Do Christian Colleges Undermine Orthodoxy?

Evangelicalism, the Coming Generation, by James Davison Hunter (University of Chicago Press, 1987, 302 pp.; $19.95). Reviewed by David K. Winter, president of Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California, who holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology and Sociology from Michigan State University.

James Hunter’s book Evangelicalism, the Coming Generation, is an excellent example of both the value and the limitations of examining the body of Christ through the eyes of a sociologist.

The study was based on questionnaires completed by some 2,000 students from nine colleges within the Christian College Consortium, 850 questionnaires completed by students at seven evangelical seminaries, and several other smaller surveys. Most of the surveys took place in 1982.

The book’s subject is evangelicalism as a religious or cultural system. For Hunter, a University of Virginia sociologist, the term “evangelicals” refers to theologically conservative Protestants, and includes a wide range of people from fundamentalists to “neo-evangelicals.” Sociologists understand the significant role of beliefs and behavior in maintaining the viability of groups. Thus by learning the attitudes of students toward the symbols and rules of the evangelical heritage, Hunter believes we can learn something about the possible future of evangelicalism.

In comparison with “evangelical spokesmen” quoted in the book, Hunter finds there is a significant liberal trend among the students, which he sees as an accommodation to the secular world. The beliefs and behavioral expectations that earlier set conservative evangelicals apart from our society are less strongly believed in and practiced by college and seminary students today.

For example, students do not strongly oppose, at least on religious grounds, some of the practices that were formerly taboo, such as drinking and smoking. Virtually all of the students believe that social justice should be a major concern of evangelicals. Some 30 percent are not absolutely sure that people who have never heard the gospel will go to hell. The same number believe the Bible should not always be taken literally in its statements concerning matters of science or history. And roughly half of the students do not believe that evolution is a denial of God’s creation.

Yet in other areas the students remain remarkably conservative. Virtually all believe that sexual relations outside of marriage are morally wrong all of the time. Eighty percent believe that God created Adam and Eve, which was the start of human life. Thirty percent believe the world was created in six 24-hour days. Ninety percent believe the Devil is a personal being who directs evil forces and influences people to do wrong. And in comparison with a control group of public university students, the Christian college students were “stoutly conservative” on traditional family values and women’s roles.

Fundamentalist Or Evangelical?

From a sociological standpoint, there are some problems with this study. The “evangelical spokesmen” used to represent the earlier evangelical heritage reflect the fundamentalist wing that developed in the late nineteenth century and became a distinct faction in the 1940s. In contrast, none of the colleges and seminaries used in this study are generally considered fundamentalist. Thus the difference may represent these two groupings within evangelicalism rather than a change over time.

It is interesting that the faculty members are less “orthodox” than the students. If the faculty represent an earlier generation, we might conclude that evangelicalism is becoming more conservative.

Some within Christian higher education have observed that in the last few years the students have become more conservative in many areas. Also, college students regularly go through an idealistic stage that they modify in a conservative direction when they enter the adult world of work.

One contribution of this book is to suggest that the viability of our churches, parachurch organizations, and organized efforts to promote the gospel may depend on our ability to maintain the codes, symbols, and expected behavior patterns that define us in relationship to the secular world. In part, our history as a sociological phenomenon has resulted from these cultural boundaries that separate us from the larger society. To the extent that we value our religious organizations, we must ponder the effect of a general weakening of the commitment of Christians to many of these distinctive beliefs and behavior patterns.

Different Goals

But there is a fundamental error in Hunter’s assumption that the purpose of evangelical colleges and seminaries is merely to perpetuate the sociological phenomenon of evangelicalism. Those of us in leadership within these institutions understand that our purpose is not only to enable students to appreciate our evangelical cultural heritage, but to encourage the biblical understanding and spiritual commitment that allow them to critique cultural expressions of the Christian faith. In other words, our purpose is to produce “world Christians,” who express their faith effectively in a wide variety of cultures around the world, emphasizing our unity in Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture, while appreciating the significant differences in behavioral patterns that characterize Christian people and denominations.

This study does not resolve the question whether today’s evangelical students are less or more influenced by society than, say, 50 years ago when both the larger culture and evangelicalism were more conservative. In any case, the contrast with the world we desire is not primarily seen in certain traditional cultural codes, but in integrity, compassion, justice, the love of Christ, and the power of the Spirit.

Because Hunter believes our goal is to maintain an unchanging world view, he concludes that evangelical education is “counterproductive to its own objectives.” But for those of us who are committed only to Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture, his evidence of failure is our evidence of success.

Christianity Today Talks To James Davison Hunter

What are the most important theological changes in the evangelical student world?

How they view the Bible, how they understand salvation, and their approach to Christian social responsibility.

Changes in soteriology are the most dramatic changes. The classic position of conservative Protestantism on salvation has been that there is no hope for heaven except through faith in Jesus.

There was little, if any, equivocation on that point. But now, among a significant minority, there seems to be tremendous doubt—that is, an unwillingness to accept classic orthodoxy. For an even larger number, there is the conviction that God has an alternate plan for the unevangelized to receive eternal salvation. The “aborigines” will somehow have a “second chance.”

How would you describe the shift on the doctrine of Scripture?

There seems to be increasing difficulty in accepting the Bible as totally inerrant.

To be sure, a large number among the coming generation hold on to the classic notion of inerrancy. As for the rest, they hold the Bible in high regard—as an authority on spiritual and religious matters, but they are reluctant to accept the authority of the Bible when it speaks to matters of history and science. They don’t see it measuring up to twentieth-century standards of accuracy. Of course, from the Catholic or mainline Protestant perspective, these shifts would seem unremarkable. But to evangelicals, the changes are extremely important.

We need to make another important qualification: the doctrine of inerrancy derives from a nineteenth-and early twentieth-century reaction to modernist impulses, whereas the classic view of salvation has a much longer history. Thus, change in the former may be less significant than change in the latter.

You state that we are observing an expansion of the meaning of cultural orthodoxy. What do you mean by this?

Let me give an example: The word worldly has long had special symbolic meaning in the evangelical community. It defined all of what was unacceptable to the evangelical community. What formerly qualified as “worldly” no longer qualifies. Indeed the term is virtually obsolete.

In your data, there was a change of only one percentage point in the proportion of students who thought extramarital intercourse was wrong, but there was a tremendous relaxation of attitudes on many other matters.

That’s right. On the issues of homosexuality, extramarital sexual relations, and even premarital sexual relations, the majority continue to hold to traditional norms; but when it comes to marijuana, heavy petting, smoking, dancing—the prohibitions that generations of evangelicals took seriously are considered ridiculous or passe. This illustrates nicely how “sin” or “worldliness” means less than what it used to mean.

What is at the root of that?

This relates to a larger cultural dynamic that has always been prominent within religious communities of an orthodox nature. At the heart of moral purity is an ethic of rejection. The importance of the prohibition against smoking cigarettes, for example, was not that it protected Christian orthodoxy in an ultimate sense; but that it provided a clear source of collective identity. By adhering to that prohibition, a person signified his or her willingness to identify with the aspirations and policies of the community.

Is there a new set of community norms?

Personally, I don’t think so. Some suggest, however, that opposition to abortion is a new definition of who’s in and who’s out of evangelicalism—and yet there is wide diversity of opinion on this.

You seem to hold up the past as an ideal.

I certainly don’t want to present the late nineteenth century as the eternal standard against which we measure orthodoxy. It does provide a point of reference, though. It shows how what one generation considers absolutely essential to true Christian living is considered superfluous or irrelevant to another. Curiously, most evangelicals operate on the assumption that the faith they live is entirely the same as the faith lived by previous generations.

What is the key to evangelical resilience in an often hostile culture?

The resilience of evangelicalism is born out of the institutional strategy of establishing parallel institutions to the general culture—publishing houses, magazines and periodicals, universities, colleges, think tanks, evangelistic organizations, international relief agencies. These have provided a social context within which many evangelicals can organize their lives, almost never having to engage the secular culture.

This structure of parallel institutions is born out of a historic commitment to remain distinct. In some respects, the future of evangelicalism can be investigated by pursuing the future of these parallel institutions.

You argue that evangelical higher education has been partially responsible for liberalizing student beliefs and lifestyles. But would evangelical students have been even more worldly without these institutions? Have they limited student worldliness?

It is hard to say. Evangelical higher education has been extremely important to the preservation of the evangelical tradition in American life. It successfully trained many generations of evangelical leaders. It continues to do so.

The problem with evangelical education now, ironically, is that it is improving in quality. The more it is committed to genuine intellectual inquiry, where everything is open for examination—as opposed to indoctrination—there will be certain kinds of “contaminating” effects. To put it briefly, we all know that secular higher education secularizes, but there is strong evidence to suggest evangelical higher education secularizes as well.

There has been a laudable tendency on the part of evangelical higher education to move out of indoctrination and into trying to credential individuals to be good citizens and good evangelicals; to move toward genuine academic, intellectual, and rigorous training. This reflects the desire for these institutions to compete effectively with secular institutions.

Do you think the ethical and doctrinal thinking of evangelical students in secular universities would mirror their counterparts at Christian colleges?

The one major difference between evangelical students who attend public universities and those who attend colleges like Wheaton and Gordon is the awareness of their own minority status. They recognize that secular public education represents a challenge for them. And they have taken steps in order to insure their own religious and spiritual survival: they participate in such groups as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ. Evangelical students in these situations, in other words, create their own subcultures, which provide something of a fortress or refuge for them.

On the secular campus, the hostility is very direct. The students go to classes in which their beliefs are tested in ways that are not tested in a Christian college environment. A lot of students attending evangelical colleges, on the other hand, consider their institutions safe; thus, their guard is down. So in some respects evangelical students at public universities are more conscious of how their faith interacts with their environment, and of how undermining the process of higher education can be to their own faith.

By David Neff and Beth Spring.

Higher Education’s Shuttered Soul

The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, by Allan Bloom (Simon and Schuster, 392 pp.; $18.95, hardcover). Reviewed by Glenn N. Schram, former associate professor of political science, Marquette University.

The thesis of this much-discussed book is by now fairly well known: Although the contemporary American university purports to foster openness, in the sense of tolerance for diverse cultures and lifestyles, this openness is nothing but value relativism by a different name; the universities fail to turn out graduates whose minds are truly open to the wisdom of the ages.

More particularly, students leave our universities without having learned to seek, like Plato and Aristotle, to know through reason what is by nature right—what is right in all times and places, and not just what is thought to be right by one or another culture.

Bloom is a member of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and a student of the late Leo Strauss, who, in a distinguished career at that university, trained almost a whole generation of scholars in political philosophy. Strauss and his students generally praise Plato and Aristotle, and view modern thinkers, from Machiavelli to the present, with disdain. And Bloom is no exception, although he is friendlier toward Rousseau than was Strauss himself.

Spiritual Malaise

Bloom’s critique of our universities seems incontrovertible, but whether his proposed solutions are adequate is questionable. He wants to see the classics of literature restored to centrality in a liberal education and the core-curriculum requirements (which the universities abandoned during the student unrest of the sixties) rehabilitated.

But Bloom himself questions whether the universities, in their present spiritual malaise, have the wherewithal to undertake even such modest reforms. And it is here that we come to the heart of the problem: Bloom recognizes the roles of religion and the Bible in a liberal education, but he attaches relatively little importance to them.

It is difficult to know whence the motivation for Bloom’s reforms is to come if not from a spiritual renaissance among faculty; nor is it clear what form a spiritual renaissance could take if it is not to be Christian—Christianity being the religion with which most of us are most familiar. It is also, I believe, true.

The issue extends far beyond the nature of liberal education. Bloom says that, after Nietzsche, we have to speak of “the decline of the West.” And he suggests “that the overpowering visions of German philosophers are preparing the tyranny of the future.” He writes: “The crisis of liberal education is a reflection of a crisis at the peaks of learning, an incoherence and incompatibility among the first principles with which we interpret the world, an intellectual crisis of the greatest magnitude, which constitutes the crisis of our civilization.”

Unfortunately, Bloom fails to develop these points sufficiently. As a translator of Plato’s Republic, he of all persons should know that, according to Plato, when a society becomes dominated by “democratic men” it will sooner or later give way to tyranny.

A country’s having a democratic form of government does not automatically mean that the socially dominant persons have “democratic characters,” marked by the predominance of insolence, anarchy, and sensuality.

But if, as I believe, “democratic men” are emerging in greater numbers in positions of power—including positions in entertainment and the mass media—there is cause for concern, and the only thing that could deflect us from our course toward tyranny would be a religious renaissance, first among our teachers and then among their students.

The downfall of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier in February 1986 brought the hope of a better life to many in the impoverished Caribbean nation. However, economic woes have continued, the interim military government has come under increasing criticism, and an atmosphere of violence has taken over many areas of the island nation.

Elections to choose a civilian president are scheduled for later this month, but the weeks leading up to the election have been rife with riots, arrests, strikes, random killings, and the assassinations of political leaders. Claude Noel, general secretary of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Haiti, says the turmoil has interfered with the work of those trying to meet the desperate physical and spiritual needs of the people. CHRISTIANITY TODAY asked Dave Disch, news editor of Light and Life magazine, to interview Noel about the current tensions in Haiti.

How have public demonstrations and the threat of violence affected churches in Haiti?

Several denominations have had to cancel large gatherings and conventions. I usually speak at several gatherings within our church council, but this year I have not been to any. The schools close whenever there is violence, so the Bible schools have to close as well. And a few times we did not hold church services because the roads were barricaded. You couldn’t cross the barricades without risking violence.

What has happened to the church leaders who were associated with the Duvalier regime?

Some of them had to leave, because the people chased them out of town. In denominational churches, the denominations moved those pastors to other areas. We hope they will be able to return after a civilian government is elected.

What about pastors who were not connected with Duvalier? Are they under pressure?

They face political pressure. The people push them to support what they support. If there is a strike, they want everybody to participate, including the church. And when you try to stay out of it, you are in trouble. You cannot remain neutral.

Many times we can’t support what the people are pushing. We oppose anything that involves violence. In our churches, we preach civil liberty. Many of my messages have dealt with the rights of the individual and applying the Bible to Christian involvement in community affairs. But sometimes the people outside want the church to go too far.

Is mission work being hampered?

In general, missionaries have not been molested, but there have been a few incidents. In one case, a crowd of Haitians went into a missionary’s home and ordered him to leave the country. He told them, “I have people to report to in the city, so you have to write me a letter telling me to leave the country and each one of you has to sign it.” They were not willing to do that, so they left. Many missionaries have decided not to stay in Haiti, or if they are outside the country, not to return until after the elections.

Has the Catholic church been involved in the changing political situation?

Catholics played an important role in ousting Duvalier, and some priests are now presenting themselves as the heroes of the revolution. They are not all in agreement, however, about the proper degree of political involvement. That creates problems in the evangelical churches because young people especially are pushing the pastors, telling them, “You see what the Catholics are doing. What are we doing?”

What if this month’s scheduled election is not fair? Would the evangelical churches then take a more public political stance?

If we had proof the election was rigged, we would ask that something be done about it. But you must realize that the different political parties might complain that the election was not fair because their candidates lost. That’s why we would need proof.

What are your hopes for Haiti?

The best thing would be to have a government that could provide work, housing, and food for the people. But we wonder how long it’s going to take for that to happen. We have people from many churches and organizations involved in education and community development in Haiti, but we don’t see much change. I believe the Lord will eventually change the situation. I have talked to many officials in the present government, and I believe they want to see things improve for the people.

In 1980 and again in 1984, Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform that emphasized a host of profamily issues. And as the 1988 presidential election approaches, those same issues remain a focus of public debate.

Republican leaders are urging their party to strengthen its profamily stance, while Democrats, in a shift from past policies, are giving new emphasis to the family as a unit.

A New Democratic Agenda

A report issued last year by the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) Democratic Policy Commission listed “a commitment to stronger families” as a key party concern. The report, which many observers say was designed to form a “new centrist image” for the party, asserted that “Democrats favor profamily policies that will raise family incomes, help keep families together and provide some assistance to parents in their day-to-day lives.” Among other initiatives, the report favored tax reform, flexible hours for employees with children, and welfare reform.

This fall, two new reports advised Democrats about the political benefits of addressing children’s issues. In his study “Kids as Politics,” Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg said, “There is expanded openness to a larger governmental role …, especially in the realm of children.” He listed popular programs, including “pre-school health and education, fighting drugs, helping people go to college and helping young people buy a first home.” A separate study, by poll taker Peter Hart, suggested that Democrats could capture votes by focusing on the worries a majority of Americans say they have about their families’ economic future.

DNC spokeswoman Julie Anbender said Democrats have been talking about “family-oriented issues” for years. The issues are the same today, she said, “perhaps now cast in a new light.”

According to Anbender, Reagan was not the impetus for renewed attention on the family. Rather, she said, society itself is more interested in the family. “After the sixties revolution and the change in the family unit and the marriage structure, it [the family] became less important,” she said. “I think society in general is turning back to believing the family is important, and so necessarily both parties will respond to that.”

Anbender was critical of Republican policies, saying they have not benefitted the family. “They may be saying it is important to have policies that are family-oriented, but when you actually look at what policies have been implemented and what the priorities of [the Reagan] administration have been, they don’t seem profamily.”

Maintaining The Momentum

Several Republican leaders, hoping to maintain the momentum they say was begun by Reagan, are attempting to ensure that family concerns stay at the forefront of the GOP. Last month, U.S. Rep. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) announced The Family and Children Project ’88, a Republican social policy that he said is “based on responsibility, character, and family bonds.” Coats, a member of the House Republican Policy Committee and the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Family, told a Capitol Hill press conference the project will include more than a dozen proposals that will be released by next summer.

The congressman released the first two proposals as he announced the project. One is an effort to encourage early childhood development through a series of community-based educational programs for families. The second is a public housing initiative that would encourage tenant-management programs and make it easier for low-income families to purchase housing. Coats said other proposals will address health, education, welfare, foster care, crime, child care, and family economics.

In an interview, Coats said he would like to see the GOP presidential contenders “steal our ideas.… I very much hope to make this a part of the Republican party platform.”

Liberals have leveled the criticism that Republicans are “all talk, but no action” when it comes to the family, Coats said. “We’re backing up our rhetoric with specific proposals that we believe are sound, conservative, profamily approaches to dealing with the problems.” The project itself charges that “most of the Democrat proposals are just more of the same of what has so seriously failed our nation’s children and families.… [But] it is also not enough for us Republicans to point out that the Democrat proposals don’t work.”

A Bipartisan National Issue

Both parties agree that several broad questions—including housing, welfare, economics, and child care—need to be addressed. Beyond that, however, much of the agreement ends. The two parties differ on issues ranging from who is included in the definition of a family unit to how solutions should be approached.

A main difference between the two is the role of government. Republicans generally favor private initiatives with government encouragement, while Democrats endorse more direct government involvement. As a result, bipartisan efforts are often difficult to hammer out.

Nonetheless, profamily groups are generally pleased with the national attention being given to the family. Family Research Council president Jerry Regier said he is “very encouraged” that the family has become a bipartisan national issue because “that is something many of us have been working toward for a long time.” However, Regier noted that much of the talk may be “election rhetoric.… Everyone who is talking about the family isn’t talking about the same thing, and voters need to be very discerning about whether family values are really being advanced.”

For the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), no advertising campaign could have produced the results it reaped from the PTL scandal. And as ministries flock to the ECFA banner (membership is pushing 420), the self-regulatory organization is toughening its standards.

Meeting last month in Arrowhead Springs, California, the ECFA board of directors took four major actions aimed at tightening its accountability standards. First, the board called for on-site inspection of ECFA-member organizations. The plan calls for volunteers, primarily attorneys and certified public accountants, to visit members’ headquarters to examine such records as the minutes of board meetings and to investigate possible financial abuses. The goal is for teams to visit at least 50 organizations a year.

Second, ECFA will do more to disclose information about members who leave or are terminated. ECFA president Arthur Borden said there would likely be a yearly newsletter listing the departed organizations and their reasons for leaving. In the past, ECFA has responded to questions about former members but has not otherwise released information about them. Borden admitted that for those making inquiries under the old system, “It was like playing ‘20 Questions.’

“We concluded this was not a satisfactory way to serve the public …,” said Borden. “Now, when it comes to releasing information, we will be proactive rather than reactive, especially where there are egregious violations.”

Third, ECFA will require members to make more information available, including their federal 990 forms, disclosure forms not-for-profit organizations must file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This will make it more difficult for organizations to hide possible financial problems. For those not required to file 990s, such as churches and foreign missions agencies, ECFA will require completion of a special form requesting information similar to that required on the 990. ECFA will also request that member organizations provide their articles of incorporation and bylaws.

Finally, the ECFA board named a committee to meet with National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) representatives to explore the possibility of a joint effort to implement accountability standards under consideration by the NRB (CT, Oct. 16, 1987, p. 44). The NRB’S board of directors approved a code of ethics to be implemented by a proposed Ethics and Financial Integrity Commission (EFICOM). Borden said ECFA has offered to help NRB implement the ethics code “if we can agree on a workable plan.”

The Embattled NRB

Some have challenged the motives behind the NRB’S recent emphasis on financial accountability. David Mains, director of the Chapel of the Air radio ministry, resigned recently from NRB’S board of directors. In a letter sent only to CHRISTIANITY TODAY and USA Today, Mains wrote that he sees within the organization “no serious call to righteousness in matters related to true financial integrity.”

The NRB’S integrity became an issue at a recent congressional hearing called by U.S. Rep. J. J. Pickle (D-Tex.). At the hearing, Pickle produced a fund-raising letter bearing the signature of NRB executive director Ben Armstrong (CT, NOV. 6, 1987, p. 36). In essence, the letter alleged that Congress was launching a “new inquisition” against religious broadcasters.

However, Armstrong indicated in his testimony that he supported Pickle’s efforts. He explained that a meeting with Pickle on July 21 had changed his perspective on the hearings. But the letter, which Armstrong himself characterized as “alarmist,” continued to be mailed through the rest of July and well into August.

In a telephone interview, Armstrong said he had made a genuine attempt to stop the letter from being mailed. But he said his effort was too late, explaining the project was not handled by NRB, but had been delegated to “one of these big houses” outside NRB whose processes made it impossible for the letter to be recalled.

Armstrong declined to identify the organization that handled the project. But he said he did not write the letter bearing his signature, nor did he see it before it was mailed. Armstrong added that he formally apologized to Pickle for the embarrassing incident.

Mains, in his letter explaining his resignation from the NRB board, criticized Armstrong, stating that the NRB leader is not capable of “spearheading a financial reform movement among the ranks of religious broadcasters.”

Mains said NRB members will likely adopt the proposed EFICOM guidelines at their 1988 convention. But he predicts the guidelines “will do little to change anything in the ranks. Those who are conscientious about their financial affairs (and there are many) will remain so; and those who use outrageous fund-raising techniques will find ways to continue.”

Mains said he opposes the EFICOM standards because he is convinced his own supporters prefer that his ministry be accountable to an outside group, namely ECFA, of which Chapel of the Air is a charter member.

ECFA Taken To Task

ECFA has come under criticism of its own for allegedly fueling the perception that it is the only true financial accountability organization for Christian ministries.

Jack Frizen, executive director of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (IFMA), maintains that IFMA’S requirements for membership are more comprehensive than ECFA’S. In addition to financial standards, IFMA has “operational standards” that address such matters as an organization’s reputation for integrity. Frizen acknowledges ECFA is “filling a needed role.” But he notes that ECFA patterned its standards after IFMA’S. And he is disturbed that some IFMA-member missions agencies report feeling pressure from ECFA to join.

About one-third of the IFMA missions belong to ECFA, and Frizen said he considers such membership redundant. At a recent IFMA business session, he said, “We will not sit and listen to or read statements which say that if an organization is not a member of ECFA, it should not be supported by the public.”

However, Allen Bergstedt, a member of the ECFA standards committee from 1979 to 1985 and now a management consultant, disagrees that ECFA membership is necessarily redundant for IFMA missions. Bergstedt said that while IFMA standards may be stricter than ECFA’S, IFMA “simply does not have the resources ECFA has to enforce their standards.”

Bergstedt noted he once had a client who belonged to both ECFA and IFMA. He said the organization was dropped by ECFA for not meeting its standards. However, IFMA continued the mission’s membership.

Frizen said he knew the group to which Bergstedt was referring. He said he is working with the organization to remedy its deficiencies, adding that it is not IFMA’S policy to drop groups that are rectifying their mistakes. Frizen said IFMA is considering ways to strengthen its standards, but he stood by his position that membership in ECFA is unnecessary for IFMA missions.

Mixed Reviews

Bergstedt believes that without ECFA, “donors would be in a quandary as to how to be good stewards.” But Calvin College communications professor Quentin Schultze points out an inherent weakness. Ultimately, he said, “the effectiveness of any self-regulatory group depends on the integrity of its members. There’s just no way of getting around that.”

ECFA’S new standards will minimize the need to depend on member organizations for information. But University of Virginia sociology professor Jeffrey Hadden, who has written books about television ministries, said he is uncomfortable with any group assuming too large a police role. “I’ve seen too many cases,” he said, “in which somebody’s sense of what is right unduly interferes with legitimate organizational functioning.”

Hadden said the pursuit of accountability should be “geared toward fostering a climate in which information is available.” He said religious organizations should realize that “they are also public trusts” and that “folks beyond their immediate circle of supporters have the right to ask questions.”

Schultze said he is pleased with ECFA’S recent moves, but he notes that the steps came only after the church’s reputation had been damaged. “The history of self-regulation,” Schultze said, “is that it comes and goes with [the organizations’] public problems.”

By Randy Frame.