Civil Religion and the Presidency, by Richard Pierard and Robert Linder (Zondervan, 348 pp.; $14.95, paper). Reviewed by Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist with Copley News Service. He is author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

When church and state intertwine, as they have throughout history, the political has almost always subsumed the spiritual. That was not only the case in Constantinian Rome, but is the case in democratic America, where Presidents have consistently practiced a “civil religion” tying their temporal political objectives to God’s transcendent purposes. The result has been to de-Christianize American national life: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is,” declared President-elect Dwight Eisenhower in December 1952.

Unfortunately, Eisenhower is not the only American President to use “God words” to bolster the legitimacy of both his administration and the nation state. And in Civil Religion and the Presidency, Richard Pierard and Robert Linder document this disturbing misuse of religion, studying in detail how nine U.S. Presidents, who ranged from irreligious to devout, related God to public life.

Gospel Abuse

One of Pierard and Linder’s most fascinating discoveries is that pious Presidents are equally capable of abusing the gospel by linking it to temporal national goals. William McKinley, for instance, was by all accounts a devoted Christian, yet he confused an unprovoked war against Spain and the unjustified annexation of the Philippines with the “startling providence of God.” Even worse, many religious leaders supported McKinley, viewing his conquests as a divine opportunity to expand their missionary work.

Abraham Lincoln, in contrast, had an uncertain faith, though he appeared to grow more orthodox in office. But Lincoln acted in a “prophetic” role, citing religion in a sacrificial call to fulfill transcendent ideals rather than in a self-serving attempt to promote national aggrandizement, as did McKinley.

One of the most sincere Christian Presidents was Jimmy Carter, who thought deeply about his faith and his responsibilities as a Christian. Not only did he not use religion for political gain, but he discussed, privately, the gospel with other world leaders and pleaded—apparently successfully—with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to allow greater religious freedom in his nation. In contrast, there is no evidence that Ronald Reagan—who, in Pierard and Linder’s words, “brought a new, highly charged religio-political climate to the White House”—has made a similar practical demonstration of his faith.

The authors criticize Reagan for using Christianity more than living it. But they mar an otherwise excellent analysis by including extraneous political attacks on Reagan. However justified the opinions they cite, they offer no similar critique of the other Presidents.

Pretense, Not Practice

Civil religion undeniably exists, but is it a good thing? ask Pierard and Linder. There are well-known advocates of civil religion, such as sociologist Robert Bellah and educator John Dewey. Yet civil religion has often offered only the pretense of shared values that are ignored in practice: “the bribery, cover-ups, payoffs, rigged elections, and blatant defiance of the law by public officials,” write Pierard and Linder, “reveals how civil religion lacked the power to establish justice or to deal with national arrogance, selfishness, pride, and folly.”

Were civil religion only ineffective, it would pose little cause for concern. But civil religion appears to have undermined the real gospel, turning it into a captive of passing political fancies. Pierard and Linder correctly warn that “civil religion comes dangerously close to blasphemy when it identifies God with the national destiny and in essence reduces the universal God of the Bible to the tribal god of America.”

Though Christians cannot wish away a practice that has dominated American political life since this nation’s founding, they can refuse to endorse civil religion. Then, conclude Pierard and Linder, Christians should read Scripture “through the decultured eyes of faith” and seriously apply God’s values in their personal lives and the public square. That is sage advice in a time when many clerics and politicians seem to have identified the transcendent message of Christ with the platform of one political party or another.

Prodigal Press: The Anti-Christian Bias of the American News Media, by Marvin Olasky (Crossway, 246 pp.; $8.95, paper). Reviewed by E. Calvin Beisner, former editor of Discipleship Journal and author of Prosperity and Poverty (Crossway).

Few people go through the day without reading a newspaper or newsmagazine, seeing a television news report, or hearing a radio news broadcast. Yet few Christians are aware of the philosophical framework that determines the selection and manner of presentation of news reports, and they know little about how subtle techniques can make the same set of facts or pictures convey very different impressions.

To help us better understand today’s news media, Marvin Olasky, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, examines “the influence of worldviews on reporting” and how those views have shaped what we read, hear, and see. And through his examination of what the press used to be, he presents a compelling image of what it could become if more Christians were in the business.

A Christian world view shaped early American journalism, Olasky says. Reporters and editors “assumed that God is objective reality, with an existence independent of our minds,” and so considered it a matter of objectivity to report events in light of God’s sovereignty, mercy, and justice.

For example, an article in 1819 in the Boston Recorder reported the motive in a homicide: the suspect had been “for a long time troubled with irreligious fears, and a belief that his sins were too numerous to be pardoned.” Olasky’s anecdotes of how Christian journalists in early America used their trade to trumpet news—bad news, good news, and Good News—are an interesting and inspiring highlight of the book.

Readable Religion

Theology for Non-Theologians, by James Cantelon (Macmillan, 273 pp.; $19.95, cloth). Reviewed by Reed Jolley, pastor of Santa Barbara (Calif.) Community Church.

At the start of his massive tome God, Revelation, and Authority, Carl F. H. Henry assures his readers that theologians do not sleep on Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. They use terms such as demythologize, dialectical, and linguistic analysis because such nomenclature is part of the inescapable vocabulary of the theologian.

James Cantelon disagrees. In Theology for Non-Theologians, he attempts to show that theology is not a jargon-bound endeavor, that it is accessible to everyday believers who have no formal theological training.

Cantelon, a clergyman living in Jerusalem, succeeds in presenting his reader with a credible and readable introduction to the doctrines of God and revelation, including the case for the existence of God, the nature of the God who exists, and the involvement of God with his creation.

Definition and digression

The author explains, for example, the doctrine of providence (“… providence means God governs all his creation, including man”), and argues that miracles (“God breaking his own rules”) are a present, though infrequent, reality in our world. He succinctly presents the doctrine of God’s self-revelation and the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.

Unfortunately, the author’s discussion on God’s self-revelation contains a lengthy digression contrasting false and true prophets in the Old Testament. Though often enjoyable, lengthy illustrative material found throughout the book is at times a distraction from the task at hand.

Cantelon writes simple, understandable, and orthodox theology. His book is indeed a worthwhile resource for pastors who want to stimulate an interest in theology in their congregation; or it could be used as a discussion primer for a highly motivated adult Sunday school class.

Balancing Act

Unfortunately, a Christian world view has disappeared from the news media. Olasky traces its decline.

First, nineteenth-century journalists swallowed the materialistic, godless world view of the day. Objectivity became a matter merely of telling what could be seen, heard, and touched.

Next, as Hegelian and Marxist dialectical thought and Freudian psychology gained in popularity, journalists reached the conclusion that objective reporting was impossible, at least in the old sense of “telling it like it is.”

In its place came a new definition of objectivity: “balancing of subjectivities.” This meant “the reporter would forgo his own reporting in order to assemble as many reports from others as he could,” a method that “often suggested that there is no right or wrong, just opinion.”

It doesn’t take long, Olasky says, for “subjectivity-balancing” to collapse under its own weight. There simply are too many opinions; no reporter can cover them all. So the reporter makes his own subjective ideas the arbiter of newsworthiness. The result is what Olasky calls “disguised subjectivity”: a “strategic ritual” in which the reporter carefully selects those whose opinions he reports so that, taken as a whole, their testimony supports the conclusion he held before he began his “research.”

In light of this approach, Olasky explains how to be a discerning news consumer. He discusses how to identify a newspaper’s bias in headlines or a television station’s bias in the “framing” of a story, how to evaluate the reliability and fairness of the story itself, how to recognize flattering and unflattering camera work, and how to compare the coverage of a single story by different news outlets. Throughout the book, Olasky draws lessons from actual news events and reports.

The Competition

In his concluding section, Olasky calls for a renaissance of Christians in the news media—not in “Christian news,” meaning reports of events from religious circles, but rather in direct competition with the secular media. Christians should cover the same stories, but from the perspective of biblical objectivity that brings God and his providence back into the story.

Technological advances have made starting newspapers so inexpensive that many competing voices can operate profitably in a single market, Olasky contends. In such an environment, Christians can add “salt and light” to news reporting. The results will be so much more interesting than those of the secular press, he says, that Christians can capture large audience shares. And biblical concern for truth can result in more accurate reports that will force the secular news media to be more careful in their own treatment of stories.

One weakness surfaces repeatedly in the book: Olasky fails to give concrete, sufficiently detailed attention to some of his broad suggestions. For instance, in discussing the rights and wrongs of sensationalism, he writes: “… discernment is vital if false inference from inadequate evidence is to be avoided.”

“Christian reporters are not inspired. In our zeal to apply Biblical explanations for tragedy, we must avoid premature explanation, exaggeration, or malicious whispering.” How can that be done? Such advice doesn’t appear.

Olasky obviously cares about journalists, Christian and non-Christian. And while he recognizes that some spiteful attacks on Christians are perpetrated by the news media, he does not claim that the press is consciously anti-Christian. Instead, he shows how reporters’ and editors’ world views make it next to impossible for them to understand Christian thought, ethics, and lifestyle. That, not meanspiritedness, underlies the distortions Christians frequently face in the news. And that world view is susceptible to sound Christian response through explanation and persuasion. Prodigal Press contributes to that understanding.

The Wise Men Know What Wicked Things Are Written on the Sky, by Russell Kirk (Regnery Gateway, 138 pp.; $17.95, cloth). Reviewed by James L. Sauer, director of library at Eastern College, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.

Nowadays, few Christians are aware that “conservatism” is more than just a political action mailing list. But Russell Kirk, the “Old Man” of American conservatism—has made it the Christian philosophy of our time, blending the transcendental truths of the faith with the proverbial wisdom of Redeemed Man in community.

In Wise Men Know What Wicked Things Are Written on the Sky, a title taken from a poetic line of G. K. Chesterton, Kirk gathers essays from his itinerant Heritage Foundation lecture series. He attempts to survey the prospect for a “conservative augustan age”—a hope that seems somewhat unreal in this era of Western decline. Nevertheless, he balances such a prospect with shrewd understanding of human nature and Christian hope.

A disciple of Edmund Burke, Kirk emphasizes the familial associations of life as the seedbed for human happiness and values. Virtue and wisdom, he believes, are not things that can be bought in the educational marketplace. You cannot pick up a video on truth, or gain character by cramming overnight. Virtue must be lived and loved into existence. Reformation must begin in the heart; renaissance must come in the home.

On family: “Some timid liberal souls ask me plaintively, from time to time, ‘Do we dare to have children?’ … I reply that being is better than non-being; that men and women are different, and hurrah for the difference; that all times are out of joint, and only courage sets them right; that if marriage and family are bothersome, what in life is worth bothering about?”

On education: “The function of liberal education is to conserve a body of received knowledge and to impart an apprehension of order to the rising generation.” Cultural illiteracy and relativism are the marks of our educational crisis. Christian education communicates a real body of knowledge and absolute standards of living.

On moral order: “Order, in the moral realm, is the realizing of a body of transcendent norms—indeed a hierarchy of norms or standards—which give purpose to existence and motive to conduct.”

Kirk reminds us that people, like societies, are fragile. They need to be tended, encouraged, disciplined. We are like sheep needing a shepherd. We need to be prodded by the law of God, cradled by the sacred.

Kirk’s vision revolves around eternal norms, what T. S. Eliot championed as the “permanent things.” Family, virtue, order, standards, the worship of God—these are the inheritances that a society gives to its young.

Ideological differences were immediately set aside when news of the disastrous earthquake in Armenia reached the United States, marking the first time since the 1940s that the Soviet Union accepted an offer of American aid. Some of that aid will come from Christian organizations.

Within days of the earthquake, World Vision combined efforts with industrialist Armand Hammer to present a $1 million relief gift to Mikhail Gorbachev—$500,000 from the World Vision relief reserve and a matching grant from Hammer. A plane from Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum Corporation also carried World Vision medical supplies on one of the first relief flights into the area.

Subsequently, World Vision sent more than 160,000 pounds of orthopedic supplies, antibiotics, hospital supplies, blankets, and tents, and hoped to raise between $1 million and $2 million more for Armenia through television appeals. In addition, World Vision officials, including president Bob Seiple, visited the disaster site.

“The more the relationship [between the U.S. and the USSR] warms up, the better the chance for the gospel to be spread,” said World Vision spokesman Steve Woodworth. “God uses tragedies like this to break down boundaries, and it gives an opportunity for Christians to reach out and touch the lives of people behind the Iron Curtain,” he said.

Feed the Children president Larry Jones also personally visited the disaster site. Initially, his group sent in 100 tons of medical supplies, blankets, tents, shoes, and food. MAP International contributed more than $500,000 of the medical supplies sent by Feed the Children.

Jones said his group also hopes to stay involved with the lengthy rebuilding process over the next several months. “Ninety percent of Armenia is Christian, and they are looking for God’s ultimate purpose in this tragedy,” Jones said. “I think this is going to be a witness to the entire world.”

World Relief, the relief-and-development arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, is also accepting contributions for the Armenian survivors. World Relief hopes to distribute emergency supplies to evangelical churches there and to aid in long-term rehabilitation efforts. “We have been assisting Soviet Christians who are refugees in this country, but now we have the opportunity for the first time to be involved with them on their own soil,” said World Relief’s Jerry Ballard.

The Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board immediately offered $20,000 for relief efforts, and the Baptist World Alliance offered $10,000 to be channeled through the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists. Baptist officials said additional funds would be made available as Soviet Baptists indicate the needs. Meanwhile, the Soviet government asked Soviet Baptists to visit and care for Armenian children injured in the earthquake.

As the Palestinian uprising has continued, one of its most vocal—and controversial—supporters has been Mubarak Awad, a Christian Arab who was born in Jerusalem. Awad came to the United States in 1970 and studied at several schools, including Bluffton College, a Mennonite school in Ohio. Awad returned to Israel in 1983 on an American passport and began to advocate civil disobedience and nonviolence as the best methods to protest the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli government deported Awad last July, and he has spent the past months traveling around the world in an effort to bolster support for the Palestinians. CHRISTIANITY TODAY spoke with Awad during a recent visit to Washington, D.C.

You have charged that American evangelicals care more about Jews than Christians in the Middle East. What makes you say that?

About 10 percent of Palestinians living there are Christians. Yet when American Christians visit the Middle East, they don’t seek out Christians. Apparently, they think the Holy Land is only for Jews and Muslims, and that hurts us a lot.

Also, when American Christians give their uncritical support to Israel we wonder about the moral vision of the church. The church is supposed to be with the oppressed, not the oppressor. Of course, the dilemma for American Christians is that the Jews were once oppressed—the church itself was the oppressor. So I realize it is a very sensitive issue.

Some have criticized you for your support of thePLOwhile at the same time advocating nonviolence. How do you reconcile this?

Some in the PLO are indeed committed to violence, but that doesn’t mean all the PLO is. It is important to encourage those in the PLO who do not believe in violence so that they will influence the others who are quick to take up arms.

When you were deported last summer, you made statements implying you might convert to Judaism in order to return to Israel. Is this something you are considering?

I was willing to change my religion—not my faith or beliefs—in order to make a political point. If I was a Jew with an American passport, I could have stayed as long as I wanted. I could have extended my visa a hundred times. As I said to the Supreme Court there, as a Christian, I do not have justice in a Jewish court. It is a sad thing for me as a Christian to have to change my religion in order to stay in my birthplace.

Where is all the turmoil leading?

We do not want to destroy the Israelis—and they cannot destroy us—so let’s have a new reality. I was more than glad that the PLO started talking about nonviolence. Maybe at first they used the worst method, with the gun and terrorism, but now they are much more mature. They are willing to negotiate. Now that we are accepting Israel, we have become a challenge to the Israelis and Americans. It was easier to deal with us when we were terrorists, but now they cannot deal with us when we talk peace.

New developments in the Middle East rekindle debate among Christians over support for Israel.

The news breaking almost daily from the Middle East has observers wondering if peace is around the corner, or if the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is trying to pull a fast one. And as Israel and the West Bank move back into the international spotlight, American evangelicals appear as divided as ever over how to respond to Israel and the Palestinians.

Two particular events have provoked the most attention. For the first time, PLO chairman Yasir Arafat publicly recognized Israel’s right to exist. In response to Arafat’s announcement—along with his renunciation of terrorism—the United States agreed to begin “diplomatic dialogue” with the Palestinians.

Neither action satisfied the Israelis, whose recently formed coalition government indicated no willingness to depart from a longstanding policy of refusal to negotiate with the PLO. Evangelicals, however, are pulled between two theological issues with political overtones: the belief that God has a special plan for the current State of Israel, and the belief that Christians owe their support to other Christians, regardless of nationality.

Americans And Israel

Ed McAteer, founder and president of the Memphis-based Religious Roundtable, favors strong support for Israel, a view that appears to be predominant among evangelicals. He told CHRISTIANITY TODAY his “unconditional love” for Israel has been “confirmed by recent events” in the Middle East. “Obviously, I have sympathy for the innocent people who are being caught in that turmoil … but it doesn’t deter me from doing what is right in supporting Israel,” he said.

Since 1981, the Roundtable has sponsored the National Prayer Breakfast in Honor of Israel during the National Religious Broadcasters’ (NRB) annual convention in Washington, D.C. Though not sponsored by the NRB, the breakfast has enjoyed high visibility at the convention and is attended by prominent NRB members, Israeli officials, and Washington dignitaries (CT, March 4, 1988, p. 33). A “Proclamation of Blessing” issued at last year’s event read: “As Bible-believing Christians, we believe there exists an iron-clad bond between the State of Israel and the United States.”

McAteer acknowledges that his “absolute, firm, immovable stand” in support of the State of Israel is a sore point for many Arab Christians, including those he considers personal friends. “My support for Israel is not greater than my love for my Christian brother, but because it’s a biblically and historically right position, I can’t back off,” he said.

Meanwhile, other evangelicals are calling for a re-evaluation of Christian thinking about the Middle East. A broad-based coalition of ministry and mission groups has formed a new ad hoc initiative called Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU). According to an EMEU proposal, “… there continues to be a vast darkness, even confusion, regarding the ‘Holy Land’ for that large segment of U.S. Christians who designate themselves as evangelicals.”

EMEU advocates more cooperation between American evangelicals and Arab Christians—including those from Middle Eastern Orthodox traditions. “We need to take seriously the sense of hunger Middle Eastern Christians have to be affirmed and recognized as authentic Christians,” said Don Wagner, director of the Palestinian Human Rights Campaign and a member of the EMEU steering committee. Wagner added that during his visits to the Middle East he has sensed a common “perception that American Christians are in bed with the Jews.”

Politics And The Gospel

For the past 13 months, Arabs living in the West Bank have conducted an uprising (intifadah) to attract international attention to their plight. The latest developments have led some Christians to call for a political settlement that would give Palestinians autonomy. Jeremy Levin, a journalist and the first American taken hostage in Lebanon, said Christians have a definite role to play in the crisis. “All people of faith and good will should take the teachings of Christ seriously … and rise above their communities to speak out for the human rights of the Palestinians,” he said.

But Jews for Jesus executive director Moishe Rosen says Christians should proclaim the gospel rather than seek political solutions. He said too many American Christians try to apply a “filter of Christian understanding” to the situation. “They want to get the Jews and the Muslims to behave like Christians, but those people aren’t Christians,” he said.

By Kim A. Lawton.

NORTH AMERICAN SCENE

CONGRESS

Coats Tails Quayle Again

U.S. Rep. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) has been named to fill the Senate seat being vacated by Vice President-elect Dan Quayle later this month. Coats, a graduate of Wheaton College (Ill.), has served four terms in the House of Representatives since he replaced Quayle there in 1980 when Quayle moved up to the Senate. “I believe in providence, rather than fate,” Coats told reporters asking about the coincidence of twice succeeding Quayle. “I hope that I earned that seat in 1980 and in the subsequent eight years demonstrated my ability to do the job,” he said.

Coats, the ranking Republican on the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, enjoys strong popularity among evangelicals. In 1987 he was given the National Association of Evangelicals’ Layman of the Year award. Most of the legislation he has sponsored has been designed to benefit families.

RELOCATION

Campus Crusade May Move

Bill Bright likes to tell how in 1962 God miraculously allowed Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) to purchase and build its headquarters at Arrowhead Springs in San Bernardino, California. Now the board of directors and administrators of the student ministry are considering uprooting.

“God will have to provide in a miraculous way, like he did the first time around,” said Don Beehler, director of communication for CCC. At present, the ministry does not have the funds to relocate.

Administrators have been exploring future alternatives since early this year, according to Beehler. The current high cost of living in Southern California, a desire for a more centralized location, and a concern for new expansion and consolidation of CCC’s headquarters are three main reasons prompting the search, he said.

Four cities currently meet most of CCC’s criteria: Atlanta; Dallas/Fort Worth; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Denver. A decision is expected concerning a move early in the spring of 1989, said Beehler.

“We are in the process of evaluating our needs for the future,” he said. “It could be we’ll stay here.”

UPDATE

Eternity Turns Final Page

The January issue of Eternity magazine will be its last. The evangelical monthly was simply unable to overcome the financial effects of declining circulation and minimal advertising income.

Eternity was started in 1950 by the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, renowned Bible expositor and longtime pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Until last year it was owned and published by Evangelical Ministries, Inc. (EMI). Last spring Eternity was acquired by Norman Vincent Peale’s Foundation for Christian Living, though EMI’s editorial staff continued to produce the magazine.

Campaigns to increase subscriptions to Eternity were moderately successful but below the foundation’s expectations. When Peale’s group encountered some unexpected financial problems of its own, it decided it could no longer foot the bill for Eternity.

World magazine, based in Asheville, North Carolina, has taken over Eternity’s subscription list of almost 20,000.

TRENDS

Sex Roles and the Bible

For the past two years, a small group of evangelical leaders has been meeting to discuss what they perceived as confusion over sex roles among Christians. At a meeting in December 1987, they formally stated their concerns in Danvers, Massachusetts, resulting in a new group rallying around “The Danvers Statement.”

Late last year the new group, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), sponsored its first press conference. According to the group’s president, Wayne House, professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, CBMW was formed to counter feminist trends among evangelicals. “There is a tendency to think biblical feminism is the only biblical view,” House said. “We believe the church could lose a great witness to culture by falling into feminist theology.”

House said CBMW plans to publish a book soon that will address some of their concerns, which include the belief that “childcare is the primary responsibility of the wife.”

PEOPLE AND EVENTS

Briefly Noted

Rehired: Mike Umlandt at Moody Monthly magazine, 11 weeks after he was dismissed by the same publication following a controversy over the way he handled a report on Chuck Swindoll’s purchase of a new house. Umlandt, who had been managing editor at Moody but was taken back as senior editor, said there was a “mutual reconciliation” between him and his superiors.

Elected: As the first executive director of the Southern Baptist Alliance, Stan Hastey. The SBA is a coalition of some 40,000 Southern Baptists who generally oppose current leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Prior to the move, Hastey served as chief of the Baptist Press Washington bureau.

Ended: By controversial author and speaker Constance Cumbey, a seven-year effort to expose the New Age movement. Cumbey accused a variety of leaders, some of them well-known Christians, of being part of a plot to introduce the Antichrist of Revelation. According to Religious News Service, Cumbey will return to practicing law.

Key Events

November 15, 1988. At a parliamentary meeting in Algiers, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declares an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and implicitly recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

November 26, 1988. U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz rejects a visa request from PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat because of Arafat’s “terrorist connections.”

December 13, 1988. Arafat addresses a United Nations General Assembly meeting in Geneva, offering a three-point peace plan.

December 14, 1988. Arafat, in a clarification statement, explicitly recognizes the State of Israel and renounces terrorism. In response, Shultz reverses a longstanding administration policy and calls for talks between the U.S. and the PLO.

December 16, 1988. U.S. Ambassador Robert Pelletreau meets with PLO officials in Tunisia in the first face-to-face U.S./PLO talks ever.

WORLD SCENE

MOZAMBIQUE

Churches Fighting Famine

Famine and civil war have indirectly led to greater freedom of religion in Mozambique, according to observers from World Relief. Local churches—particularly those affiliated with the Assemblies of God, Free Methodist, and Church of the Nazarene—are delivering seeds and tools to 4,000 families who have lost all their belongings in fighting between Mozambique’s Frelimo government and Renamo rebels.

Half the population of Mozambique, more than 7 million people, have lost homes and harvests in the ongoing civil war. With rampant famine contributing to the nation’s problems, government officials have eased restrictions on churches as they reach out to help starving residents.

World Relief reports the contributions have a spiritual dimension. “My Bible tells me that God is love,” one widow told a World Relief worker. “You have come here to help us. That proves he loves me.”

AUSTRIA

Baptists Seek Legal Status

For more than 100 years, the handful of Baptists operating in Austria have been doing so “outside the law.” Now they have decided to fight for legal status.

At issue is a law that has been on the books since 1874. It stipulates that pastors of churches must be Austrians, a condition that would rule out the missionary support the Baptists receive, primarily from the United States. Since the Baptists are operating illegally, they live with a number of inconvenient restrictions, including an unfavorable tax status, inability to open new churches, and prohibitions against ministering in prisons and hospitals.

Fritz Lippert, an Austrian criminal court judge, will lead the Austrian Baptist Union’s new legal drive to achieve recognition. With 780 members and a total constituency of some 3,000 people, Austrian Baptists are among the smallest religious populations in that country.

NICARAGUA

Prisoners Released

The final 10 of the 38 people imprisoned last July for a public protest against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government were released last month. Among them was Roger Guevara, secretary of the Democratic Coordinator, the country’s largest anti-Sandinista political coalition, who presented some of his views on the Nicaraguan conflict to CHRISTIANITY TODAY in an article that appeared early last year (CT, Jan. 15, 1988).

The release of the remaining prisoners was widely attributed to political pressure applied by other countries, West Germany in particular. The Nicaraguan government has said there will be restrictions imposed on those released, but has not specified the nature of the restrictions.

Carlos Huembes, president of the Democratic Coordinator and one of those released last month, said the political opposition is planning another rally for this month. “Political imprisonment can either defeat you or make you tougher,” Huembes told the New York Times. “Jail definitely strengthened me.”

HAITI

Radio Station Firebombed

One of the victims of Haiti’s turbulent political fighting was Christian radio network Radio Lumière. Late last year, arsonists firebombed the network’s transmitters serving Haiti’s capital city of Port-au-Prince. Initial damage estimates came to $80,000.

While no group took credit for the attack, it is widely believed that it was carried out by members of the National Volunteer Service (the so-called Tonton Macoutes) opposing free elections. Though Radio Lumiere had not supported or opposed any political candidate, it was strongly pro-election.

The Radio Lumière network is owned and operated by the Baptist Evangelical Mission of South Haiti (MEBSH), an association of 280 congregations.

WOMEN IN MINISTRY

Female Bishops Renounced

Robert Runcie, the archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, recently announced he would not recognize women bishops in England. The statement came in his opening address to the General Synod of the Church of England, partly in response to the Episcopal Church’s election of Barbara Harris as suffragan bishop of Massachusetts.

“As I see the position, it seems clear that the Church of England does not canonically accept the ministry of either women priests or bishops of other churches.…”

When asked if his views might harm relations with the Episcopal Church, Runcie told the Church Times, “It certainly places restrictions on our communion, but surely does not render us out of communion.”

In a related move, eight Episcopal bishops have issued a pastoral letter indicating they plan to take action against trends in their denomination, including the election of Harris.

PEOPLE AND EVENTS

Briefly Noted

Released: One of a dozen Christians arrested in Malaysia in October 1987, Yeshua Jamaluddin, 28, was released from the Kamunting Detention Center. Jamaluddin had been arrested for witnessing to other Malays.

Reorganized: The Amity Printing Press in Nanjing, Peoples Republic of China, has become the Amity Printing Company, Ltd., in a move that provides for United Bible Society representation on the company’s board.

Hoping to “legitimize the teaching of power evangelism in universities,” Peter Wagner, professor of church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary’s School of World Mission, convened the first-ever academic symposium on integrating “signs and wonders” into missions curricula.

Virtually all the 45 participants who met in Pasadena December 13–15 were from conservative Christian colleges, but they represented a diverse cross section of denominations: Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, charismatic, and a sprinkling of mainstream Protestants. The participants politely debated subtle shades of meaning and theological nuances. Some of the liveliest discussion was sparked by topics such as demonic influences on the mind, exorcism, and suffering and illness.

John Wimber, the leader of the growing Vineyard Christian Fellowship movement, coined the term “power evangelism.” In 1986, the faculty council of Fuller’s School of World Mission cancelled the controversial “Signs and Wonders and Church Growth” class Wimber was teaching (CT, Feb. 21, 1986, p. 48). Wimber said at the conference that he had studied every experiential model of power evangelism: high church, tent meetings, Pentecostal, priestly, apostolic groups, and lay teaching. “Practice communicates our faith,” Wimber asserted, adding that “if someone gets saved it doesn’t matter to me what system is used.”

Better Accountability

But more than one participant called for better accountability. Timothy Warner, professor of missiology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, said: “If we depend on demonstrations of power for our theology, we are especially prone to deception. We need others to help us see where we have blinders on.”

On the other hand, James Simpson, a classical Pentecostal from Lee College, Cleveland, Tennessee, held that “power evangelism does not need proof, it needs practice. Truth is useless unless used; we need a functional theology.”

Yet, the lack of a theological framework of any kind—Wesleyan, Calvinistic, Holiness, or modern-day charismatic—left most statements without firm underpinnings. “Things are happening so fast in power evangelism we are still groping for terms,” explained Douglas Pennoyer, who says he teaches “power encounters of the active supernatural” at Seattle Pacific University. Pennoyer and Peter Wagner will coauthor a compilation of the symposium papers.

Jack Deere and Walter Bodine, former Bible professors at Dallas Theological Seminary who were asked to leave last year because of their charismatic leanings (CT, Feb. 5, 1988, p. 52), expressed hope that ecumenical dialogue on using spiritual gifts will be more broadly accepted. Bodine saw a need to merge disciplines: “Having missions leaders here with the freedom to talk is a good sign,” he said.

Although no format was adopted for future exchanges, several suggested that theologians, Bible scholars, and practicing non-Western pastors be included the next time around. “We need to focus on the holes that have been exposed,” one participant noted.

Convener Wagner tenaciously believes, however, that God’s power can ultimately “tear down barriers between Christian factions.… We’ve tried almost everything else. Why not try spiritual warfare?”

By Marjorie Lee Chandler, in Pasadena.

In a nuclear age, the concept of a “just war” seems absurd to some. But with scores of nonnuclear, low-level conflicts—like those in Nicaragua and South Africa—dotting today’s political map, many Christians embrace just-war ideas to assess the moral validity of contemporary revolutions.

At a recent conference sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), public policy experts and representatives from various Christian communities discussed applications of just-war theory to current conflicts. Just-war scholar James Turner Johnson of Rutgers University outlined a criteria of “just revolution”:

• Those who would rebel must have “just cause” and intentions to establish a better socio-political order than the one cast out;

• Fighting must be conducted with moderation, be led by a legitimate authority, and have reasonable hope of success;

• Rebellion should occur only when peaceful avenues for change have been exhausted.

South Africa: Stay The Course?

In applying just-war ideas to the situation in South Africa, Richard John Neuhaus, of the Rockford Center on Religion and Society, and Allan Parrent, of Virginia Theological Seminary, argued that the admittedly depressing conditions do not now justify armed rebellion. Both asserted that South Africa’s apartheid policy unquestionably inflicts great harm on 80 percent of the population. But while the criterion of “just cause” is clearly met, Parrent said hope for success is doubtful given the power of the regime.

In addition, according to Neuhaus, the Marxist-Leninist leanings of the African National Congress (ANC) raise concern about whether the postapartheid society achieved through violence will be better than the present regime. Neuhaus said other recourses for change exist, even though they are “painfully slow.”

On the other hand, Kwasi Thornell, an Episcopal canon at the Washington Cathedral, argued in favor of rebellion in South Africa. Describing the situation there, Thornell called discussion of just-war theory “almost irrelevant.” “What is the ‘last resort’ when the government has killed, tortured, and tyrannized its citizens for 40 years?” he asked.

Nicaragua: Broken Promises

The most vigorous discussion at the conference was centered on Nicaragua. Alberto Coll of the Naval War College said that “churches’ silence on Sandinista abuse of human rights” has been “scandalous.” Coll charged that instead of “calling the Sandinistas to task” for human-rights violations and “nudging the regime to greater pluralism,” some in the church allowed themselves to be manipulated by the Sandinistas.

In response, Andrew Reding of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs accused Coll of unfairly isolating Nicaragua. “Persecution is demonstrably worse in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,” Reding said.

But Penn Kemble of Freedom House defended the contras’ cause, saying they “were promised democracy” and were betrayed. Kemble said the contras have a civilian political directorate and a democratic agenda for the future, and their use of force has been moderate. “The contras have committed human-rights abuses, but they are addressing that,” he said.

Coll said he hopes the attitude of the church will become one of sober skepticism about violent rebellion. Many Christians have bought the “Marxist myth” that the repression of civil and political freedoms that often follows revolution is justified by the attainment of social justice, he said.

However, Coll said, history has shown that “societies that emphasize civil and political rights also do better in providing material prosperity for their citizens.”

By Amy L. Sherman.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to get involved in the ongoing debate about what rights a man has in cases where his wife or girlfriend wants to have an abortion. Without comment, the justices refused to review two separate cases involving men who attempted to stop their estranged wives from getting abortions.

In a case from Indiana, the Court decided not to review an Indiana Supreme Court ruling in favor of the wife’s right to abortion. The case arose last June when Erin Conn attempted to stop his estranged wife from getting the abortion. A state judge temporarily blocked the abortion, but an appeals court and the Indiana Supreme Court cleared the way for the abortion.

Conn continued with the case, asking for “judicial consideration” that a husband’s “right to procreation” be balanced against a wife’s rights. Conn argued that neither the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision nor any of the subsequent abortion rulings prevents a judge from considering a father’s rights on a case-by-case basis.

Mrs. Conn argued that nothing in the Constitution gave her estranged husband the right to force her “to submit to what amounts to compulsory pregnancy and forced childbirth.”

Guardian For The Fetus?

The second case, from Michigan, involved a couple in the process of divorce. State courts originally ordered Shawn Lewis not to obtain an abortion and appointed a guardian for the fetus. However, state appeals courts overturned the decisions, and she had the abortion.

Nonetheless, Carlton Lewis and the guardian for the fetus asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a number of legal issues including fathers’ rights, the extent to which courts can be involved in the abortion decision, and the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

According to prolife attorney James Bopp, 16 “father’s rights” cases have been filed since March. Bopp said the Conn and Lewis cases were among five currently under appeal in various states.

Meanwhile, the Court has heard arguments in another father’s rights case that looks at whether an unwed father can claim custody of the child.