated centers in the funding inflamed groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which oppose any government aid for church-related day-care centers. Despite a push in July from Democratic presidential candidate Jesse Jackson, momentum for the measure faded.

Republicans, who had already questioned the high cost of the ABC bill, offered other solutions to the church-state problem, primarily in the form of tax breaks for parents sending their children to secular or religious centers. Rep. Paul Henry of Michigan proposed channeling federal funds through parents by “vouchers” redeemable at certain public and private centers.

Responding to concerns that federally funded day-care centers discourage mothers from caring for their children at home, the Republican presidential nominee, George Bush, endorsed a different approach. His plan calls for a refundable tax credit of $1,000 for each preschool child in low-income families with at least one working parent.

With Bush now President, Democrats in firm control of Congress, and no solution to church-state concerns in sight, enactment of federal day-care legislation appears further off than ever.

By Ed Larson.

When it comes to belief in God, Canada’s young people are a lot like their elders, but they view religion as relatively unimportant, according to a federally sponsored study conducted by two experienced observers of Canadian social trends. The study also shows strong acceptance among Canadian youth for traditional family values.

Entitled Canad’s Youth: Ready for Today, the study was authored by Alberta sociologist Reginald Bibby and Ontario youth consultant Donald Posterski. Bibby recently wrote Fragmented Gods, a best-selling critique on the impact of “consumer-oriented” religion in Canada. Posterski is presently on sabbatical from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) and will become associate director of IVCF-Canada later this year

The study was commissioned by Jean J. Charest, federal minister for youth, fitness, and amateur sport. Other topics covered in the survey included family, education, employment, government, media, relationships, and Canadian society.

Nominal Belief

The findings showed that 84 percent of the young people surveyed believe in God and 81 percent in the divinity of Jesus. Those figures are almost identical to previous Canadian statistics relating to the overall population.

Over 80 percent of those surveyed said they would want a religious funeral or wedding; about 75 percent would involve a minister, priest, or rabbi in a birth-related rite.

Only one in ten, however, indicated that God has “a great deal” of influence on how they live. Further, only one in 200 said they look to a religious leader for counsel or assistance. Significantly, almost 30 percent of the young people responded positively to a question about their own need to feel “accepted by God.” Posterski feels this tells the church that young people are more likely to be reached by individual informal contact than through religious institutions.

Love, Sex, And Marriage

The survey also found that Canadian young people are enthusiastic about marrying and having children. Over 90 percent of those living with their parents were essentially happy with their home life. Their families will not be larger than the current average; most of those surveyed indicated an interest in having two to three children.

Those surveyed overwhelmingly accepted the idea of premarital sex, but rejected marital infidelity by similar margins. Among those who had left home, twice as many did so to get married rather than to live with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Posterski says religion in Canada has suffered a social demotion much more extensively than in the United States. He says evangelicals, particularly, are a tiny minority, subject to psychological intimidation that sometimes leads to a fortress mentality.

He hopes the Canadian youth study will enable Christian leaders to resist the fortress mentality. If they reach out rather than isolate themselves, he maintains, they will be able to touch base with those young people who have nothing against God, but little in common with his institutional representatives.

By Lloyd Mackey in Toronto

A recent rash of student religious-rights cases has some church/state attorneys questioning whether religious freedom is being forced to take a back seat to the separation of church and state in the public school. In three separate cases, attorneys are charging that school administrations are either hostile to—or confused about—the religious rights individuals have in public settings.

Ban On Bible Reading

In Omaha, Nebraska, ten-year-old James Gierke is suing his fifth-grade teacher and his principal for preventing him from reading the Bible in school. The Virginia Beach-based National Legal Foundation (NLF) has filed suit against the Spring Lake Elementary School in U.S. District Court on James’s behalf.

According to Gierke’s complaint, when his teacher, Leslie Halbleib, instructed the children to read books after they finished their schoolwork, Gierke chose to read his Bible silently. Halbleib then told him he must store his Bible in his locker because reading the Bible in school was against the law. Both Halbleib and the school principal denied the boy’s further requests to retrieve his Bible, NFL executive director Robert Skolrood calls for an “awareness of student rights so that constitutional misinterpretation … doesn’t spread.”

A similar “Bible censorship case” involves a Denver, Colorado, principal who removed two religious books and a Bible from two libraries, saying they were a violation of the separation of church and state. Berkeley Gardens Elementary School principal Kathleen Madigan ordered fifth-grade teacher Kenneth Roberts to remove The Bible in Pictures and The Story of Jesus from his 230-volume classroom library, a collection of optional books for the class’s 15-minute silent reading period. No books about other religions were similarly censored. Roberts was also ordered to hide the Bible he keeps on his desk and refrain from reading it during the silent reading period. In addition, Madigan is accused of removing the Bible from the school library.

With legal support from Concerned Women for America (CWA), Roberts filed suit against the school district seeking a permanent injunction to return the censored books to the school libraries. According to CWA attorney Jordan Lorence, the court issued an injunction for the school district to return the Bible to the school library, but it also upheld the removal of the two books in Roberts’s classroom library. The court also denied Roberts permission to read his Bible in his classroom during instructional time, CWA attorneys intend to appeal this decision.

Unequal Access?

In a third case, the Buffalo, New York, School District has gone to court over three high school students who sought permission to hold a Bible study after school while other student groups meet The three met in an empty classroom at McKinley High School for Bible study in the fall of 1987. At first the school district allowed the meetings, but in February 1988, it determined that the meetings could violate the Constitution.

With help from local attorneys and the Christian Legal Society (CLS), the students requested permission to continue their meetings, citing the 1984 Equal Access Act. The act upholds students’ rights to initiate and lead their own religious meetings during noninstructional time when other noncurriculum student groups are permitted to meet (CT, Sept. 7, 1984, pp. 77–78). The Buffalo School Board claims it does not know how to apply the act and has thus filed for court guidance.

The students and the CLS are seeking a preliminary injuction against the school district so the students can continue to meet.

CLS attorney Michael Paulsen said the case could be an opportunity to prove the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act. “The school district, in bringing this suit for a declaration of its rights and duties, has literally made this a ‘test case’ for the constitutionality of equal access,” he said.

CLS executive director Sam Ericsson said this recent increase in student religious freedom cases may be due to a “steeple mentality.” Said Ericsson, “In an increasingly secularized society, … religion is thought to be a private matter kept in the home and under the steeple.”

By Karen Blomquist.

Two veteran U.S. missionaries were kidnaped January 3 in rural southwestern Colombia, allegedly by guerrillas operating in conjunction with drug lords. By press time, there was still no word of their safety or whereabouts.

At the time of their abduction, Gospel Missionary Union (GMU) workers Roy Libby, 47, and Richard Grover, 43, were attending a national church conference at a retreat center near the village of Llanito, about 90 minutes from Cali. The area is known for heavy leftist-guerrilla and drug-trafficking activity.

About ten heavily armed men arrived at the retreat center during a worship service attended by some 150 people. Dressed in military fatigues, the intruders questioned a number of the church leaders and asked for the missionaries by name.

Local believers, familiar with guerrilla and drug violence, stopped the preaching service and began to pray. The intruders shouted slogans and wrote wall graffiti against the extradition of alleged Colombian drug smugglers to the United States and imprisonment of convicted Colombian drug kingpin Carlos Lehder in a U.S. jail. One slogan—a frequent drug mafia threat—said, “For every Colombian extradited, one Gringo shot dead.” (Colombia’s Supreme Court annulled its extradition treaty with the U.S. last year.)

The intruders then stole two vehicles and took away Libby, Grover, and a Colombian church leader. There was no violence or resistance. Three single women, GMU missionaries also at the conference, were not bothered. The national pastor was released not far from the retreat center.

“No Ransom” Policy

Libby is GMU’s field director for Colombia and has served 25 years there. Grover has served there for 16 years.

Colombian leaders of the GMU-related church association, the Evangelical Missionary Union of Colombia, are working through different channels to find the missionaries’ whereabouts and seek their release, GMU, like many evangelical agencies, will not pay ransoms or otherwise yield to terrorist demands. Such a policy may seem tough or cruel, said GMU’s media director, Abe Reddekopp, “and yet to open the floodgates would cause much greater danger to all the missionaries.” This was the first kidnaping of GMU missionaries in the mission’s 80 years of work in Colombia.

Libby and his wife, Karla, live in the capital city, Bogotá. And Grover and his wife, Charleen, reside in Medellin. (The wives were not at Llanito when the abductions occurred.)

During a visit to Colombia last April, Reddekopp said he discussed with Libby and others some of the dangers inherent in working in Colombia. Their response, said Reddekopp, was “You can’t live in constant fear—you know the danger of these things. But life and your work go on. And you trust God and try not to be too nervous about it.”

Cali is located in the fertile Cauca Valley in southwestern Colombia. Leftist guerrilla groups particularly the FARC and the M-19—have operated there for a number of years. Many of the wealthy ranchers in the region have been killed or forced to move out.

There were reportedly at least 600 kidnapings in Colombia last year. Most were the work of guerrilla groups who exacted exorbitant ransoms from the victims’ families.

After a relative calm due to a partial truce declared by Colombian guerrillas, at least 12 persons were kidnaped during the first four days of 1989, the Associated Press reported.

By John Maust.

If the 314 participants in the “Global Consultation on World Evangelization by AD 2000 and Beyond” are right, the gospel message will be available to all people by the start of the next century. The consultation, held in Singapore January 5–8, affirmed this goal, delivered in the form of a manifesto drafted in several small-group sessions.

Participants came from 50 countries; half were from the Third World. And despite the mix of evangelical, mainline, Pentecostal, and charismatic traditions, there was “an uncanny relaxedness and mutual trust,” as Ralph Winter, general director of the U.S. Center for World Mission, observed.

“We see afresh,” their manifesto states, “that cooperation and partnership are absolute necessities if the Great Commission is going to be fulfilled by the year 2000.” Participants confessed to “pride, prejudice, competition and disobedience that have hindered our generation from effectively working at the task of world evangelization.”

The manifesto lists four basic thrusts: focusing on the 1.3 billion people who have not heard the gospel, sharing the gospel in all the world’s languages, planting churches within every group of unreached people, and establishing a congregation “in every human community.”

“The AD 2000 movement has now laid a foundation,” said Thomas Wang, chairman of the consultation’s steering committee. The movement will gain additional exposure when some 4,000 Christians gather in Manila, July 11–20, for Lausanne II, the Lausanne movement’s second international congress. Wang also is international director of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization.

Bypassing Lausanne?

However, the consultation may signal that some missions leaders are no longer looking to Lausanne as a world evangelization rallying point. Some voiced concern over Lausanne’s future, given the advancing age of Billy Graham and other leaders of the movement.

One consultation organizer who asked not to be identified said Lausanne has not adjusted to new realities. It retains some of the 1960s–70s mentality that “Catholics are eternally decadent” and “charismatics are forever fanatical,” the organizer said, whereas both are becoming key elements in the world evangelization movement.

Those “new realities,” however, are age-old problems for some in the AD 2000 movement, as evidenced by Latin American participants who drafted a “statement of concern” about Roman Catholic participation in the consultation. They said “the religious-political force of the Roman Catholic Church is using all means available and is in fact the most fierce opponent to all evangelistic efforts on our part.”

The Latin American evangelicals said cooperating with Catholics “goes beyond our historical and biblical commitment.” One Latin leader said being known as “ecumenicals” in their home countries would “destroy” their ministries.”

Gina Henriques, one of a half-dozen Catholics attending the consultation and the director of Evangelization 2000 in Asia, responded to the Latin Americans’ concerns by saying, “For whatever hurts they have received from Catholies, I’m not only grieved but I would beg pardon for those hurts, and I love them in the Lord. I was not aware of this undercurrent that was going on because of all the kindness and fellowship I’ve experienced here.”

Apart from their concerns regarding Catholicism, the Latin Americans said they intend to have “the broadest cooperation” with fellow evangelicals’ efforts to carry the gospel worldwide.

Yet Another Plan?

Another point of tension during the consultation involved a 50-page, 104-point “kaleidoscopic global plan” for evangelization, prepared by a team of 15 missiologists headed by David Barrett, an Anglican missionary from Wales noted for missions research.

The plan includes an array of declarations and steps toward world evangelization, such as the creation of an agency to monitor social, political, and religious conditions and trends throughout the world. It also calls for efforts to redeploy Christian missionaries to the unevangelized. Currently, 92 percent of all foreign missionaries “work with heavily Christianized populations in predominantly Christian lands, “the plan states.

However, concerns were voiced about the plan. Among them: it duplicates the roles of the Lausanne movement and the World Evangelical Fellowship, and it needs a stronger theological base. In response, the plan was revised to include key points from more than 300 pages of suggestions submitted by the participants or their working groups.

In a surprise move, Wang announced the steering committee’s decision to disband so that consultation participants would have “total freedom to decide what they want to do for the future.” Following a suggestion by Winter, about 100 participants laid plans for an information office to allow participants to maintain contact with one another. Several organizations and individuals expressed interest in covering start-up expenses. Still, some wondered how the consultation’s plans will be implemented.

“We had differences of opinion, methodology, and procedure,” Wang said, “but in the areas of world evangelization, missions, and a burden for fulfilling the Great Commission, we are in total harmony.”

By Art Toalston in Singapore

President Bush’s appointment of Louis Sullivan disappoints prolife supporters.

As George Bush begins his presidency, new questions have arisen within the prolife movement about how the abortion issue will fare under the new administration. While optimism remains high that changes in abortion policy may soon come at the Supreme Court level, Bush’s nomination of Louis Sullivan, president of Atlanta’s Morehouse School of Medicine, as secretary of Health and Human Services has many prolife leaders wondering whether the candidate they supported is friend or foe.

Will Roe V. Wade Go?

New hope was infused into the prolife movement last month when the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in a Missouri case that could lead to modification or perhaps even a reversal of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The Missouri case involves a 1986 law that places several restrictions on abortion and declares that life begins at conception. Lower courts have ruled the law unconstitutional, and Missouri asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, asserted that if the Court “is prepared to reconsider Roe v. Wade, this case presents an appropriate opportunity for doing so.” The brief also reminded the Court that the federal government “stated its views on this issue” in an earlier 1985 brief, which urged the justices to reconsider Roe v. Wade, and “on reconsideration, abandon it.”

Tom Glessner, executive director of the Christian Action Council (CAC), is optimistic about the situation.

“From my viewpoint, it’s really the Supreme Court that’s going to settle this issue, … and I still believe Bush will appoint the right justices to the Supreme Court,” he said.

Dampened Enthusiasm

Some of the prolife enthusiasm has been dampened by Bush’s nomination of Sullivan.

Prolifers opposed Sullivan’s nomination and continue to be disappointed with the ambiguity of Sullivan’s abortion position. In December, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution quoted Sullivan as supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. Yet, at the White House press briefing announcing the appointment, Sullivan said he was opposed to abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. “This position is the same as that of President-elect Bush with whom I agree completely,” he said. Sullivan refused to make further comments on the abortion issue until his Senate confirmation hearings.

At the same briefing, Bush said evangelicals and prolifers—two groups that supported him heavily during the election—“will feel very comfortable” with Sullivan because “our views are very compatible” on abortion. But many evangelical and prolife leaders are expressing diappointment.

“It was the first chance Mr. Bush had to send a message to his prolife supporters that he is firmly in their camp, and quite frankly, he blew it,” said the CAC’s Glessner. He said that even if Sullivan does share Bush’s views on abortion, the Atlanta doctor has expressed support for fetal-tissue experiments, a position objectionable to many prolifers. “As the secretary of HHS, he will oversee the National Institutes of Health, which is on the verge of making national policy on the issue of fetal tissue use,” he said.

Damage Control

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) also found Sullivan’s nomination “disappointing.” Bob Dugan, director of the NAE Office of Public Affairs, said he believes the desire to appoint a minority member to the Cabinet “overwhelmed the process so that [Sullivan] wasn’t adequately questioned on his prolife views.”

Dugan noted that in a private meeting with Bush just after the election, a small group of evangelical leaders made “the strongest possible case” that the HHS postion be filled with “somebody strongly committed to the sanctity of human life.”

Apparently taken by surprise at the fervor of evangelical and prolife oppostion to Sullivan, the Bush transition team has promised that key positions under Sullivan will be filled with prolifers. “They’ve attempted to do some damage control or repair and show sensitivity by appointing other people with strong prolife commitments,” Dugan said. He called the promise “the redeeming factor” in the situation.

The CAC’s Glessner also conceded the Sullivan nomination may be a “blessing in disguise.” “We may be better off with a man who needs to be educated, but has people under him to educate him as opposed to a strong prolifer at the top with people under him undermining him,” Glessner said.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life, said his organization, along with millions of prolife Americans, will be watching the situation carefully. “The jury is still out, but we’re willing to be convinced,” he said.

By Kim A. Lawton.

WORLD SCENE

WORLDWIDE

A Long Way to Go

More children in India died of vaccine-preventable diseases on the day of the much-publicized Bhopal disaster a few years ago than there were people killed by gas leakage from the Union Carbide plant. With this illustration, James P. Grant, director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, spoke recently of the continuing need for basic medical care in poor countries.

In commenting on the UNICEF report, “The State of the World’s Children 1989,” Grant said that in the last decade the percentage of children in poor countries who were immunized from major diseases rose from 5 to 50 percent. He added that the practice of oral rehydration therapy has had a major impact in limiting deaths from diarrhea.

But the report’s theme is that Third World families, after four decades of progress, are falling back into severe poverty. Grant said that economic conditions, including poor borrowings and high interest rates, contribute to the deaths of 1,000 children in Africa every day. He called for a resolution of the international debt crisis, though stating it is too simplistic to blame the crisis on the International Monetary Fund.

Grant indicated that the emphasis in poor countries on higher Gross National Product during the 1960s and 1970s tended to hide maldistribution of income. In the 1980s, he said, it is mostly the “bottom half” that is suffering.

CHINA

Church Restrictions

According to the Hong Kong-based China News and Church Report (CNCR), Bishop Ding Guangxun, the head of China’s Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), has in effect acknowledged that some local governments in China are restricting Christian activities.

The news report summarizes an interview of Ding by Ewing Carroll, director of the United Methodist Church’s China Program. Ding discussed the advances brought about by TSPM in publishing Christian literature, and in opening churches and seminaries. But he was also quoted as saying, “We still find persons here and there, mostly lower government cadres, who lack respect for the principle [of religious freedom]. There is much work yet to be done.”

According to the report, Ding also said that some local governments have rules that designate places of worship, pastors, and regions for visitors from outside China to visit, though he added this is not a national TSPM policy. Ding was quoted further as saying, “[The government] does not assume the position of God and tell Christians what to believe and how to run the church.” The report, published by the Chinese Church Research Centre, included a brief comment that Ding’s statement that the church is free to pursue its goals “seems to be belied by his own comments on the bahavior of ‘local governments.’ ”

PERU

Translation Completed

The Peruvian branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), the sister organization of Wycliffe Bible Translators, has completed work on the translation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights into 34 of the country’s indigenous languages. Native speakers did the translating, in cooperation with SIL and Peru’s Ministry of Education

According to a Wycliffe Bible Translators news release, the purpose of the translation is “to allow the indigenous peoples of Peru to be aware of their rights which the UN has declared to be basic and universal and which are guaranteed to them in the Peruvian Constitution of 1979.” The release stated that translators also hope the document’s publication will raise the esteem of the country’s minority languages and the cultures they represent.

WORLDWIDE

Missionary Boom

According to research conducted by Partnership OC Ministries, the number of missionaries is growing at a faster pace in Asia, Africa, and Latin America than in Europe and North America. Said the organization’s president, Larry Keyes, “With languages other than English and financial resources other than the dollar, these believers are establishing new missionary training schools in countries such as India, Singapore, Nigeria, and Guatemala.”

Keyes added that missionaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been active in promoting missions conferences and in forming national missionary associations, including those in countries such as Nigeria, Indonesia, and Japan. He added, however, that the task of world evangelization is inhibited by a lack of cooperation between Western and non-Western missionary agencies.

TURKEY

Freedom Affirmed

Fifteen Christians—12 Turks, two Britons, and an American—have been released after being briefly detained for questioning by Ankara police, who recently conducted a series of surprise raids. Six of those detained were acquitted last summer when a Turkish court ruled that their activities and propaganda were purely religious as opposed to political in nature, and that their meetings were being held within the legal framework of religious freedom.

According to Turkish law, Turks are guaranteed freedom to choose their religion, to form religious congregations, to learn about and teach their religious tenets, and to spread their faith.