Sunday Night Nausea

Here is the church

Here is the steeple

Open the door and …

And … just as I thought. The people are where they usually are on Sunday night. It gets harder and harder to make sound decisions about where we are going to spend Sunday night.

The commandment calls to us: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” As for the Sabbath night—it is the night on which the TV superspectaculars beckon us to turn from the church and gaze into the blue glare. But what of Brother Drably’s sermon series and the youth musical?

I remember how for years my children complained that the wicked witch of the West had first died in 1939, and yet 30 years later they had never seen a Munch-kin. Oh, how they begged to stay home from Sunday night church and watch The Wizard of Oz. It seemed a small sacrifice at the time, but now the great serialized movies—Shōgun, Centennial, The Thorn Birds—all come on Sunday night. How can the church ever compete? Tom Sawyer once lamented, “Church ain’t shucks to the circus.” Tom spoke volumes about the lack of enthusiasm that many adults and most children feel, “Church ain’t shucks to Sunday night television, either.” Given a choice between video extravaganza and the droll show study series on “Israel in Nomadic, Precivilization History,” Sunday night church doesn’t stand much of a chance.

Some churches suffer needlessly. They may allow their Sunday P.M. show to degenerate into a kind of unplanned drift into “Singspirations” in which the “sing” never seems to have as much “spiration” in it as we would like, or a lecture film series on the Mark of the Beast and Israel’s return to Sinai. Or the church might spend big bucks to bring in a Schaeffer film series or a Dobson/Landorf film series. Sometimes a concert series is the answer for the church as it opens the doors to wow-wow athletes who can hold the attention of the youth for a love offering plus expenses. In spite of all this, Sunday evening services gradually move from the sanctuary to the little chapel for want of a major crowd. Still, churches hold in guilt the notion that all great churches stay true to the Almighty by keeping the doors open on Sunday night. The one-eyed monster has hypnotized the faithful, and the glitter it offers is more than enough to plague the spastic church torn between making the performance entertaining and the issue of real teaching and worship to the switched-off generation.

EUTYCHUS

Temptation!

Nathan O. Hatch’s “Yesterday, The Key That Unlocks Today” [Aug. 5] tempted me to do the very thing it so ably warns against doing. I found myself picking (by underlining) out of the article’s “tapestry, only those strands that reinforce our [my] own points of view.” It expresses its ideas briefly and much better than anything I’ve read.

REV. O. F. WAGNER

SAINT MICHAEL’S LUTHERAN CHURCH

Portland, Oreg.

Two Camps Clearly Presented

Let me compliment you on the journalistic objectivity displayed by James C. Hefley in “The Historic Shift in America’s Largest Protestant Denomination” [Aug. 5]. I was pleased with his attempt to present clearly the opinions of the two camps. I am somewhat concerned, however, about the subtle but dim view that seemed to be expressed about our seminaries. The “moderates” are not the only products of our academic institutions.

Contact with liberal views on the seminary campus is a necessity, otherwise we lock up our orthodoxy in little boxes.

REV. MARK D. COOKE

Northside Baptist Church

West Columbia, S.C.

Nuclear Predicament

Your article concerning the Pasadena conference on nuclear war [News, July 15] reported some poor thinking about the just-war theory and its application to the policy of nuclear deterrence. The just-war theory provides criteria for a decision to actually conduct war—when to consciously and deliberately decide to start shooting. The whole purpose and thrust of nuclear deterrence is to prevent nuclear shooting. Therefore the just-war criteria cannot be applied, at least not in the same way.

The question that we must focus on is whether or not nuclear deterrence does a better job of preserving life and freedom than the available alternatives. The complaint that it is immoral to threaten to do what we should not actually do is vacuous. If threatening retaliation prevents actual war, then Christians, in the biblical role of peacemakers, should threaten retaliation. That may sound horrible, but war is actually horrible.

WAYNE SHOCKLEY

Brooklyn, Wis.

In the nuclear predicament we have a very good balance. On one hand, we have those who have alerted us to the terror of nuclear war, and on the other hand, those who encourage us to be strong and not succumb. The present balance between fear of nuclear war and unwillingness to be overpowered by another’s nuclear tyranny should allow us to move to that time when no nation can economically afford armed conflict.

REV. F. ARLIN NAVE

Mount Tabor Presbyterian Church

Portland, Oreg.

More Than Lethal

It was good to see your editorial “Drunken Driving: Are We Angry Enough to Stop It?” [Aug. 5]. I feel it is important that Christians take a stand on such vital issues of public policy and then to let the public know what that stand is.

Twice in the editorial there are references to blood alcohol content percentages: “1 percent blood alcohol” and “a 1.0 percent.” The correct figure is 10 or one tenth of one percent, commonly referred to as “point one oh.”

LARRY L. OLMSTEAD

Williamston, Mich.

Biblical World View Lacking

In her article concerning the Bob Jones decision [News, July 15], Beth Spring appears to take a very narrow sampling of commentary upon which to base her analysis. This is evident not only in the title’s use of the words “Ominous Implications,” but most particularly in her closing paragraph giving a passing comment that, although the decision advanced racial equality, the cost was not worth it. I was struck by the apparent lack of biblical world view in most of the commentary quoted.

I firmly believe that Jesus is indeed Lord, and that the Supreme Court acted as his minister (Rom. 13) in striking down racial discrimination and partiality that have no place in the Body of Christ. God will tolerate wickedness for so long, then he judges it, as taught in Revelation as a message for the ages. The existence of wickedness has no bearing on his lordship. As long as Jesus wants it, we will have tax deductions, and when he doesn’t, we will be the better for it.

JOHN A. TEETS

Philadelphia, Penn.

Useless And Antagonistic

In regard to “Those Strange Encounters” [July 15], I am disappointed in CT for publishing such a uselessly antagonistic article. As one who has also experienced that “overwhelming holy presence all around me,” the article leaves me with the feeling that the author is jousting at windmills, trying to examine with the minute human intellect an aspect of God’s glory that simply cannot be so analyzed.

REV. BILL GUERARD

State College, Penn.

Helpful Report

Your editorial “The Central American Powder Keg: How Can Christians Keep It from Exploding?” [July 15], written with the assistance of William Taylor, is the most clear and helpful report on U. S. policy in Central America that I have read. Congratulations on the competence, courage, and wisdom with which it was written.

EUGENE L. SMITH

Closter, N.J.

I commend you for speaking out on the matter and for the historical background cited out of which the present problems have emerged. My only problem is that you did not go far enough.

After stating (1) that the United States is hated in Central America because of its past support for the repressive and cruel Somoza regime and that (2) our government supplies arms to the government, wouldn’t it have been appropriate to ask Christians in our country to demand that our government cut off all “covert” aid to those forces that are trying to overthrow the present government? While the CIA has done such things in the past in Central and South America, they are neither moral nor legal according to international law. Furthermore, our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in Nicaragua are pleading with us to ask our government to stop such arms supplies to those forces that are killing their own people. Perhaps then Nicaragua can have a chance to become more economically stable and allow for more democratic free expression.

REV. STEVE MILLER

Community Bible Church

Arleta, Calif.

Esp For Christians?

I was angry when I read “ESP and the Paranormal” [July 15]. It seemed to reflect the belief that no miracles have happened since Bible times. Narrowly defined, of course ESP has no value for Christians. But it is not a synonym for spiritism or quackery. Extrasensory phenomena include Christian experiences such as intuitions, premonitions, and the gift of prophecy such as we find in the Bible.

WARD S. MILLER

Redlands, Calif.

The article seems most accurate from the scientific view. Yet the world of the Spirit and mystical are basic to most evangelical Christians in their conversion experience and their calling to Christian service. The Old Testament is full of prophecy concerning Christ, and this mystical tie unfolds in the New Testament. So I had some trouble with the spirit of the article, which took away the mystical. God seems to keep certain processes hidden in matters of divine intervention, for if a finite, self-centered man discovered by science the process of communication, he would tamper with and corrupt the signals. If we could understand these processes we would not reach for God or people by faith but by knowledge or ESP. Now, we just pray for others through God in faith, leaving it to the wisdom of God. It is noticeable that the Bible doesn’t give much support for the scientific world or the psychic phenomena. It calls for faith and faithfulness, which is coupled with hope and the greatest motive, love.

REV. DON H. THOMAS

Cumberland Presbyterian Church

Fayetteville, Tenn.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published. Since all are subject to condensation, those of 100 to 150 words are preferred. Address letters to Eutychus and his Kin, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60187.

That strange beckoning may not be a call to freedom after all.

If i hear the term “midlife crisis” one more time, I may have one. The phrase expands in common parlance to encompass any struggle of the soul that occurs between the ages of 31 and 55. And if love covers a multitude of sins, the redoubtable midlife crisis disguises a multitude of the same. People no longer commit adultery and break up their marriages; they “go through midlife crises.”

I have heard the same monologue from so many of my male friends that I am contemplating printing up cue cards to save them the trouble of having to formulate rationalizations. The code words, which seem to occur whether the marriage has lasted 5 years or 15, go like this: “I have changed. I am a different man today than when I married her. I must be true to myself, and follow who I really am as far as that leads me. I can see why I used to love her, but I am now bound to follow my new dreams and expectations, which she simply can’t fulfill.”

Often a hormonal complication comes out during the conversation: a deep, abiding attraction to “another woman who truly understands me” (who usually happens to be 10 years younger and 15 pounds lighter than the wife, and untrammeled with the responsibilities of motherhood). The husband plays out the scenario with great earnestness, his facial muscles expressing the blend of deep pain and poignancy over “a force bigger than I that I simply cannot resist.” I do my best to follow the wise-listener rules of keeping quiet and nodding sympathetically. I try not to flinch when I hear that this experience is wholly unexpected and unique, possibly something new in the history of the world. (In truth, I feel like throwing at my friend a copy of Anna Karenina, which says everything worth saying about such “unique” experiences.)

Because my care for my friends will endure despite the outcome of their midlife crises, I strive to understand even when they reject my advice on the matter. After listening three, four, and five times to the same script, however, I must confess sheer bafflement at two trends. They seem utter enigmas to me, yet these trends keep cropping up in those wrenching conversations.

1. My friends who seek professional counseling usually spend much time examining themselves, in order to ascertain precisely what will make them fulfilled, self-actualized, happy (or whatever the current buzzword happens to be). Here is an odd thing: a self, the observer, scrutinizes a self, the observed, which also happens to be the same self! How indeed can I observe myself to find out what I really want if I the observer am also the one who is wanting it? Maybe I am missing something here, but I have the distinct impression that some a priori rule of logic is being tossed aside. The laws governing physics confirm that the very fact of observing introduces distortions into the event observed, changing its nature. Is not the Law of Indeterminancy complicated in the extreme when the observed and observer are the same entity?

Philosophy and physics aside, let me put the conundrum more bluntly: can a person who is actively lusting objectively examine himself and make a judgment about the future direction of his life without being affected by the lust itself? I understand better why the Bible avoids fuzzy psychologisms and says simply to the thief, “Steal no more,” and to the tempted, “Flee temptation.” Not very sophisticated-sounding advice, but then some of our modern advice gets so sophisticated it seems to soar beyond the realm of rational coherence.

2. Once the observing self learns what will make him happy, fulfilled, and actualized, an amazingly powerful kind of determinism switches on. He feels bound to follow the inner voice that assures him Miss B is the solution to his life, not timeworn Mrs. A. This determinism is a force of the highest order, higher in many cases than paternal instincts and marriage vows to state and God, as well as all ethical codes. We have all seen husbands and fathers (or wives and mothers) leave spouse, children, and often church and faith in order to follow this strange beckoning from within. “I have to,” they say. “This is something bigger than I am. I cannot resist it.”

Many of these same people would violently oppose the notion of Calvinistic determinism or the merest hint of legalism. Their actions, for example, flout the Ten Commandments as restrictive and freedom-stifling. Yet what could be more deterministic than being bound to follow such intangibles as feelings, personality, predisposition, and magnetic attraction?

I hope some enlightened Christian psychologists will give attention to what I consider a tyranny of psychological determinism that is spreading like plague throughout our churches. In the meantime, I hold up for consideration an appropriate analogy explored by Dorothy Sayers in Begin Here, an obscure book written during World War II. She resolves the dilemma this way:

“It is true that man is dominated by his psychological make-up, but only in the sense that an artist is dominated by his material. It is not possible for a sculptor to carve a filigree brooch out of granite: to that extent he is the servant of the stone he works in. His craftsmanship is good precisely in so far as he uses granite to express his artistic intentions in a manner conformable to the stone’s own nature. This is no slavery, but the freedom of the sculptor and the freedom of the stone working together in harmony. The better the sculptor understands the true nature of his raw material, the greater is his freedom in using it; and so it is with every man, when he uses his own mind and emotions to express his conscious intention.”

Sayers goes on to describe the difference in murdering one’s mother-in-law and writing a detective story about such a murder. Both acts may spring from the same unconscious impulse, she says, so that each activity begins with the same raw material. But the difference lies precisely in the fact that the unconscious impulse is translated by the conscious into two wholly different activities.

We are getting better and better at identifying what Sayers calls “the raw material” of unconscious or subconscious impulses. Maybe it’s time for an equally strong emphasis on our human freedom that gives opportunity to respond to that raw material in opposite ways. Fidelity, which lacks unconscious appeal, may mean conscious salvation.

PHILIP YANCEY

Zelig

Written and directed by Woody Allen¹Reviewed by Harry Cheney, a writer living in Southern California.

The opening joke in Annie Hall (1977) is a thematic bridge that spans all of Woody Allen’s motion pictures—from his first, Take the Money and Run, to his latest complex effort, Zelig: “I would never join any club that would have me for a member.”

That is the ironic confession of the neurosis-riddled Everyman, found in all of Allen’s personas to a certain extent, who discovers how difficult it is to coexist peaceably with anyone—including himself and God—yet earnestly desires such an arrangement all the same. Leonard Zelig is Allen’s most satisfying creation to date: a character whose nonexistent self-esteem creates a vacuum that can only be filled by the personalities and opinions of others. Desperate to join any club, Leonard pays the exorbitant membership fee with his own soul.

Zelig is simultaneously poignant and hilarious: it laughs at the folibles of our vaporous humanity. Its ingenious style manages to be both nostalgic and thoroughly contemporary.

Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), the title character, is the “ultimate conformist”: a man whose overpowering desire to be liked saps him of his own individuality. His pathological need to belong, in turn, results in some odd physical manifestations. Like a chameleon, Zelig simply changes his appearance and personality according to the situation. With an Indian, he literally becomes an Indian; with a fat man, Leonard gains 200 pounds—instantly. Like a latter-day Elephant Man, he is inspected, analyzed, and cruelly exploited.

The “chameleon man’s” greatest feat is his final transformation into a loving human being: a liberated Lazarus freed from the burial cloths of fashionable conformity and public opinion. The most satisfying resurrection is Woody Allen’s visual paraphrase of Saint Paul’s admonishment that we “be not conformed.…” God requires a similar transformation: a renewal of minds overly inclined to the “fashions of this world.” There is a maturity that involves the persistent courage to understand and accept one’s own uniqueness before God and man—and to protect that seed of personal integrity from the debilitating effects of social tyranny.

Reviewed by Harry Cheney, a writer living in Southern California.

Norman Johnson’s genius has shaped some of today’s best church music.

When a church musician of such stature that he is considered by his peers to be an outstanding role model for the church is stricken with “Lou Gehrig disease” (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS), his loss is felt by the entire church music community. In 1975, Norman Johnson was diagnosed as having this terminal disease, which has no known cause or cure.

Johnson has significantly influenced evangelical church music for over a quarter of a century. During this time, his work has had an impact, although perhaps unrecognized, on nearly every evangelical singer. Characteristically, he disclaims personal glory. “I tried to do what the Lord wanted me to do,” he says.

Since 1963 until his recent retirement, he was senior music editor of Singspiration Music. According to composer Don Wyrtzen, a long-time colleague, Norm probably was the “best music editor evangelical publishing has had.” Publisher Fred Bock credits him with almost singlehandedly establishing a standard of editing excellence for evangelical music publishing.

His editing abilities are legendary. He can look at a composition and analyze it simultaneously on several levels. Says Wyrtzen, “It was said of Norm that he could spot a missing comma from three miles away.”

A prolific choral arranger, Johnson also is an acknowledged authority on hymnody. He helped edit six major hymnals: Crowning Glory Hymnal (1964); Great Hymns of the Faith (1968); The Folk Hymnal (1970); Living Praise (1974); and Praise! (1979). He also helped edit The Covenant Hymnal (1973), widely regarded for its balance and accuracy, and possibly the most error-free hymnal ever published.

As a church musician, Norm combined pastoral love with artistic excellence for the glory of God. For 17 years he was minister of music at the Evangelical Covenant Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His first love always was his church choir. Randy Vader, his associate minister of music for five years and now national sales director for Alexandria Publishing House, considers Johnson’s unique characteristic to be his pastor’s heart combined with his extremely high standards. He loved his people. “I’m the minister of music,” says Norm, “not only a choir director.”

He has little patience with those “who take the easy way out, who lack creativity in programming.” A highly disciplined person, he prepared himself, his people, and his program to the highest degree. Says Vader, “Working with Norm Johnson made grad school seem like a piece of cake.”

“Music is a fantastic means of reaching into men’s hearts and souls,” Norm says, “but we have abused it and treated it carelessly.” He believes church leaders and musicians must take the ministry of music seriously at every level, from the hiring of personnel to the purchase and scheduling of repertoire and the planning of rehearsals. “You can’t just say, ‘Sing it as if you mean it,’ or ‘Listen to the words as the choir sings.’ The pastor, the minister of music, and the board must treat music with importance and dignity in the service and in the board meetings.”

As both church musician and music editor, he has been able to assess recent developments in church music. He sees little genuine creativity today, and no really new major trends. He believes the church is reevaluating its hymnody, and that many styles and superstars are fading from the scene.

Johnson emphasizes the preservation of our incalculably rich hymnic heritage, yet argues “there must be growth; we must not stagnate. I hope there still will be some experimental hymnody employing nontraditional rhythm and melodies. So far, what little new material that has developed along these lines generally has not been widely accepted.”

A major problem has been the recent practice of contemporary songwriters trying to write both words and music—too often merely to control royalty fees. “Much of the contemporary poetry is really miserable,” he says. “God gives different gifts to different people. A study of great hymnody of the past shows that 991/2 percent of them had a separate author than composer.”

He has a loving, yet objective response to aspiring songwriters who feel that God gave them a song and intended it for the church in general. “God may have given them that song,” he says, “but it doesn’t mean it was for the whole world. It could have been for their own uplift at the moment, or their own circle of friends, or the local church. God can inspire a song for the needs of the moment, but then it accomplishes its work and doesn’t need to be repeated.”

Norm did not plan at first to be a professional musician. Born in Smolan, Kansas, on July 4, 1928, he was raised in a Christian, but nonmusical, home. He started piano lessons when he was eight, walking a half mile to his grandparents’ house to practice since there was no piano at home. Later the family moved to Lindsborg, Kansas, where the strong musical tradition of the community made a strong impression on him. In 1949 he graduated from local Bethany College with a major in English and a minor in organ. However, he dreaded the prospect of teaching high school English, and enrolled in Chicago’s North Park Seminary. While there, he became a staff musician at Moody Bible Institute’s WMBI, and formed a lifelong friendship with another musician from Lindsborg, John W. Peterson.

While serving as both youth director and organist at a church in Turlock, California, Norm met Lois Solie. They were married in 1954 and subsequently had two children. “God provided the perfect wife to cope with this disease,” he says.

He enrolled in the University of Southern California’s new church music program under Charles Hirt and received his master’s degree in 1958. He is amazed at how God prepared him. “Seminary made me theologically aware; youth work put me on the leading edge; creative writing and literature studied as an English major helped me with grammar, poetic forms, and meters.”

He faithfully tried to pass on what he learned. Don Wyrtzen says, “Norm taught me a lot; I am indebted to him for helping me learn discipline in the careful execution of my own work.”

One of his great concerns is the need for integrity in music ministry. He considers the greatest needs to be: (1) a return to a succinct, quality gospel message—too much contemporary material is so individualistic that it doesn’t relate to the congregation; (2) more variety in the church program, with more music actually addressed to God; and (3) worship with less spectatorism. “The audience still must be God, not man,” he says.

He also insists that practicing church musicians must be ministers. They must “love the people, love the Lord, and love the music.” They also “need to develop all the skills they can, take every opportunity to learn, and make their people work and expand their abilities and understanding.” He believes most colleges provide little preparation in communication and realistic ministry.

Although the progressive neuromuscular deterioration brought on by ALS steadily increases his physical limitations and the corresponding pain, Norman Johnson continues to manifest the graces of a maturing Christian. “I know God is not going to fail me, no matter what horrible circumstances lie ahead. I don’t have to be afraid.” He summarizes his confidence in Christ in the words of his friend John Peterson:

If God should let me there review

The winding paths of earth I knew,

It would be proven clear and true—

Jesus led me all the way.¹Copyright 1954, John W. Peterson; used by permission.

RICHARD D. DINWIDDIE²Mr. Dinwiddie is music director and conductor of The Chicago Master Chorale.

Or should the Old Testament be interpreted in its own light?

An important issue confronts the person who studies the Old Testament today: should the New Testament influence the way he interprets the Old Testament? On this issue Bible scholars are divided.

In 1859 Benjamin Jowett, then Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford, published a justly famous essay on the interpretation of Scripture. Jowett desired to be left alone in the company of the prophets by brushing aside or severely discounting what later writers said the prophets meant. “Scripture,” he said, “has one meaning—the meaning which it had in the mind of the Prophet … who first uttered or wrote, to the hearers or readers who first received it.”

In 1981 Walter Kaiser, academic dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, came close to concurring with Jowett: “In no case must … later teaching be used exegetically (or in any other way) to unpack the meaning … of the individual text which is the object of our study.”

I want, however, to defend the church’s traditional view. The New Testament has priority in “unpacking” the meaning of the Old Testament. According to the Reformers, the whole of Scripture interprets the parts of Scripture. For them and their modern successors, especially the Barthian school, the entire Bible is the context for each passage. Therefore they do not hesitate to bring the New Testament into their interpretation of the teaching of the Old Testament.

On this question rests the issue of whether or not the Old Testament should be interpreted “spiritually.” If the Lord Jesus Christ and his church fulfill the promises of the Old Testament, as the New Testament affirms (see Acts 3:24–25), then those promises, expressed in terms appropriate for the earthly form of God’s kingdom in the old dispensation, find their literal fulfillment in the spiritual form of the kingdom in the new dispensation.

For example, when David as a prophet represents the Lord as saying about his royal Son. “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill …” (Ps. 2:6ff., NIV), according to the New Testament the text points to the ascension of Christ to the heavenly Mount Zion and his taking possession of the nations now (cf. Matt. 28:18–20: John 17:2; Acts 13:33: Heb. 12:22–24: etc.). Without the New Testament one might have supposed that the text meant only Mount Zion in the Jerusalem where the Dome of the Rock is presently situated. It makes all the difference in the world whether the preacher proclaims a heavenly “thus saith the Lord” that Christ is now taking possession of the nations from his heavenly Jerusalem, or whether he explains that David was speaking of a historical or future earthly kingdom, but that he thinks it has significance to the church today.

The Christian doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture demands that we allow the Author to tell us at a later time more precisely what he meant in his earlier statements. I recall when I first read Aristotle’s Poetics. I could scarcely make heads or tails of it until, like the Ethiopian eunuch. I found a commentator who, knowing all of Aristotle’s works, explained his terms and meaning to me. Heidegger said, “Every poet composed from only a single poem.… None of the individual poems, not even the total of them says it all. Nevertheless each poem speaks from the whole poem and each time speaks it.”

The doctrine of canon, a correlative of the doctrine of plenary inspiration, also demands that we use the New Testament in deciding the meaning of the Old. De Sausurre, the father of modern linguistics, likened the meaning of a word to a chess game. No single piece on the chess board, he explained, has value or meaning apart from the others. Some moves, he elaborated, are inconsequential, but others decisively change the value of the other men. So also words have meaning only in relation to clauses, and clauses in relation to paragraphs, and paragraphs in relation to books. So likewise in the Bible no book has final meaning apart from the other books. The Bible is not like a bookcase with each book standing as a separate entity in itself. As the Jesuit scholar Norbert Lohfink pointed out, “the taking up of a new book into the canon was, among other things, an ‘act of authorship.’ ”

The intention of the Author is found not in the parts but in the whole. In the words of Tony Thistelton, senior lecturer in biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, “The total of any theological utterance is hardly less than Scripture.… In Heinrich Ott’s words on the subject, ‘Scripture as a whole constitutes the “linguistic room,” the universe of discourse, the linguistic net of coordinates in which the church has always resided.…’ ”

In sum, let us join Jowett in his desire to be alone with the author and hear his words, but let us keep in mind that the Author is Christ, who spoke through the prophets.

BRUCE K. WALTKE¹Dr. Waltke is professor of Old Testament at Regent College. Vancouver. British Columbia, Canada, and coeditor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

The phone call from a pastor colleague changed my life. Would I, he asked, see a parishioner whose daughter had joined some strange Bible group? When the mother arrived, she exploded with emotion—hurt, fear, anger, embarrassment. She asked for the name of a deprogrammer. Her daughter had joined one of the “new religions,” and the shock of this unexpected turn in her daughter’s life had been intensified by the discovery that her daughter was soliciting family friends for funds to underwrite her attendance at the group’s Bible college.

I spent almost a year with this mother as she struggled with her feelings and situation. I helped her create a plan of action, and eventually her daughter (who was then in her mid-20s) left the group.

I had spent all of my adult life researching nonconventional religions, but this incident had pushed me where I did not want to go—into the midst of the “cult wars,” that violent conflict between the high-demand, first-generation religions and a new militant anticult movement. This mother forced me to deal with the pain of a parent whose daughter had joined such a group and who had lived in the fear and in the worry of the possible negative consequences.

I had found little identification with the cults. But anticultism presented an equal, if not greater, source of concern. Deprogramming ran counter to all the freedoms for which we evangelicals had fought when we were society’s “cults.” The popular anticult text. Snapping, identified all born-again Christians as culticly diseased and in need of coercive deconversion, and I broke completely with anticultism.

Rejection of anticultism left me without a framework within which to understand the cult phenomenon. Cults were significant and far from merely the aberrations of a few misguided Bible students, or the bizarre world of a few people on the edge of culture. Rather, the data suggested that cults are the most visible sign of a major shift in American religious pluralism. The 1970s saw the establishment of major world religions in middle America. Their rapid growth was ensured by the annual immigration of tens of thousands of Asians.

The cults accelerated the change in America from a society dominated by one faith—Protestant Christianity—to one of extreme multiplicity, in which over 800 Christian denominations (from Greek Orthodoxy to Sacred Name Adventism) competed with all the non-Christian faiths and unfamiliar brands of Christianity influenced by Eastern perspectives (Unificationism).

The “cults” are here to stay, and we as pastors and lay people will continue to encounter the pain occasioned by individuals leaving the faith of their families. That pain will be sharp, whether the conversion is of a Catholic to the Baptist faith, a Jew to Christian, or a Congregationalist to the Hare Krishna movement.

As we adjust to this new situation, some new aids will assist our developing ministry. For basic orientation you cannot beat Strange Gods, by sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe. Jr. (Beacon, 249 pp., $13.50). Strange Godssummarizes in nontechnical language all that social scientists have discovered about the cult phenomenon. Bromley and Shupe strip away many false and simplistic stereotypes of cults and substitute a straightforward view of their corporate life, finances, recruitment processes, and programs. Uniquely, Strange Gods also puts modern anticultism under the spotlight and explores its manipulation of the negative cult images in an attempt to arouse public opinion and influence legislation.

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna (Grove, 224 pp., $7.95) takes a single cult body and examines it in depth from the perspective of five religious historians who have made a lengthy firsthand study of the Hare Krishna movement. Written in a conversational style. Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna takes the reader inside this strangely disturbing group to explain the inner logic of otherwise normal adults who adopt a devotion to the statues of foreign deities, don strange dress, live communally, and engage in abrasive fund raising at airports.

In sharp contrast. Cults in America, by Willa Appel (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 204 pp., $15.95), will be of little help. While claiming to be, like Strange Gods, an objective overview of the cult phenomenon, it turns out to be little more than a compilation of current opinions of the anticult movement. Appel confesses to doing no firsthand study of cults and seems content to ignore the mass of social science material on cults, even that from her own discipline (anthropology). She relies entirely on the papers of anticult activists such as John Clark and Margaret Singer.

Life In The Cults

Two recent additions to the personal accounts of lives interrupted by a cult’s presence rise above the common fare of hastily written volumes by deprogrammed ex-cultists. One book offers a moving portrait of a family during a member’s months in a different religion, and the other the story of a man raised in a “cult.”

The Snare of the Fowler, by Frankie Fonde Brogan (Chosen Books, 198 pp., $11.95), tells the story of the author’s son who joins the Children of God. But what for many is merely a painful period to be endured becomes a spiritual pilgrimage in which Brogan discovers a new relationship to God. For example, she learned in that pilgrimage from nominal church member to dedicated Christian to love the man she most despised, David Berg. One evening she returned from an anticult meeting at which the leader of the Children of God had been angrily denounced by speaker after speaker. Suddenly Brogan found herself on her knees praying, overwhelmed with compassion for that same man. In those moments she gained a new perspective on her situation and found anew the One who had so long ago told his disciples to pray for those who would despitefully use them.

The son finally chose to leave, as he had chosen to join. But in the end, three people—a mother, a father, and a son—became three different people because of their experiences and because they allowed Christ to walk in the midst of their lives.

Cult Handbooks

The emergence of so many unfamiliar new religions challenges writers to report accurately on them. Unfortunately, most recent writers have not done their homework. Poorly researched and hastily written volumes, riddled with errors and misperceptions, distort the theology and piety of the groups they attempt to describe. Such books are more a hindrance than a help in our witnessing to cult members, who use them to ridicule the quality of Christian scholarship. In my interaction with cult members, I have frequently had to spend an hour separating myself from such books and establishing a trust in Christian veracity before I could begin to share what Christ meant to me.

An exception to such a trend will be found in A Guide to Cults and New Religions, by Ron Enroth and others (Inter-Varsity Press, 215 pp., $5.95). Most chapters, written by someone who has done an in-depth study of a particular group, formerly appeared as separate booklets, and have been brought together with additional chapters on “What Is A Cult?” and “Evaluating the New Religions.” The chapters manifest a notable attempt to understand what a group teaches before evaluating it in the light of orthodox faith. The opening chapter does engage in a futile attempt to find common characteristics of the cults; in this case Enroth comes up with a list that applies as closely to conservative Christian churches as it does to cults. That minor flaw should not keep you away from an otherwise worthy volume, however.

Responding To The Cults

Having learned about the cults, how do we respond? You might begin with the advice in Harold Bussell’s Unholy Devotion (Zondervan, 128 pp., $4.95), a book for all evangelicals, whether concerned directly with cults or not. Bussell draws upon our common wisdom. Before beginning a ministry, do some self-examination. Look at the churches: they help create cultists by their discouragement of critical thinking, their creating of unrealistic expectations for Christian fellowship, and their lack of sensitivity to young seekers. People who join cults have begun a quest for God, a loving fellowship, and a deep spiritual experience.

Unholy Devotion is an important book in that it reminds us of what we evangelicals have in common with the cults. While cult teachings vary from evangelical faith. we can so concentrate upon attacking cults that we miss the very human members who seek the same spiritual reality we have found. Militant anticultism can easily lead to self-righteousness and a forgetfulness of our prime directive: to preach the gospel of the Lord of love.

Reviewed by J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, Evanston, Illinois.

For a Communist country, the celebration of Luther’s 500th birthday is exuberant—and significant

On May 4. the verse “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in princes” (Ps. 118:9) rang out not just on West German, but also on East German television. It was the first live broadcast of a church event in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). The occasion was the inauguration of festivities held at Wartburg Castle to celebrate the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth.

On a sweltering July 10, more than 100,000 Christians swarmed to Dresden for the closing of the GDR’s biggest of seven regional “Kirchentag” (Church Day) conventions. It was the largest church convention held on East German soil since 1954. State officials and police were barely visible, and the church texts that were used were not censored. How can all this be explained in a Marxist state? “Luther makes everything possible,” is the church’s usual reply.

The East German government’s about-face on Luther is a puzzle to many. But the abrupt reversal has apparently alarmed some of the party’s rank-and-file. Three years ago East Germans began referring to 1983 as “Luther Year.” But suddenly, in December of 1982, the party rechristened 1983 “Karl Marx Year.” (Marx died 100 years ago.) At the same time, the official state jargon was reduced from “Luther Year” to “Luther Commemoration.” But today, the primary Marx event has run its course, and it is Luther who still draws hundreds of thousands of Western tourists to the GDR.

The first indication of a more favorable view of Luther came in a paper published in September 1981. Its opening paragraph states that “everything progressive within German history” is a part of socialist-Marxist tradition, and that Luther can therefore be applauded for having traveled in the appropriate direction, one later travelled by Münzer and Marx. A peculiar and favorable comparison between Luther and Marx has emerged. No one has attempted to bring the two into complete agreement, but Marxists are acknowledging the relevance of Luther’s spiritual and theological contributions.

The best explanation of East Germany’s rediscovery of Martin Luther is not the anticipated increase in Western tourists. Rather, it is the GDR Marxists’ search for a past. East Germany party members are proud of their Luther heritage and even reveal a taint of competitiveness with their West German neighbors. They frequently imply that “we are the more genuine caretakers” of the German heritage.

Fifty years ago, Luther’s name was invoked to plug anti-Semitism. But this year, in the moving Wartburg ceremonies, it was emphasized that “Martin Luther was a sinner like unto us and no less dependent upon God’s mercy than we are.” During the ceremonies, three separate requests were made for the forgiveness of all those against whom Luther and his followers had sinned.

There is much within the church’s Luther festivities to warm the evangelical’s heart. Justification by faith, mercy, sola scriptura, and the priesthood of all believers are the most common topics. Probst Heino Falcke has stated that Luther is a mighty witness to all those pastors “who no longer have confidence in the power of their message.”

Luther’s influence is evident in the activity of the church in East Germany. Nearly 15,000 attended the July 9 service in Dresden held by noted East German evangelist Theo Lehmann. Also, in contrast to West Germany. East German evangelicals play an integral role in their Kirchentag. Although the GDR’s population of 17 million is less than a third of West Germany’s, the GDR’S seven regional Kirchentag conventions will host some 200,000, as opposed to the 140,000 who attended West Germany’s single Kirchentag.

The state’s favorable recognition of Luther is one fruit of a growing congeniality between church and state. Three years ago the government expressed a desire for a joint church-state planning committee for this year’s festivities. But the church rejected the offer and has repeated its desire to make its own specifically Christian contribution to East German society. The church has stated clearly that it will not serve as an uncritical amplifier of government policies, and it has maintained obvious control over this year’s church celebrations.

WILLIAM YODER in East Germany

Wheaton ’83 ponders the state of missions

Christ is the cornerstone. But the bricks that go into the building of his church are not mass produced. They come in many shapes and sizes, from diverse backgrounds and church traditions, and they sometimes espouse views that are as hard as bricks.

At the final service of the Wheaton ’83 conference on the nature and mission of the church, participants affirmed a pastoral letter to the evangelical church around the world. This four-page letter helped to integrate a conference marked by a spectrum of concerns and emphases brought by more than 300 participants from 60 countries. They met at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois, June 20 through July 1.

Wheaton ’83 was convened by the World Evangelical Fellowship and sponsored by about 50 churches, denominations, and special service agencies, including the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. William Shoemaker, conference chairman and director of the Graham Center, hailed Wheaton ’83 as “a new model for evangelical cooperation in mission.”

Three consultations, or tracks, functioned simultaneously and autonomously in the first week. Attempts to integrate these tracks were made in the second week. Track One dealt with the church in its local setting; Track Two, the church in new frontiers for missions; Track Three, the church in response to human need. Besides an introduction and conclusion, the Wheaton ’83 Letter to the Churches has three major divisions, reflecting the three-in-one composition of the conference.

In the church in its local setting, the letter noted that “some churches are being called by Christ to fulfill their apostolic mission amidst forces fiercely hostile towards both them and their Lord.” Participants pledged to support them. It urged those who enjoy the freedom to serve Christ openly to depart from complacency. It added. “We cannot afford to forget that we should be a prophetic voice in the world today.”

On church-parachurch relations, the letter noted the sometimes serious tensions that exist, and it appealed to everybody involved to be responsible stewards. Recipients of the letter were invited to reflect further on this matter so that “friction caused by paternalism, insensitivity, and the abuse of power can be overcome.”

Concerning the church in new frontiers for missions, the letter noted the three billion non-Christians in the world. It said. “We have been challenged to find ways to cross new frontiers to reach urban communities and those imprisoned by resistant religions and ideological systems.” It also noted that until a century ago, mission was still largely a one-way operation. Today, “churches in all parts of the world are crossing frontiers at home and abroad creating their own sending agencies.”

As for the church in response to human need, the letter said that Christians must be deeply moved by the plight of millions who suffer exploitation and oppression, and where their dignity as people created in God’s image is being assaulted. The gospel should not only be a message about life after death. There needs to be “compassion and concern for justice and equity.”

The letter ended with the reminder that it is God who “sends us into the world, but the mission remains His.”

In an opening address, WEF’S general director, David Howard, said that Wheaton ’83 has roots going back to Wheaton ’66, the Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission. The purpose of that largely Western-dominated congress was “to bring into new focus the biblical mandate to evangelize the world.” Then came Berlin ’66, Lausanne ’74, and Pattaya ’80.

Said Howard. “Wheaton ’83 in a sense is a culmination of all these conferences even though organically there isn’t necessarily a direct connection in every case.”

Bruce Nicholls, conference coordinator and executive secretary of WEF’S Theological Commission, said the whole conference was struggling with a great crisis facing evangelicals. They are fragmented by race, and by varied eschatological and denominational views.

About half of the participants at Wheaton ’83 were non-Westerners. Nicholls said, “Older Western-based missions and emerging Third World missions have to try and work out how they can … share resources.”

Personal grievances surfaced on one occasion when a participant from India bitterly denounced Western missionaries: They were nothing but bosses and bullies; they left nothing behind for nationals when they departed, he said.

Theologian-pastor Peter Kuzmic of Yugoslavia pointed out a difference in perspective when he referred to a revival in Romania. He said during a plenary session, “I sometimes get the impression that there are church leaders in the West who think that they can build the church if they have big structures, buildings, the modern and best of all technology, as much money as possible, and a charismatic figure with showmanship abilities.

“There is a danger here of becoming self-sufficient and proud, and a tendency of reducing the church to a mere manageable, human institution. It is very easy then for the work of the Holy Spirit, the importance of prayer and fasting, self-denial, and humility to be left out.”

Attempts to integrate the statements of the three tracks after a week of autonomous discussions within each track proved premature. After discussions across the tracks. Track Two, for instance, had to change its draft statement four times with a 50 percent change in content on one occasion. Its final statement was not ready when the conference ended.

Shoemaker said, “There were strong opinions with diverse concepts on what I consider to be sometimes semantics rather than biblical differences. Our challenge now is to take our experience here, whether or not one agrees with the whole of the formal report, and put that into formats of regional conferences, audio-visuals, and printed materials, so as to share that experience with others in the body of Christ around the world.”

Constance Cumbey

A controversial Detroit lawyer has hit the lecture circuit with an end-times message.

“Be forewarned! The end is coming. The Antichrist is already in the world, and a network of thousands of organizations and millions of people all over the world is preparing to introduce him. He will appear to have the solutions to all the world’s pressing problems and will be accepted as a world leader. But eventually his true colors will show, and he will demand the worship of Satan and submit the church to the greatest persecution it has ever known. So beware. Don’t take the mark of the beast.”

Is this the message of another fiery-eyed backwoods doomsayer trying to frighten his listeners into a firmer resolve for God? Not quite. This is, in sum, the message being advanced by an aggressive, urbane, 39-year-old Detroit lawyer named Constance Cumbey. And hundreds of thousands are taking her message seriously. Having spoken at more than a hundred churches throughout the United States in the last year and a half, Cumbey remains in near constant demand as a lecturer. She has been endorsed in church bulletins and newsletters and featured on numerous television programs and radio talk shows, including KDKA in Pittsburgh. WLAC in Nashville, and WXYZ in Detroit. Phones rang off the hook the night she appeared on Chicago’s WCFC-TV, whose potential audience of 11 million makes it the largest Christian television station in the country. Cumbey’s book, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow (Huntington House), sold 30,000 copies within three weeks of its release in June, and is now in its second printing with a huge backlog of orders.

The conspiracy she speaks of is called the New Age movement. Cumbey says its leadership is tightly organized, although most of its masses are involved innocently. The movement is rooted in Eastern religion and occult philosophy. It purports to be building a world of peace and harmony, but its hidden agenda is evil. Cults like the Hare Krishnas and Moonies, and causes like holistic health and nuclear freeze, are all doors through which the unsuspecting are recruited. The conspiracy includes the establishment of one world religion and a single government with a centralized food authority, all of which the Antichrist will use to come to power.

Cumbey says the movement has infiltrated Christianity. She likens Tom Sine of World Concern, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, and other “wolves in sheep’s clothing” to Adolph Hitler. She calls Sen. Mark Hatfield’s Between a Rock and a Hard Place a “New Age classic,” and accuses Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship missions specialist and author David Bryant of hypnotizing his audiences.

Organizations she attacks include Bread for the World, Inter-Varsity, Calvin College, and World Vision International. World Vision has received hundreds of letters from all over the country requesting clarification of its involvement in the movement. Bread for the World has discovered that some pastors, on the basis of Cumbey’s message, are urging their parishioners to terminate their financial support. Cumbey says that although these people and organizations espouse Christianity, their political programs and their vocabularies give them away.

She maintains that the New Age movement meets all the biblical predictions for the end times. One of the “bibles” of the movement, written in the 1930s by Alice Bailey, an occultist who claimed to have transmissions from a “divine master,” calls 666 a sacred number. (In Revelation 13, 666 is called the number of the beast.) The popularity of the rainbow as a symbol is suspicious to Cumbey. She sees it as a fulfillment of Isaiah 24:5, which states that the earth is defiled because its inhabitants have broken the everlasting covenant. Cumbey holds that the beast that was dead and came back to life (Rev. 13) is nazism. Her list of parallels goes on.

Cumbey’s presentation is girded by the mountains of facts she has gathered. She impresses listeners by citing not just New Age books and authors, but pages and even paragraphs. Add to this the polished courtroom demeanor of an experienced lawyer, and Cumbey’s powers of persuasion are formidable. But her persuasive abilities have fallen far short of convincing those familiar with her area of study. Cumbey has not won the full endorsement of a single respected Christian scholar or cult-watching organization. Experienced cult watchers acknowledge that there is a movement and that it is widespread. Among its chief spokesmen are Theodore Roszak, Willis Harman, George Leonard, and the late Buckminster Fuller. But far from being a tightly organized conspiracy, the cult watchers maintain that the movement is better understood as a philosophy, a type of “Westernized Eastern mysticism,” syncretistic, with elements of humanism and the occult.

Cumbey responds to her critics by claiming that either they have not done enough research or they themselves are a part of the conspiracy.

For years, organizations like Spiritual Counterfeits Projects and the Christian Research Institute (CRI) have been monitoring the activities of New Age groups. Their research has revealed some cult-like groups that seem to glorify the teachings of Alice Bailey. Other groups, like the New York City-based corporation Planetary Citizens, are dedicated to creating a “new global society.” CRI researcher Elliot Miller, who has studied the movement for nearly a decade, applauds Cumbey for helping to uncover attempts at organization by some groups in the movement. But a statement issued by the CRI is representative of the cult-watching world’s unfavorable analysis of Cumbey’s message. It reads in part: “It would be counterproductive for the Body of Christ to respond to this movement with hysteria resulting from a belief that the Antichrist is about to be revealed, or by making public declarations that the New Age movement is involved in conspiratorial activities that cannot be factually substantiated.”

One of the logical inconsistencies of Cumbey’s conspiracy theory is the unlikelihood of cults like The Way International, Children of God, and the Moonies all being a part of the same movement. “Can anyone familiar with Rev. [Sun Myung] Moon’s theology seriously believe that he anticipates a Messiah other than himself?” writes cult researcher Eric Pement in Cornerstone magazine.

In addition, scholars question the legitimacy of Cumbey’s method of interpreting Scripture. She has no formal theological training. (For this Cumbey offers no apologies since she believes the New Age movement has penetrated many of the nation’s seminaries.) In any case, Allan Johnson, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College and author of the article on Revelation in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, maintains it is a mistake to try and read today’s specific events into the Book of Revelation.

Dispensationalist theologian Craig Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary elaborates: “If the words of Revelation were meant to be applied to a specific movement today, it makes it impossible for Christians throughout the centuries to have understood God’s Word in Revelation.” He adds, “Logically, it doesn’t work.”

Blaising says that American premillenialism is plagued by a “hangover” from an earlier period in which some premillenialists sought to identify present-day events on the basis of end-times prophecies. Blaising believes that dispensationalism does not allow for such an approach. While he acknowledges that some would disagree, he feels he is in the mainstream of respected dispensational scholarship.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s George R. Beasley-Murray, considered an authority on eschatology, agrees with his colleagues that the Bible is not to be used as a guidebook for anticipating specific events. He adds the warning that “people need to be wary of those whose treatment of prophecies relating to the end times is not based on sound exposition of the Word of God.”

Though they believe that much of Cumbey’s message is absurd, many of her critics believe also that because of the large following she has gained, she cannot be safely ignored. Even some who have sponsored her appearances say that she is generating unnecessary panic and dividing the body of Christ.

Cumbey is particularly vehement toward Sine and Sider, both of whom she says are selling the New Age movement’s political program to the church. “They know exactly what they’re doing,” she says, “or else they’re incredibly naive or stupid.” She hastens to add, “And I don’t think they’re naive or stupid. They could probably tell you more about the movement than I can.” Cumbey’s suspicions of Sider are based largely on his support for a nuclear freeze and his advocation of regular redistribution of wealth as put forth in the Old Testament’s Jubilee principle.

Cumbey’s case, as presented in her book, is marred by questionable reasoning and poor documentation. At one point she equates concern about the earth’s growing population with lack of faith in God. In another place, she writes that the New Age movement has the technology to produce a three-dimensional image in the sky that can be seen by a third of the world at a given time. (They intend to produce the image, thus fulfilling a prophecy found in Rev. 13:13–15.) The movement also has the sound technology to make this image speak in the languages of the people in the areas to which the image is beamed. The only support she offers for this claim is that the information was gleaned from “lighting experts.”

Cumbey’s case against Sine is based on his book, The Mustard Seed Conspiracy, which was named Logos Book of the Year in the inspirational category. The book is used widely at Christian colleges and seminaries. Sine is unaccustomed to defending himself against charges that he is part of a satanic plot. Nevertheless, he assures, for the record, that his Christianity is not fake, as Cumbey alleges, and that he is not steeped in Eastern mysticism. Says Sine, “I would not hesitate to have my book examined by any respected evangelical scholar.”

Part of Cumbey’s case against Sine is his alleged use of New Age “buzz words” such as vision, incarnational, global, network, new age, and spaceship earth. Sine, who is a futurist, explains that he has incorporated into his vocabulary terms commonly used by futurists. “Nobody owns these words,” he says. “The same vocabulary is used by humanists, atheists, and Christians.”

Those she has accused point out that Cumbey made no attempt to seek their perspective before going to press. Cumbey charges that Bread for the World (BFW) has lobbied for a centralized world food supply. Paola Scommegna of BFW acknowledges that the organization has supported the building of food reserves in many nations so that they could handle food emergencies. She says, however, that BFW has never lobbied for a centralized food authority. And she believes the controversy would have been avoided had Cumbey been willing to talk things over.

But those who have taken the initiative to talk with Cumbey have found the going rough. Says Tom Getman, a legislative aide to Hatfield, “She berates you and deluges you with so much information that by the time she’s finished, you feel like an idiot.” He continues, “To treat a potential brother with such disrespect, disdain, and intellectual arrogance is not loving.” Others who have attempted to talk with Cumbey have expressed similar frustrations. Getman concludes, “Her methodology belies her message.”

The Christians Cumbey has implicated in the movement are convinced that her popularity will fade. But they remain concerned—especially those planning for the future—about the damage that could be done in the meantime. Reflecting this concern, Pement writes in Cornerstone: “Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, and none of them should cause us to put down the sickle and take up the spyglass.”

If A Woman Could ‘See’ Her Unborn Baby, Would She Get An Abortion?

Two physicians, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, have suggested that a mother’s viewing of an ultrasound image of her unborn baby can change her mind about abortion. The doctors, John C. Fletcher and Mark I. Evans, say that seeing the image accelerates the bonding that otherwise would not take place until the baby begins to move (at 16–20 weeks). They cite conversations with women intending to abort, who, after seeing images of their babies, changed their minds.

One woman, at a high risk of delivering a seriously defective baby, chose birth over abortion. “It made a difference to see that it was alive,” she said. “I am going all the way with the baby. I believe it is human.”

The physicians said that ultrasound, a relatively new technique, has the potential to become a weapon in the moral battle over abortion.

Most abortions, however, are done before the tenth week of pregnancy, when, Evans believes, the ultrasound image is not clear enough to wield influence. But he said that imaging produces clear pictures after the twelfth week, when roughly 10 percent of all abortions are performed.

Fletcher is a bioethicist for the National Institutes of Health; Evans is a George Washington University obstetrician.

Personalia

Former president of World Vision International, Stanley Mooneyham, has joined the staff of the Larry Jones International missionary group as minister-at-large. Mooneyham has written several books, including For Those Who Struggle and Sea of Heartbreak. He has a broad background in missions and evangelism. Having directed the 1966 World Congress of Evangelism, Mooneyham was one of the founders of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism.

Wesley G. Pippert, Washington reporter for United Press International, has been appointed chief Israel correspondent for the wire service. Pippert and his wife, Rebecca, who is an author, speaker, and national consultant on evangelism for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, will live in Tel Aviv. Pippert covered Watergate, three presidential campaigns, the Carter White House, and Congress during his 16 years in Washington. He is the author of The Spiritual Journey of Jimmy Carter.

After winning the U.S. Open earlier this summer, Larry Nelson told reporters that he often talked to God as he played the final two rounds.

“I prayed between shots, but I prayed for peace,” the golfer said. “I don’t pray to sink putts or hit to the pin. I pray for peace so I can make the shot.”

Nelson won his sixth and greatest victory in storybook style. He shot an unimpressive 75 the first day, giving him a tie for twenty-fifth place. He improved the second day, shooting a 72. Then on Saturday, television cameras began turning his way as he masterfully shot a 65—the best score of the tournament. When rain halted play in the final round, Nelson was tied with Tom Watson at four under par.

Play resumed the next morning with Nelson on the sixteenth tee. His shot landed a disappointing 62 feet from the hole. Then came the most dramatic shot of the tournament—perhaps of the golfing year. His putt rolled downhill over two terraces and curled into the hole. The remarkable shot and subsequent victory interrupted a long slump in Nelson’s career. Since winning his first major championship in 1981, the 35-year-old golfer had not won a tournament.

Nelson’s first Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) Tour win came in 1979 when he brought home a trophy and $54,000 from the Jackie Gleason Inverary Classic. That year he also won the Western Open and was named Most Improved Golfer of 1979 by Golf Digest magazine. Last year he became the thirty-fourth PGA golfer to surpass the million-dollar level in career earnings.

Success as a professional golfer provides opportunities for Nelson to share his faith in Christ. His wife, Gayle, committed her life to Christ in 1975 after hearing Cindy Massengale, wife of golfer Rik Massengale, give her testimony. Nelson was convinced that his wife had met God.

“I could tell that something significant had happened to her,” he said. “We both had earlier acknowledged that something was missing in our lives after hearing Billy Graham at a gathering sponsored by the tour Bible study.”

Two weeks later in a motel, recovering from a neck injury. Nelson reached for a copy of The Living Bible. Billy Graham had said God could be found by reading Romans and the Gospel of John. So Nelson began reading.

“Gayle talked with me about how she had trusted Christ,” he said. “And as I read the Bible I began to understand that I, too, needed him as my personal Savior. So there in the motel I asked Christ into my life.”

Some sportswriters have gone out of their way to be critical of Nelson’s quiet personality. But fellow Christians recognize his deep faith. After speaking to a PGA Tour chapel gathering, Stephen Olford sized Nelson up: “While he is quiet and reserved, he is a man of tremendous strength and unbelievable convictions. Here’s a man you won’t move in his commitment to Christ.”

Ed Mcateer Prepares To Run For U.S. Senate

Ed McAteer, one of the architects of the Religious Right’s rise in political affairs, is preparing to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee.

McAteer, 57, is a Southern Baptist from Memphis and a former sales executive with Colgate Palmolive. He entered political affairs as national field director for the Christian Freedom Foundation and the Conservative Caucus, before founding the Religious Roundtable, a consortium of conservative religious leaders, in 1979.

McAteer coordinated the conservative religious rally in Dallas in August 1980, attended by presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. Reagan acknowledged in his speech there that the conservative leaders could not endorse a specific candidate. Nonetheless, Reagan said, “I endorse you,” thus throwing Christian politics into the focus of the national press.

McAteer, a Republican, says he will formally announce his candidacy in November. He said polls show he has strong name recognition in his home county and throughout the state, and that he is accepted by 26 percent of blacks who know him. His poll also showed that no less than 80 percent of Tennessee voters have personal relationships with Jesus Christ, compared to a national average of about 30 percent.

Deaths

Roger L. Thompson, 35, Southern Baptist missionary, preacher, teacher of Old Testament at Baptist Theological Institute in Quito, Ecuador; July 11, in the worst air disaster in Ecuador’s history, a crash of a Boeing 737 that claimed the lives of 119 people.

Arlan Klingberg, pilot for Mission Aviation Fellowship serving in Irian Jaya (part of the island of New Guinea); July 11, near Sentani, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, after the twin-engine airplane he was piloting went down.

J. W. Montgomery, 88, founder and long-time president of the Bible Study League of America in Columbus, Ohio; July 17. in Greenville, Ohio, of complications stemming from a bout of pneumonia.