Just ten years ago, most evangelical Christians in Germany gave little thought to attending the German Lutheran Church’s biennial convention. But for some time now, evangelicals within the Lutheran church have been trying to reform it.

Their growing influence was evident at this year’s Kirchentag, held last month in Hanover. Translated “Church day,” Kirchentag is a five-day convention that has been held every two years since 1949.

Although groups like Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ have participated in Kirchentag for years, the large-scale evangelical presence at this year’s convention was unprecedented. One of the most popular speakers at the convention was Ulrich Parzany, a German evangelist who has become well known throughout Germany.

But Germany’s evangelicals are split on the issue of whether evangelical participation in Kirchentag is proper. Some believe it would be irresponsible to squander the opportunity to reach thousands with the gospel message—some 140,000 people, mostly young, attended. But a large block of evangelicals prefer to keep Kirchentag at arm’s length because it offers a platform to virtually all theological, religious, and political viewpoints. More than 500 groups set up booths at the “possibilities market” during this year’s Kirchentag.

One of those groups was an evangelical spiritual retreat center called “Krelingen,” which joined with local Evangelical Alliance churches to sponsor evangelistic meetings as part of the possibilities market. Krelingen’s founder, Heinrich Kemner, who was strongly criticized by evangelicals for attending Kirchentag, justified himself by saying, “The church is asleep and snoring, and God’s alarm clock will need to clang loudly before she will awake.”

As has been true at past conventions, the most prominent topics at this year’s Kirchentag were related to politics. Hints of anti-American sentiment were evident. Though noted American peace activists such as John Howard Yoder and Jim Wallis were received warmly, all attempts to defend NATO drew catcalls. The popularity of Ernesto Cardenál, Nicaragua’s minister of culture, suggested that he has become a hero of sorts among Germany’s youth.

The hottest political topic was nuclear arms. For the first time, a mass peace demonstration was incorporated into Kirchentag. Some groups pushed to have an antinuclear statement adopted as a “confessional,” or an official church statement.

Unexpectedly, the issue of abortion also emerged as a major topic of debate. In one incident, an antiabortion group that was attempting to conduct church services was harassed by some 150 feminists hoisting a sign that read, “If Mary would have gotten an abortion, she would have spared us this.”

Evangelist Parzany, during a Bible study, condemned both abortion and the nuclear arms race, criticizing Christians for “selectivity concerning God’s commandments.” But Parzany, who is a pacifist, spoke against the adoption of a pacifist stand as an official statement of the church. “Social ethic issues cannot be allowed to tear us apart,” he said. “In a society ripping apart because of political strife, we can be an example by holding on to one another in love despite our political diffferences.

WILLIAM YODER in Germany

In solid opposition to genetic engineering, some of the country’s most influential Christian leaders have laid theological, doctrinal, and political differences aside. Some 60 such prominent leaders, representing virtually all facets of Christianity, have signed a resolution that calls upon Congress to prohibit genetic engineering of the human germline cells.

The signers include Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell, Sojourners’ Jim Wallis, Southern Baptist Convention president James Draper, and noted evangelical theologians Carl Henry and J. I. Packer. The resolution has been endorsed by almost all leaders of Protestant denominations and by Roman Catholic bishops from every region in the country. This is the first time in this century that such a diverse group of leaders has united in support of a specific piece of social legislation.

The resolution was written by Jeremy Rifkin, director of the Foundation on Economic Trends. In a paper outlining the key arguments behind the resolution, Rifkin suggests that genetic engineering could pose as serious a threat to humanity as nuclear warfare. Rifkin writes that with the arrival of genetic engineering, “humanity approaches a crossroads in its own technological history.”

Rifkin is skeptical of the argument that the potential benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the potential harm. Arguing that part of the strength of the human gene pool is its diversity, Rifkin reasons that tampering with the pool “might ultimately lead to extinction of the human race.”

Rifkin likens contemporary talk of superior genes to Hitler’s dream of an Aryan race. “Today the ultimate exercise of political power is within our grasp … Never before has such complete power over life been a possibility.”

Rifkin continues, “In deciding whether to go ahead or not with human genetic engineering, we must ask ourselves: ‘Who should we entrust with the authority to design the blueprints for the future of the human species? Who do we designate to play God?’ ” Rifkin and the other signers of the resolution hope it will represent a watershed in Christian thinking on science and technology

Construction has begun on the Pentecostal Resource Center, a proposed $2.4 million complex that someday will house a complete array of data on the Pentecostal movement. Set for completion next summer, the center is expected by Church of God officials to be a valuable resource to scholars, researchers, and writers. The building will be located near Church of God headquarters in Cleveland. Tennessee.

A member of the Williamsport, Pennsylvania, school board plans to appeal a recent federal district court ruling in favor of students who want to hold religious meetings on the same basis as other student-initiated clubs (CT, June 17, p. 30). Samuel E. Ericsson of Christian Legal Society, who represents the students, called the appeal decision an answer to prayer. “We believe this is the fact situation that will give higher federal courts the opportunity to address the issue,” he said. The Pennsylvania decision contradicts another federal district court finding, in Lubbock, Texas, which prohibits religious meetings on school grounds.

CBS has refused a challenge to have a January 23 segment of “60 Minutes” examined by an independent panel. The challenge was issued by the National Council of Churches, one of the organizations attacked by “60 Minutes” for alleged support of leftist political organizations. The NCC suggested public arbitration by an impartial panel as a substitute for a court trial. An NCC attorney said arbitration would be the functional equivalent of a trial, but that it would be far less expensive. The NCC is interpreting the CBS decision not to have its practices examined as an admission of guilt.

L. Ron Hubbard lives, says a Riverside California, judge. The ruling was based on a seven-page declaration purportedly written by Hubbard, the reclusive founder of the Church of Scientology. Hubbard’s son, Ronald DeWolf, brought the case to court in an effort to be made trustee of his father’s estate (CT, Feb. 18, 1983). The judge told DeWolf’s lawyer that the declaration made the difference, and he gave him three weeks to disprove its authenticity.

The National Federation for Decency has named the Southland Corporation as June’s “Pornographer of the Month.” According to the NFD’S executive director, Donald Wildmon, 7–11 convenience stores, which are owned by Southland, sell more pornographic magazines than any other retailer in the United States. Wildmon says he met with 7–11 officials and requested that the pornographic magazines be removed. But they told him that the magazines bring in too much money for them to be discontinued. The Pornographer of the Month award is given to companies that advertise in, or distribute, pornographic publications.

Five acres of archeological excavations on the southern flank of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount have been opened to the public. Plans call for the area to be enlarged and incorporated into a national park along the Jerusalem walls.

A recent appeal by President Reagan to Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to halt the planned executions of 22 prominent Bahais, drew a feisty response. “How come you support a bunch of people,” asked the Ayatollah, “whose activities are dictated by their Zionist masters?” The idea behind Bahaism, according to the Iranian press agency, is “to undermine Islam.” At least 150 Bahai men and women have been hanged or shot by the Iranian government since the Ayatollah came to power in 1979.

Evangelist Luis Palau’s campaign in northwestern Mexico at the end of April got a boost from an unlikely source: Marxist politicians. Attacks by two socialist members of the Hermosillo city council on Palau as an agent of American imperialism, and on city mayor Casimiero Navarro for inviting him, backfired. Newspaper, radio, and TV commentators rushed to Palau’s defense, intensifying interest in the “Festival of the Family” sessions in the state gymnasium. More than 3,400 recorded Christian commitments. That, as local coordinator Roberto Mendoza pointed out, is a breathtaking response for a city of 400,000 that before the campaign could muster only 2,500 evangelicals.

Drastic losses in Church of Scotland membership appear to have jolted the Presbyterian body’s annual assembly into considering evangelism. It has lost nearly a quarter of its membership over the last 16 years. Now less than one-fifth of Scots even nominally belong to the Kirk, as it is known. An unofficial “Urgent Call to the Kirk” was circulated, calling for Jesus Christ and his gospel to be restored to the center of the church’s life, and for the reevangelization of Scotland. The document’s signatories formed a remarkable cross section of the denomination, and included three former moderators and the assembly’s principal clerk. Taken by surprise, the assembly responded by instructing presbyteries to plan a strategy for mission within their areas and to prepare proposals for evangelization in Scotland.

Speakers of Hanga, who number 3,000 or more and live in a dozen villages in northern Ghana, in May received the two-hundredth complete indigenous language New Testament from the efforts of the Wycliffe Bible Translators. A couple began living and working among the Hangas in 1971. Production of the New Testament was financed by the World Home Bible League and the International Bible Society.

Since President Robert Mugabe came to power in Zimbabwe with Marxist leanings, he has put a stop to religious education in the public schools. Right? Wrong. It was changed from an elective to a required course, complete with examinations. Ever since then, the Bible Society has been scrambling to supply Bibles to the nation’s primary and secondary schools at a greatly reduced price. So far it has provided 60,000 copies and is attempting to furnish immediately another 20,000 copies. Even so, at least two students will have to share each Bible.

An Orthodox Jewish sect was permitted to worship briefly in a corner of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount in May. The temple precincts house the Muslim Dome of the Rock and other shrines and have remained off limits to non-Muslims since the Israeli occupation of the Old City in 1967. But Israel’s high court ruled that the Faithful of Temple Mount should enter a small corner of the courtyard near the Moghrabi Gate for an hour and a half. Ringed by police, hundreds crowded into the space to commemorate Jerusalem Day, the anniversary of the city’s reunification 16 years earlier. The traditional Jewish worship area at the Western (or Wailing) Wall, whose stones are believed to include the last remains of Herod’s temple, is just outside the temple precincts.

From its beginning four years ago, the Moral Majority has officially clothed itself in nonpartisan garb. In May, however, Jerry Falwell’s operatives were caught letting their Republican slip show by sending out an “urgent” mail-gram designed to disrupt the recent Democratic National Committee fundraising telethon.

“Please help!” the memo began. “Democratic National Committee [DNC] plans to use the telethon to raise between $8 and $10 million to elect liberal, anti-family, pro-homosexual, pro-nuclear freeze, pro-abortion candidates.” Falwell urged his troops to do three things: watch the telethon, call in to “let them know that you support the President and resent their slanted distortions,” and, incidentally, “send a gift of $15 to Moral Majority.” Ann Lewis, political director for the DNC, fielded calls in California during the telethon. “I received four hang-ups or anti-Democratic calls for every pledge,” she said. Computer records show this ratio was approximated across the country. Despite the interference, Lewis said the DNC raised more than $12 million—“more than any other single fundraiser.”

It is not known how many crank calls were incited by the Republican mailing to one million party members, and how many originated with Moral Majority’s list of 100,000 supporters.

“Many of us thought that dirty tricks were behind us,” Lewis said. “When an organization run by a minister deliberately and openly tries to practice sabotage against a political party, it is no wonder people are so cynical about politics and so reluctant to get involved.”

Moral Majority spokesman Cal Thomas is quick to point out, “We are not a Republican organization. A lot of conservative Democrats are with us.” The mailing, confined to states east of the Mississippi because it was sent just three days before the telethon, appears to have been a spur-of-the-moment idea copied from the Republican letter. Thomas said, “We had information that aside from the normal give and take of politics, there were going to be fabrications about the President and the administration.”

Thomas believes political realities, rather than strategy, will cause Moral Majority to appear to side more solidly than ever with Republicans. “In our judgment the Democratic party tragically has been taken over by ultra-left-wing interest groups.”

Christians in Congress who also happen to be Democrats found the incident perturbing, if they knew of it at all. Illinois Democractic Rep. Paul Simon said, “Self-restraint is essential for a free system to work. All of us in both parties ought to respect the rights of each to operate freely and without hindrance.”

Looking ahead to 1984, Moral Majority hopes to broaden its support base and engage more actively in partisan politics through a new political action committee named “I Love America PAC.” Cal Thomas said the group will test the waters of support through a fund-raising effort this month and “wait to see if it strikes a responsive chord” before spelling out its goals. A political action committee may contribute up to $5,000 directly to a candidate running for office, or it can opt for “independent expenditures” such as purchasing advertising space or air time to endorse candidates. Thomas said the group plans to “assess each race independently and see which type of involvement is indicated.”

Whether Moral Majority’s tacit endorsement of Republican policies and candidates will alter the voting behavior of many evangelicals remains to be seen. According to Gallup polls, 57 percent of evangelicals classify themselves as Democrats, compared with 49 percent of the voters at large.

Healing a breach dating from the Civil War, the nation’s two largest Presbyterian bodies were reunited in Atlanta last month, ending 122 years of separation. After three-and-a-half days of simultaneous business sessions in the cavernous World Congress Center, the 987 commissioners (elected delegates) of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPC) and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (PCUS, known as Southern Presbyterians) were joined by a host of fellow Presbyterians and 100 ecumenical delegates in a festive parade to city hall. The throng of 7,500 was greeted by Mayor Andrew Young.

That night—Friday, June 10, at 8:37 P.M.—the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was officially constituted at a Communion service attended by 14,000 and witnessed by thousands more via satellite TV.

The following morning the merged assemblies chose as their first moderator Jay Randolph Taylor, 53, pastor of the Myers Park Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, North Carolina. Taylor named as vice-moderator the black woman who had nominated him, the Reverend Joan Salmon-Campbell, 45, of Philadelphia.

According to George Gallup, Jr., who addressed one of the assembly breakfasts, the newly formed church is now the most evenly distributed of all U.S. denominations. Its 3.2 million members (74 percent from the UPC) make it fourth in size of America’s Protestant bodies. Both the UPC and the PCUS suffered membership losses in 1982 of 36,682 and 8,200 respectively. But the UPC decrease is nearly 10,000 fewer than that of 1981 and the lowest in more than 10 years. Deriving little comfort from that statistic, Robert H. Meneilly, founding pastor of the 7,000-member Village United Presbyterian Church, Prairie Village, Kansas, and chairman of the 1982-created Special Committee on Evangelism and Church Growth, deplored the UPC’s loss of a million members over the past 17 years. He called on the assembly to develop a five-year plan for evangelism. The combined assemblies accepted the challenge, declaring evangelism “a necessary, urgent, and major priority of the Church.”

Despite continuing membership losses, both uniting churches reported increases in both infant and adult baptisms. The UPC has added 319 new congregations since 1977 (42 in 1982); the PCUS organized 76 new churches last year.

In other Atlanta highlights, the assembly endorsed a bilateral nuclear weapons freeze, advocated “full and equal access to contraception and abortion services for all women, regardless of race, age, and economic standing,” with protection of privacy; opposed further Israeli settlements on the West Bank; called for an agreement providing for “Palestinian self-determination in their homeland;” voted (351 to 335) to pray for “born-again” Guatemalan president Ríos Montt and asked the U.S. government to press for human rights in Central America; provided for the appointment of four “recognized conservative evangelicals” as “advisory members” of the new 48-member General Assembly Council; announced the termination of A.D. magazine with the assembly issue; and accorded Martin Luther King, Sr., a prolonged standing ovation after he appealed to commissioners to “love everybody.”

For evangelicals, the assembly news was both good and bad. On the plus side: the new emphasis on evangelism and the provision for evangelical advisers to the General Assembly Council. On the minus side: preoccupation with a host of social and political issues (on which evangelicals themselves may be divided), which consumed most of the assembly’s time and effort and betrayed where the major focus of Presbyterian concern really lies. As the final session drew to a close, a southern commissioner went to a microphone to express anxiety over the reactions of many individuals in churches whose decisions to remain or leave will be determined by the course charted by the assembly for the new denomination. Moderator Taylor had earlier given assurance of his empathy with these troubled conservatives, but he also stressed the need for “affirming” homosexuals. Presbyterians for Lesbian/Gay Concerns was highly visible during the assembly. The organization staffed a booth, dispensed literature, and sponsored a luncheon attended by about 100 and addressed by Kathy Conner, widow of former UPC moderator John Conner. Mrs. Conner expressed hope that the church’s 1978 “definitive guidance” barring the ordination of “unrepentant” homosexuals would not remain “definitive” for long.

JOSEPH HOPKINS in Atlanta

Deciding between a bad nuclear choice and a very bad nuclear choice.

If the United States would disarm unilaterally, a Soviet invasion is almost a foregone conclusion. The world’s freest society would be overtaken by an atheistic, totalitarian regime. But if the nuclear buildup continues, a nuclear holocaust, which history suggests is inevitable, looms ever nearer. Welcome to a fallen world that has ruled out the possibility of choosing a clearly “right” path and has relegated most Christians either to silence or to uneasy support for one of the equally dismal alternatives.

Unlike the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals are firmly divided on the issue of nuclear arms. The evangelical community is home for total pacifists and also for those who believe that the hope of taking the gospel to all the earth rests on the shoulders of American military strength. Nowhere was this clashing of perspectives more evident than at a conference called “The Church and Peacemaking in the Nuclear Age,” held in May in Pasadena, California. Ostensibly, this was the first gathering of evangelicals to discuss the issue of nuclear arms. However, some evangelicals, by apparently avoiding the conference, expressed their view that this issue does not belong on the list of evangelical priorities.

The idea for the conference originated in 1979 with two students at Fuller Theological Seminary who were trying to find their own ways through this complex issue. Recognizing that the evangelical voice is not consolidated, organizers tried to provide for an equal airing of all positions. Moderator Vernon Grounds, former president of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary, remarked on opening night, “Nobody anticipates that his or her ideas will be changed.” Grounds had accurately anticipated the tone of what was to come.

More than 1,300 people came from 34 states. Some came still grappling, others with views already solidified. All were asked to consign their opinions to the marketplace and to reconsider them yet another time. The magnanimity of the issue cast an air of intensity over the proceedings. As cherished views were challenged by major conference speakers and by those leading the 115 workshops, some were moved to tears and some to anger. From the podium, Grounds exhorted people to be careful to demonstrate in their personal conduct the peacemaking they were seeking.

Outspoken advocates of pacifism included Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, and Jim Wallis, editor of the controversial Sojourners magazine. Advocates of a “peace-through-stength” position included Ed Robb, chairman of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, radio evangelist David Breese, U. S. Sen. William Armstrong (R-Col.), and retired air force Gen. Robert Mathis.

Essentially, the conference provided a forum for another in a long tradition of debates between Christian pacifists, who reject lethal violence in any form, and just-war advocates, who emphasize that government is ordained by God to police injustice. However, the contemporary staging of this centuries-old debate is being colored by two significant developments.

First, pacifists, who have traditionally been separatists, are seeking to have their views adopted as at least evangelical policy, if not national policy. It is this attempt, and not the pacifist tradition itself, that most peace-through-strength advocates find troublesome. A second key development is the growing realization among just-war theorists that the use of nuclear arms, because of the nature of nuclear conflict, cannot meet the criteria demanded by traditional just-war theory. These criteria include: reasonable hope for success, guaranteed safety for noncombatants, and the expectation that the resulting good will outweigh the necessary “evil.”

Just-war advocates continue to uphold the essential goodness of just-war doctrine. As Wheaton College philosopher Arthur Holmes observed, “If everyone subscribed to just-war theory, there would be no war.” But the more pragmatic among the just-war theorists acknowledge that the tradition, noble as it is, has failed to prevent armed conflict, even between Christians. And they know further that if mankind fails once more to prevent a major war, it could mean the annihilation of the earth.

And so the just-war camp is split three ways. Some are leaning toward pacifism (unilateral nuclear disarmament) as the lesser of two evils. Others are embracing a peace-through-strength position for the same reason. But most, it appears, are feeling the tugs from both directions and aren’t quite sure what to do.

Perhaps more significant than the range of views is that both sides met to discuss them. Calvin College philosophy professor Richard Mouw called the conference “long overdue,” stating the issue has been far more divisive to Christians than “a discussion of infant versus adult baptism or free will versus predestination.” Mouw criticized evangelicals intent on having creation taught in public schools for not operating within the context of a creation ethic, one that teaches stewardship of the earth God created. But not all evangelicals agree that the issue of nuclear arms belongs on the agenda.

Robert Dugan, executive director of the National Association of Evangelicals, one of the conference’s 41 sponsoring or affiliate organizations, said that some well-known evangelicals, even up to the final weeks prior to the conference, urged the NAE to pull out. But Dugan and the NAE refused. Dugan guaranteed that the NAE would remain neutral, but he insisted the nuclear arms discussion should be a priority issue for evangelicals.

Conference organizers emphasized that most who turned down invitations to speak had legitimate schedule conflicts. But they suggested that for others, “schedule conflict” may have been a euphemism to mask their concern about the conference tilting toward pacifism. As it turned out, the suspicions were self-fulfilling—because some skeptics chose not to take part, the conference was weighted in favor of pacifism.

Peace-through-strength advocates Breese and Robb said they were convinced conference organizers did their best to provide for a balanced expression of views. “It’s our own fault that we’re underrepresented,” Robb said. Inasmuch as the need for scriptural justification is at the heart of the controversy, the peace-through-strength position was hurt most by the absence of an outspoken theologian or Bible scholar.

The most thoroughly developed case for pacifism came from theologian Sider, who emerged at the conference as a bridge between the political liberals and conservatives. Because of Sider’s constant emphasis on evangelism, his commitment to Scripture, and his humble willingness to consider other views, he is highly respected by those with whom he disagrees. Yet he champions the causes of the “evangelical Left,” asserting that, despite skepticism from the Right, the Left is just as concerned as he about evangelism and upholding the authority of the Bible.

Sider opts for what he calls “the way of the cross.” He emphasizes that Jesus rejected the role of military messiah and opted instead for a life of peace. Sider reasons that God responded to his enemies by loving them even to the point of dying on the cross. And God told all who would follow him to love their enemies as he did. Thus, Sider suggests that those who do not follow the way of the cross have an incomplete view of the Atonement.

Sider believes his argument is based on Scripture, and is pragmatic. He argues that history reveals that bigger and better weapons have always ultimately meant less security, not more. He advocates a bilateral nuclear freeze but points out that efforts to negotiate such a freeze have failed thus far and, he suspects, will continue to fail. Sider says that unless there is a major peace revival, “I have virtually no hope that my children and yours will not be killed in a major nuclear war in the next 25 years.” He believes the U.S. should embark on a fundamentally different path. That new path is civilian-based defense. He proposes that the U.S. channel money now being spent on nuclear arms into a massive program to educate its citizens in the methods of nonviolent, noncooperative self-defense, principles espoused by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sider, who calls Soviet totalitarianism a “ghastly evil,” believes that if the U.S. would disarm, the Soviets would almost surely invade and that thousands would likely be tortured and killed. But he says, “If hundreds of thousands of committed, praying Christians died in a [nonviolent campaign], I predict we would see the most rapid expansion of the Christian faith the world has ever known.

Supporters of a peace-through-strength position follow a line of reasoning totally different from Sider’s. They argue that society, as such, cannot be saved. Says Breese, “The world is under judgment because it has not believed,” and “no discussion of peace is related to reality which does not consider man’s lack of peace with God.” They reason that the world will find peace only insofar as the world’s citizens find the Peacemaker, Jesus. The goal of the church, then, is to take Christ to the world. Peace-through-strength advocates point to the Soviet Union’s goal of world conquest, and to its Marxist atheism. They conclude that Christians have the obligation to support efforts to preserve spiritual opportunity so that people may choose Christ and the church can carry out its biblically prescribed mission.

Those who advocate peace through strength heartily disagree with Sider’s understanding of Scripture, and on this point they have the considerable backing of just-war scholarship. Noted Bible scholar John Stott, in expounding Romans 12 and 13, argued powerfully for the legitmacy of the state exercising violence to restrain evil.

Theologian R. C. Sproul, who was not at the conference, faults Sider for dismissing too quickly the argument in Romans 13 and for attempting universal application of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Sproul affirms that Christians are called to be peacemakers, but adds that Sider’s argument for the way of the cross is a simplistic application of the biblical mandate to follow Jesus. “Surely we are called to do what Jesus said,” says Sproul, “but not to be who Jesus is.”

Sproul concludes that to disarm unilaterally would be “suicide and totally irresponsible.” But he acknowledges that if the current path is followed, the result will be “suicide postponed,” that nuclear holocaust would be “inevitable apart from the restraint of God.”

But peace-through-strength advocates reject the pacifist argument that the major choice today is between existence and nonexistence. They want, and believe they can have, both life and freedom. Senator Armstrong suggested a possible alternative. He criticized the last four decades of American nuclear arms policy, deterrence. He suggested that a strategy based on defense, not retaliation, is a way out of the moral dilemma. Armstrong cited the Reagan-proposed “high frontier” satellite defense system as an example of a sound solution.

Generally, those who favor peace through strength maintain that the best policy is a continued strong stance against the Soviet Union, combined with creative negotiating aimed at softening the hearts of men.

For many, the conference raised more questions than it provided answers. Stott offered an engaging Bible exposition, but he stopped short of offering solutions, stating only that somehow two clear biblical principles—one calling for evil to be overcome with good; the other calling for evil to be punished—had to be harmonized. Perhaps this moral ambiguity was captured best by Mathis, who said, “Sometimes the choice is between a bad and a very bad,” or by Wheaton College’s Holmes, who asked rhetorically, “What tough moral questions have easy answers?”

Conference organizers were disappointed by what they considered poor attendance despite a massive promotional campaign. They were expecting 2,000 and got only about 1,400. Also, Fuller’s Roberta Hestenes expressed surprise at how uninformed registrants were on issues related to nuclear arms.

But the conference, organizers hope, is only the beginning. The leadership that gathered in Pasadena intended to send the message to the evangelical community that its social agenda should include an awareness campaign on the issue of the arms race. The Christian College Coalition, which represents more than 70 Christian colleges across the country, has been granted the authority by the conference board of directors to coordinate this campaign. The coalition has guaranteed it will continue in the spirit of the Pasadena conference by maintaining neutrality.

In his closing remarks, Fuller president David Hubbard warned that the mistakes of history must not be repeated, that this issue must not be allowed to control the evangelical agenda. He urged a continuing emphasis on evangelism. Time will tell whether evangelicals will respond to the message they’ve been given. Those already familiar with the issue of nuclear arms are aware of its intricacies. Its complexity is fostered by the realization that so much of the argument from both sides seems so right—or, perhaps, so wrong.

RANDY FRAME, in Pasadena

After 25 years, Ramsey Michaels is out at Gordon-Conwell Seminary.

“Nowhere is biblical scholarship so polarized as over the question of the historical Jesus,” J. Ramsey Michaels wrote as the opening words of his book Servant and Son. Partly as a result of the polarization caused by his book, Michaels resigned his position as professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a position he had held for 25 years.

Michaels has been a brilliant but controversial professor at this suburban Boston evangelical seminary. In fact, Gordon-Conwell has had a tradition of controversial New Testament scholars. Over the past 15 years, two or more New Testament professors have resigned, at least in part because the trustees, administration, and faculty senate felt their approach to the Bible violated the seminary’s statement of faith.

That statement includes belief in the Bible as “inspired of God, hence free from error” (Article 1) and in Jesus Christ, who “lived a sinless life” and united in one person “divine and human natures” (Article 4).

It is these two articles that the board of trustees and faculty senate felt had been violated by Michaels’s most recent book.

Published in late 1981 by John Knox Press, Servant and Son is a scholarly effort to include in the “new quest for the historical Jesus” something of what Jesus tells us about himself and his beliefs. It attempts to avoid the traps into which nineteenth-century liberalism fell when it turned Jesus into either a religious fanatic (Albert Schweitzer) or someone about whom we know almost nothing (Bultmann). Michaels’s study of the Gospels produces, however, a Jesus in many ways as different from that of traditional Christianity as that of the liberalism he eschews.

The contents of Michaels’s book were already a topic of conversation and concern among Gordon’s trustees early last year. Long before that, however, the question of the relationship between the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible and such methods of interpreting the New Testament as form and redaction criticism had been debated at length. Part of that debate was edited by Michaels and Roger Nicole, senior professor of theology, and published as Inerrancy and Common Sense (Baker, 1980).

That book did not end the internal debate, however. Not much later Nicole published a booklet, Inerrancy at Gordon-Conwell, in which he calls for a “hermeneutic of inerrancy” that puts limits on the use of form and redaction criticism. (Form criticism characteristically speaks of three stages through which the individual stories in the Gospels passed—the setting in the life of Jesus, the setting in the life of the early church, and the adaptations made by the individual Gospel writers. Redaction criticism is the biblical discipline that studies the ways the Gospel writers edited their material.)

One June 11, 1982, the executive committee of the board of trustees met and directed President Robert E. Cooley to formulate a process that would evaluate Michaels’s hermeneutical method and determine whether it was in harmony with the seminary’s statement of faith.

Numerous sessions with Michaels, other members of the Gordon-Conwell faculty, and the 11-member academic affairs and 13-member executive committees of the board of trustees followed over a period of six months. The board of trustees then turned the information over to the faculty senate on January 14. In addition to Nicole, this body consisted of Royce G. Gruenler (New Testament), Robert E. Fillinger (Christian education), Douglas Stuart (Old Testament), Wesley A. Roberts (church history), David F. Wells (historical and systematic theology), and Stephen Charles Mott (Christian social ethics).

By a 6-to-1 decision, with Mott writing the minority report, the senate decided that Michaels’s book was not consistent with the seminary’s statement of faith. After a two-hour interview with the Harvard-trained author it admitted that he “personally holds fully to the GCTS statement of faith.” Nevertheless, it regretfully reached four conclusions and listed specific passages from Servant and Son to back them up:

• The book contains some statements that violate the doctrine of inerrancy “in that they appear to aver that something asserted in Scripture as historical may not in fact have occurred as represented in the Gospel record.” One of the five passages cited refers to “the discrepancies between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics” concerning who saw the Holy Spirit descending as a dove—Jesus, John the Baptist, or both. Michaels concluded, “If John the Baptist actually had received such an unmistakable personal revelation, it would likely be reflected in the Gospel tradition more than it is.”

• The book contains other assertions that “state or imply that certain things presented in Scripture in an historical manner are only probably true, and/or merely reflect the attitude of the Gospel writers or their intended audience rather than the original events, conversations, discourses or interpretations they purport to record.” Two of the passages again refer to the account of John’s baptism of Jesus in the fourth Gospel. Michaels says we are not “dealing with a strictly historical assertion” and that it is “precarious” to use John 1:32–34 “as conclusive evidence that John the Baptist saw the sign of the dove and confessed faith in Jesus at his baptism.” Rather, “Jesus and Jesus alone saw the Spirit in the form of a dove at his baptism, and only Jesus heard the voice of God.”

• The “general tone and faint assertions” of the book “raise doubts as to Professor Michaels’s own commitment to inerrancy,” in that it makes the Gospel writers appear to have so modified the historical materials that they are remote from the events described. The senate majority cited a dozen passages from the book, one of which says of Matthew’s and Luke’s version of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, “Whether it is a literal account of what happened on one particular occasion in the desert, or whether it is the distillation of a conflict Jesus experienced again and again throughout his ministry, is neither possible, nor necessary for the reader to decide with certainty.”

• The book so emphasizes the humanity of Jesus that it does not sufficiently reflect Michaels’s faith in the deity of Christ. Michaels, for example, argues that Jesus shared the racial exclusivism of his people until the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30) opened his eyes to a universal outlook. The Lord’s Prayer was Jesus’ own prayer originally, including the petition for the forgiveness of sins. “This is possible because he identified himself fully and radically with his people in all their sinfulness.”

In his five-page dissenting opinion, Mott argues that Servant and Son neither asserts that there are errors in Scripture nor denies the deity of Christ.

Cooley then communicated the findings to Michaels and asked for his response. On March 25 Michaels wrote to Cooley accepting the findings of the faculty senate and affirming “without hesitancy or qualification” his belief in “the total inerrancy of Scripture and the full deity, as well as humanity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He noted, however, that the senate’s understanding of the seminary’s statement of faith “implies a greater restriction on certain historical and critical methods than I and some of my colleagues had previously thought.” He also observed that though the senate “assumed the guidelines needed for biblical interpretation,” it did not attempt to spell them out positively.

Cooley then informed Michaels that he would “prepare a letter of dismissal for cause which could result in termination of contract.” On April 2, however, “after much prayer and personal struggle,” Michaels sent Cooley his letter of resignation. He indicated that he had changed his mind about accepting the senate’s decision. “I now realize,” he wrote, “that more is at stake in the issues that divide us than I had first thought—nothing less, in fact, than the true humanity and historicity of Jesus Christ.”

On April 5 Cooley accepted Michaels’s resignation and assured him that according to customary academic procedure, his resignation would not be effective until July 1984, though he would have no further teaching or faculty responsibilities for the 1983–84 academic year. Full salary and fringe benefits were guaranteed, whether or not Michaels accepted another position during that year. Cooley applauded Michaels for “a most outstanding Christian spirit” throughout “extremely difficult days for you, as well as for the faculty and seminary administration.”

News of the resignation spread rapidly among the many Gordon-Conwell alumni. On April 13 Michaels wrote “Why I Resigned,” a one-page explanation that cited “irreconcilable differences with the executive committee of the board of trustees” concerning “the humanity and historicity of Jesus Christ, and the legitimacy of studying the Gospels historically.” The senators, he wrote “in effect prohibit any use of the historical-critical method at Gordon-Conwell in the study of the Gospels.” “The decision,” he added, “commits the faculty essentially to the hermeneutic of Harold Lindsell, the chairman of our board of trustees.” (Lindsell, former editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY and author of The Battle for the Bible, is well-known for his defense of inerrancy.)

On April 28 President Cooley wrote to all the alumni of Gordon-Conwell and enclosed a letter from Roger Nicole summarizing the actions of the faculty senate. That letter speaks of Michaels as a close friend and colleague, but criticizes what he calls a “kind of fluttering hermeneutic, by which, under the guise of historical reconstruction, some interpreters take the liberty of second-guessing the psychological motivation of the human authors of Scripture and/or the people whose lives and utterances they report.” He added, “This is a very real threat in the evangelical constituency at large and not simply at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.”

Jerry B. Jenkins has been named manager of the publishing division of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Jenkins, 33, had been director of Moody Press since 1981. He is a former editor of Moody Monthly magazine and the author of more than 30 books, including biographies of B. J. Thomas, Henry Aaron, and Walter Payton.

Evangelist Ruth Carter Stapleton, sister of former President Jimmy Carter, has been diagnosed as having cancer of the pancreas. The news of her illness led to a private family reunion last month. Stapleton has rejected conventional medical treatment. She says she will rely on God, a strict diet, and exercise to heal her.

John Alexander MacKay, 94, president emeritus of Princeton Theological Seminary and a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.; June 9, at Meadow Lakes Retirement Community in Hights-town, New Jersey, of natural causes.

Are tax exemptions really like cash grants from the government?

If a church refuses to ordain women because it sincerely believes men should lead, could its tax-exempt status be removed? Critics of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny tax exemption to Bob Jones University believe the answer may be yes.

When the court ruled against BJU and the Goldsboro Christian Schools because of their racially discriminatory policies, it based its decision on a completely new criterion for determining if an organization qualifies for tax exemption. The new measure of worth is conformity to public policy—in this case, racial equality. Samuel E. Ericsson of the Christian Legal Society reads the ruling this way: “For the first time, the Supreme Court has decided that the government is free to tax unpopular religious beliefs, no matter how sincere those beliefs may be.”

In the BJU case, overwhelming public consensus against discrimination by race seemed pivotal. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote for the majority, “The government has a fundamental overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this nation’s history. That government interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioner’s exercise of their religious beliefs.”

None who came to Bob Jones’s defense advocated racial discrimination. Instead, they became alarmed at the implications of the case for religious freedom, as well as for the rights of thousands of secular nonprofit groups—from Friends of the Earth to the National Right to Life Committee—to operate tax free. Lawyers siding with Bob Jones argued that the school policies in question, including a rule that prohibits interracial dating and marriage, arise from sincere beliefs that demand First Amendment protection no matter how unpopular they are.

William Bentley Ball, who represented BJU in court after he was convinced their position was not based on covert racism, believes the outcome means “religious bodies, if they are to enjoy tax exemption, must lock-step themselves to public policy even if it violates conscience and doctrine.” The hypothetical case of a court challenge based on sex discrimination is not farfetched in principle, and would certainly occur if the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution were passed. Legal experts say this would mandate equality of the sexes, and to avoid being snared in court, churches would need a specific, legislated reprieve from the policy.

Dean M. Kelley, religious liberty expert at the National Council of Churches, said the same reasoning may apply toward churches that counsel or condone members who resist the draft. Ericsson believes groups that actively oppose abortion may be jeopardized because, since 1973, abortion on demand has been accepted public policy.

In its BJU decision, the Supreme Court included two footnotes intended to prevent such aggressive applications of its reasoning. One footnote confines the decision only to educational institutions, excluding churches. The other limits the “public policy” criterion to widely agreed-upon norms that are beyond dispute. Questions are being raised, though, about whether this affords adequate protection from litigation. Forest Montgomery, counsel for the National Association of Evangelicals, said, “The court has tried to chain the tiger, but lawyers will try to run with it anyway.”

Concern about religious freedom has been heightened as well by another Supreme Court decision handed down the day before the BJU ruling. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice William Rehnquist—the only one to dissent from the BJU ruling—the Court referred to tax exemption as a form of government subsidy. Rehnquist wrote, “A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income.”

To Dean Kelley, this is an ominous turn of events. He said “henceforward tax-exempt organizations will have to justify exemption as though it were a subsidy” by proving that they serve a public purpose and do not violate public policy. “That poses some serious problems for churches,” Kelley said. “The most alarming possible conclusion is that if exemption is a subsidy, then churches are not entitled to it at all.” However, the court has found previously that churches are entitled to exemption.

The Constitution prohibits church-state entanglement, and this is the reason churches have always been exempt from taxes. Ericsson of the Christian Legal Society said the concept is that state and church are in two separate spheres, where neither may hold sway over the other. Ericsson believes the trend is toward the state becoming “the owner of the public good” rather than “the guardian of the public good.”

The BJU decision may be opportune for those, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, who already oppose church tax exemption across the board. Ball says the court’s new perspective on exemption may “release a new wave of anti-church legal activity” and deserves a swift “counterpunch” from church groups.

Concern about the broader implications of the decision is not limited to separatists, fundamentalists, or even conservatives. In a Washington Post opinion column, staff court reporter Fred Barbash wrote that the Supreme Court’s rationale “gives the federal judiciary a creative license with unlimited possibilities for the exercise of judicial power.” The American Baptist Churches and the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs pointed out in a friend-of-the-court brief that “the state has no role to play in establishing criteria for fellowship and … cannot force its way into such a role through threatening the loss of tax exemption.”

A lower court had determined that BJU was primarily a religious, rather than educational, institution. This finding set off alarm bells among numerous advocates of church-state separation, and the fact that the Supreme Court virtually ignored this aspect of the case disturbed them greatly.

At BJU, president Bob Jones III reacted to the decision by saying, “From now on we are living in an age where the church is merely tolerated if it serves the government’s purpose. Our nation from this day forward is no better than Russia insofar as being able to expect the blessing of God.”

The school teaches a form of fundamentalism that places great emphasis on separation from those who hold different beliefs, and they tend to interpret the Bible in ways with which few other Christians fully agree. Until 1975, blacks were not admitted to the school. Now, a policy prohibits interracial dating by students or faculty and excludes people involved in mixed-race marriages. Spokesmen for the school say they believe Scripture commands racial purity. At the Goldsboro Christian Schools, which also were part of the case, blacks are still not admitted.

BJU tax troubles began in 1971, when the Internal Revenue Service denied tax exemptions to about 100 private schools that discriminate by race. These schools, along with hundreds of thousands of other nonprofit groups, are classified by the IRS as 501(c)(3) institutions (from the section of the IRS code that describes them), exempt from paying federal tax and able to receive tax-deductible contributions from their supporters.

When Congress declared the guidelines for this classification, it did not specify that a tax-exempt group must adhere to a nondiscrimination policy. The Supreme Court construed that “congressional intent” despite congressional silence on the subject, saying that “ratification by implication” was clear due to other legislation that condemns racial discrimination. This leap of logic troubled Justice Lewis F. Powell. Jr., who concurred with the majority but wrote a separate statement. “The contours of public policy should be determined by Congress, not by judges or the IRS,” Powell wrote.

The loss by BJU represents an unquestioned gain for the cause of racial equality, but to arrive there, the Court appears to have trampled upon the freedom of other tax-exempt groups to believe and act on unpopular convictions.

BETH SPRING

The Bob Jones ruling strikes against religious freedom, and the abortion decision devastates the right-to-life movement.

An article on the Bob Jones decision follows this article.

The Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to opponents of abortion when it ruled last month that state laws restricting abortion-on-demand are unconstitutional. The six-to-three ruling reaffirmed the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. The ruling also extended the 1973 decision considerably by nullifying state laws that require women to be hospitalized for late abortions, to be informed about fetal development, and to be given a 24-hour waiting period before going through with the operation.

However, leading the dissent was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote a strongly worded rebuttal in which she challenges the underpinnings of the 1973 ruling and points out that it is “clearly on a collision course with itself” due to advances in medical technology. The health risks of later abortions are being reduced, she said, yet at the same time, premature babies are surviving at much higher rates, and surgical procedures on the unborn are becoming commonplace.

Leaders of the right-to-life movement, most of whom opposed O’Connor’s 1981 appointment, praised her decisive stance, one which has brought biting criticism from women’s rights groups. Five of the six justices forming the majority in this ruling are at least 75 years old, and prolife leaders believe just a few more Reagan appointments to the Court could completely alter its stand on the issue.

For the present, though, prolifers concede that prospects for the unborn are grimmer than ever. More clinics will be licensed to do more abortions, and at cheaper rates than have been paid for late abortions in hospitals. There are about 450 abortion clinics in the United States, performing most of the 1.5 million abortions each year. About half of these clinics belong to the National Abortion Federation. NAF public affairs director Jane Gruenebaum said, “We are very pleased with this decision. It will enhance health care for women.”

Under the provisions of an Akron, Ohio, city ordinance—as well as laws in about 20 other states—abortion clinics were not permitted to perform abortions after the first three months of pregnancy. The Akron ordinance also includes the other restrictions found to be unconstitutional, and it was the Court’s primary focus in this ruling. Of secondary importance were Missouri and Virginia laws that had run up against successful court challenges in their jurisdictions (CT, Sept. 3, 1982, p. 68).

Basing its reasoning on medical state-of-the-art evidence, the Court found that requiring hospitalization “imposed a heavy and unnecessary burden on women’s access to a relatively inexpensive, otherwise accessible, and safe abortion procedure. [It] has the effect of inhibiting the vast majority of abortions after the first trimester and therefore unreasonably infringes upon a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.”

The perspective in the prolife movement is far different. Christian Action Council spokesman Norman Bendroth said this reasoning favors “assembly-line abortion clinics” over the rights of women and the unborn. “Now states will have to license facilities not able to handle emergency situations,” he predicts. Although the ruling dealt specifically with laws in three states, all similar state laws have been effectively nullified.

The O’Connor dissent faults the majority’s reasoning on the hospitalization requirement because it blurs the clear 1973 distinction drawn between the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. “The Court’s framework forces legislatures, as a matter of constitutional law, to speculate about what constitutes ‘accepted medical practice’ at any given time. Without the necessary expertise or ability, courts must then pretend to act as science review boards.”

In perhaps her most significant statement, O’Connor pointed out the fallacies of a court trying to determine arbitrarily when state interests in protecting life begin to supersede a mother’s “right to privacy.” She wrote, “Potential life is no less potential in the first weeks of pregnancy than it is at viability or afterward. At any stage in pregnancy, there is the potential for human life.… Accordingly, I believe that the state’s interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy.”

The right-to-life movement is increasingly concerned with the women whom they see as victims of easy abortion, and its spokesmen are deeply grieved about the Court’s ruling against “informed consent” provisions. In the Akron ordinance, these included requirements that physicians tell their patients about the unborn child’s physical development, appearance, and sensitivity to pain, as well as the complications that an abortion may cause and the alternative of adoption. The Court ruled that these state requirements are “designed not to inform the woman’s consent but rather to persuade her to withhold it altogether.”

The majority ridiculed the provisions as “a parade of horribles” and objected because they intrude upon “the discretion of the pregnant woman’s physician.” Similarly, a 24-hour waiting period required by the Akron ordinance was found unconstitutional, mainly because it would increase the expense of an abortion by requiring two separate visits to the hospital or clinic. The decision assumes that “in accordance with the ethical standards of the profession, a physician will advise the patient to defer the abortion when he thinks this will be beneficial to her.”

Nancyjo Mann, president of Women Exploited by Abortion (WEBA) was outraged by this part of the decision. Before her abortion in 1974, Mann recalls being told by her doctor that the procedure would involve removing some fluid, adding some fluid, her experiencing cramps and then expelling the fetus. “I was never told,” Mann said, “that for an hour and a half I would feel my daughter thrash around violently while she was being choked, poisoned, burned, and suffocated to death” by a saline solution. Within a year, Mann had to have a complete hysterectomy because of complications from her abortion, ending her ability to bear children.

Her work with WEBA puts Mann in touch with thousands of women in 26 states who bitterly regret their abortions. She estimates that if informed consent provisions were legal, the abortion rate would drop 80 percent. Gruenebaum, at the National Abortion Federation, countered by saying, “Our facilities spend a considerable amount of time explaining the procedure. We believe very strongly in spending time with women. We opposed the informed consent provisions before the court because they were, in many cases, untruthful and biased.”

The court also ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to require parental consent for abortions desired by girls under age 15, because this makes “a blanket determination that all minors under the age of 15 are too immature to make an abortion decision.” The Akron ordinance required physicians to dispose of aborted babies in “a humane and sanitary manner,” and this too was found to be unconstitutional.

This sweeping ruling establishes abortion as a “fundamental right” that cannot be burdened by any sort of intermediate regulation. To Douglas Johnson at the National Right to Life Committee, it “demonstrates the extremism of the court on abortion. It underscores the need for congressional action and the appointment of judges who will not impose their extremism on the nation.” For prolifers, it is expected to add momentum to a stymied effort to pass legislation declaring that life begins at conception, or a constitutional amendment to overturn the 1973 ruling.

“We need to stick Roe v. Wade under the court’s nose,” said Bendroth, of Christian Action Council. “They didn’t really face up to the humanity of the unborn and won’t until Congress tells them they erred in 1973.”

BETH SPRING

Youth for Christ/South Africa was formed 20 years ago in the image of English-speaking whites. Its strength was that it was not a U.S. export, but shaped by strong South African leadership. The other side of that coin was that it mirrored the dominant culture of the land.

Jay Kesler, president of Youth for Christ/USA, recalls visiting the YFC camp back then. The campers were all white, and none pulled kitchen police duty. Instead, black young people their own age waited on tables and maintained the premises.

The campers took an offering to provide tips. The leadership considered the resulting amount too generous and, so as not to “spoil the Africans,” diverted part of it to missions projects. The balance was delivered to the domestic staff in a ceremony in which the campers sang their choruses and the blacks alternately responded with theirs. Then each black knelt, extended both hands, and received his gratuity.

This year Kesler again attended a camp session and observed that all that paternalism had been swept away. The 600 campers were a blend of whites of both English and Afrikaner backgrounds (about 350), blacks (about 200), coloreds (or mixed race, about 50), and a few Indians. Some cross-racial romance was in evidence, and the camp leadership was not uptight about it.

In general, the white youth were more relaxed, their frayed cutoffs displaying the same “sloppy chic” that characterizes North American teens. The black youth, by contrast, obviously felt under pressure to measure up. They rose early to press their clothes and groom.

Mixed camping is a violation of apartheid regulations, which are less rigorously enforced on private property than in public places. Such testing of the limits demonstrates how far one youth movement has come in two decades.

The campground is regularly made available to black groups. And YFC staff use it as the site for a series of government-sponsored, two-week-long leadership courses throughout the school year. Ninety prefects at a time are sent from the 54 black high schools of Soweto. (Prefects are appointed seniors who, following the British pattern, are responsible to the school administration for student discipline and function as mediators between the students and faculty.) These courses are probably seen by the authorities as a means of taming black youth, but YFC has freedom to present its Christian perspective and does not feel compromised by the arrangement.

YFC now has a colored South African on its board, a mixed staff (who room together at annual staff conferences), and mixed student evangelistic teams. Kesler says he would judge that white South African Christian youth and adults are doing better at integration in the church than their North American counterparts. He sees the youth as somewhat weary of political discussion but attempting to exert a positive influence at the personal level.

An all-black youth ministry that works closely with YFC but has decided to keep a separate identity is Youth Alive. It was begun in 1960 by American missionaries Al and Lorry Lutz, who were squeezed out of teaching when the government assimilated mission schools, and a South African black former boxer, Jerry Nkosi, who was looking for sponsors for youth work in Soweto.

They teamed up and started five or six clubs in various parts of the sprawling township. In 1973 Youth Alive hived off from the mission that gave it initial help and established its own all-blackboard.

Leadership is now in the hands of a product of the clubs, Ceasar Molebatsi. He returned to Soweto from advanced training overseas at the height of the 1976 riots over Afrikaans-language education in the black schools. From that moment on, Caesar has walked the fine line of maintaining empathy with youthful aspirations without getting cornered into taking overt political positions. Caesar’s friendly good humor has opened doors for him in South Africa’s white churches.

Youth Alive now has about 1,000 youth actively involved in its clubs and a full-time staff of seven. It has groups in at least 50 of the 60 senior- and junior-high schools that educate Soweto’s 75,000 students. It conducts its own assemblies in the schools, complete with altar calls. And it reaches out aggressively with an array of activities.

This last Easter holiday week, for instance, it brought 60 youth to its center in the mornings for training in evangelism, and then organized afternoon games in Soweto’s dusty sandlots, with open-air evangelism worked in. Also, some 1,000 youths were contacted for the first time at a weekend coffee-bar effort, and 150 of those are now being followed up.

Gospel teams are also trained to go into South Africa’s homelands—areas split away from (white) South Africa for different black tribes. A Youth Alive branch has been established in the Kwazulu homeland, with seven clubs and more than 700 students active in them. Permission to build a youth training center there is being sought.

Leadership training, according to Lorry Lutz (now with Christian Nationals Evangelism Commission of San Jose, California, an agency that substantially funds Youth Alive), is the key ingredient in Youth Alive’s successful format. A continual round of leadership workshops and retreats lays the groundwork. Youth are drafted to help run the clubs, with adult staff keeping a low profile. Youth Alive has then gone into the churches of Soweto, where youth programs have been virtually nonexistent, and persuaded pastors to accept a youth work intern who will receive continuing Youth Alive guidance. As a result, the township’s churches are increasingly relying on young adults who got their first taste of leading in the clubs.

One controversial student leader says yes.

BARBARA R. THOMPSON¹Barbara R. Thompson is a free-lance writer from Brevard, North Carolina. She is a coauthor with F. Kefa Sempangi of A Distant Grief (Regal, 1979).

In the midst of increasing polarization and escalating tensions, a new generation of South African student leaders is grappling with poignant and perplexing questions that threaten to plunge South Africa into civil war.

Among these student leaders is Chris Swart, a graduate of the University of Capetown and the former president of a unique South African student organization: the Student Union for Christian Action (SUCA). Swart is a Rhodes scholar, currently studying political science at Magdalen College, Oxford, England.

The Student Union for Christian Action is a bold South African experiment in nonracial and cross-cultural relationships. Begun in 1979 to address concerns expressed by Christian students at the South African Christian Leadership Assembly (SACLA), today the union—purely a student-run movement—includes more than 400 black and Afrikaans-and English-speaking white student leaders from almost every campus in South Africa. Although a newcomer compared to the established Students YMCA and the Students Christian Association, it is the only student organization to cut across racial and cultural barriers, and is growing in spite of harassment by the South African government. With encouragement from evangelical leaders such as evangelist Michael Cassidy, members of SUCA have committed themselves to communicating a simple truth: blacks and whites can live and work together in peace.

Mr. Swart speaks here in his personal capacity; his views do not necessarily represent all SUCA members.

What prompted student leaders to form the Student Union for Christian Action?

There is a desperate need in South Africa for students to come together as Christians and look for solutions to the political and social problems that are tearing our country apart. After meeting at SACLA in 1979, we felt that if our commitment to Jesus Christ was solid, we could work together despite the terrible tensions between our respective cultures. We hope to be an alternative community, to transcend the rising barriers to Christian unity. We want to demonstrate that blacks and whites can work out their differences rather than resort to war.

Also, we want to help prepare each other for Christian leadership in our country. The need now is for peacemakers; after the coming bloodshed it will be for people to help heal physical and emotional wounds. As students, through building deep relationships with God and with each other, we want to help provide the cement on which a new South Africa can be built.

Have you adopted a specific political platform?

No, it isn’t possible when you have as many different groups working together as we do. There is no way to opt for one political direction and still transcend color and culture lines.

At the same time, we don’t ignore the issues. We come together in Christian fellowship but not in a vacuum. In the context of dealing with social and political issues, we tell students, “We are Christians and believe Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives. So what does it mean to look at Marxism or capitalism? How should we respond as Christians to military conscription or a guerrilla attack or a riot?” We deal with these controversial subjects in student conferences, and we always have at least one Afrikaans-speaking white, one English-speaking white, and one black contribute from his or her own perspective. Some students go away with their views intact, but most have had their assumptions sharply challenged.

What steps do you take to avoid polarization?

We don’t try. And we don’t aim at reconciliation for its own sake. In a sense we encourage polarization, because that’s when people get their real feelings out. Our conferences are often electric with conflict and tension. People say what they really think, and that honesty enables us to work through issues. To truly follow Christ, one must go further than reconciliation between our current views and stances. Our views, and indeed our lives, must truly change. The reconciliation that comes then is genuine and strong, bringing deep healing.

Can you give a specific example of this kind of reconciliation?

The most dramatic instances I’ve seen are in the lives of Afrikaner students. Like the English-speaking students, they come to the conferences as members of the ruling class; many have never related to black Christians as equals, only as masters to servants within carefully defined cultural barriers. The level of indoctrination is very high in South Africa. Many whites are completely unexposed to what is happening—totally oblivious to it. Many also don’t want to know. So students come to these encounters really believing that black people are happy with apartheid, that they want their own homelands, that they are glad to come to work in the towns.

When they suddenly see and hear from blacks about the kind of suffering they are subject to, their stereotypes are shattered. They begin to relate at the friendship level, and to see things through the eyes of black Christians. In this new framework, applying Christian principles forces you to change not only your assumptions, but also your conclusions.

At one conference, some Afrikaans-speaking student leaders were so challenged that they returned to their university and tried to restructure their existing national student union. When they failed, they broke away and formed a Christian-based student political union. The relationships they had built up together in Christ enabled them to withstand the tremendous pressures put on them during that encounter by student bodies, the government, and even their churches.

Some black students had a similar experience. They were ostracized in their communities because of their contact with whites and suffered a great deal as a result. But they were prepared for this pain because of their deep commitment to each other in Jesus Christ.

South Africa’s prospects are generally considered grim. Is it realistic to hope that concerted Christian action can turn the tide?

There is historical precedent for Christians saving a society from violent revolution. The Wesleyan revival in England gives us encouragement. Largely because of a massive revival, led by John Wesley, William Wilberforce, and members of Parliament, England avoided a bloody revolution in an era when revolutions were erupting all over Europe. It is the only instance I know of, of the ruling class voluntarily giving up power in a situation ripe for revolution. It’s said that this was a primary reason that Marx hated Christianity—because the massive spiritual revival in England averted revolution there.

Zimbabwe is another example. Here there was war. But the conflict was lessened considerably by Christians, who served as catalysts for both internal settlement and the Lancaster House settlement [named after the London site of the preindependence talks between the British government and Zimbabwean leaders]. Then, after the elections, when whites were planning a coup, again Christians working behind the scenes managed to bring opposing leadership together.

So there are these possibilities. As tensions grow in South Africa, with a corresponding increase in people’s insecurity, I think it is more likely that we will see a general turning toward God. The Christian’s potential for peacemaking increases with the increase in instability. But our primary goal must not be to protect our interests or to avoid revolutions. It must be to follow Christ.

You have a sense that time is running out?

Yes. It may already be too late. But one can only operate on the basis of hope.

What positive steps are you taking as a union of Christian students to help prevent disaster in South Africa?

Besides showing that it is possible for blacks and whites to work together, we encourage students to focus on the need of our country rather than on themselves. We say, “Look, you’re students, the privileged class of society. When you become a lawyer or a doctor or a teacher, what will you do with your skills? Is being a tax lawyer the only option? Would you consider serving the poor in legal-aid services? Would you think about teaching in a black school?

How do students react to this challenge?

I think you find the same resistance from all first-world students. We come from a materialistic society and, whether we are aware of it or not, our security lies in our wealth. So we have to keep hammering away at each other with the biblical alternative. It isn’t an intellectual problem, and it doesn’t have an intellectual solution. It’s mainly deep relationships that make people want to change.

Are you well received by the student community as a whole?

Both whites and blacks regard us with suspicion. It bothers whites that we have contact with blacks, and that we try to explore movements such as Marxism in an attempt to find a Christian response. The blacks worry because we are multiracial. Many blacks don’t trust whites and feel that at this stage there should be no contact between the races. But this kind of reverse racism is decreasing in the black community. The power of the Left is a growing force in South Africa, and more and more people are adopting a class analysis rather than a racial analysis.

How do you respond to the growing power of Marxism in South Africa?

Marxism may well be the ideology of the future in South Africa. The policies of the government are pushing everything in that direction. The more the West supports the present regime, the more guerrilla movements turn to the East, and the more likelihood there is that the East will take substantial control. I am worried about this, but I don’t want to be reactionary. I don’t want to be anti-Communist, I want to be pro-Christ. We need to understand that capitalism also causes enormous suffering for the majority of South Africa’s people.

Because Marxism is going to provide a major impetus in South Africa, it is absolutely crucial that I as a Christian know Marxist theory well. I want to know how it applies in other countries, what its strong points are, where it falls down, what the internal contradictions are, and whether or not I as a Christian and Marxists can work together as cobelligerents.

Do you think Christians can work with Marxists in South Africa?

Yes, to a limited extent. One has to be careful not to compromise on basic issues, or to be used. These are dangers inherent in working with any secular force, whether Marxist or capitalist. There are different kinds of Marxists, and while we as Christians have different assumptions and different goals—on particular issues such as equitable distribution of wealth and trade union rights—there is room for cooperation to influence government policy. In South Africa, the vast, institutionalized discrepancy between rich and poor makes it impossible for any institution other than the government to redress the balance. No other agency has enough power.

In your experience, does the support for apartheid by the Dutch Reformed Church make black students less open to the gospel?

Yes. This is an enormous problem. Even though blacks are traditionally very religious, the gospel is losing ground in the black community. That is why apartheid is such an evil system. It oppresses people in the name of Jesus, not only destroying their lives, but also driving them from Christianity.

Also, many black students feel the church isn’t delivering the goods because it isn’t addressing political and social issues. An extraordinary number of blacks live below the poverty line, and in some areas, as many as one out of four black children die before the age of five of diseases related to malnutrition. In such an environment, spiritual and other matters take second place to survival.

Another major problem is that people who can’t escape these intolerable conditions resort to the quick release buttons of sex and alcohol. I heard recently that 70 percent of all births in South Africa are illegitimate. When you live in such economic and social conditions, caused primarily by government policy, the environment isn’t conducive to evangelism.

Are there Christian groups dealing with these needs?

Yes, some of the mainline denominations have programs, and groups such as African Enterprise are doing a tremendous job of bringing social and spiritual needs together. But it’s a drop in the ocean. For example, there is one area in Natal where 100,000 people are crowded together and virtually starving. They haven’t had rain for years. The Catholic church has tried to provide assistance there by distributing relief goods, but even the archbishop of Durban noted that the supplies they were giving were like pouring water on a desert. It is only the government that has the resources to reconstruct that area.

What do you see as SUCA’S role in the future of South Africa?

It is difficult to say because the situation is so complicated and the options are so few. We can set an example by our relationships, and we can take part in Christian revival, particularly as it reaches out to leadership. And as the civil war escalates, we can join the increasing number that refuses to take part in the violence. That in itself will be a powerful witness. It will help transform the church into an alternative community that addresses society’s needs in a meaningful way. Society will never change for the better unless the church models a genuine alternative.

Aren’t you setting yourself up to get caught in the middle?

Humanly speaking, it is inevitable that the violence will escalate. The white side will rapidly militarize even further and expect all whites to join them in the fight against so-called terrorists. Guerrilla violence will rise as well.

Christians are going to get caught in the middle in the sense that we won’t back out of the fire. In a revolutionary society you have to choose one side or the other. If you refuse, you are crushed by both. That’s sometimes the role of the peacemaker. If necessary, that is what we’ll have to do. That is our role as Christians in the kind of society we live in.

Isn’t there an alternative?

I don’t think so. Romans 12 tells us that we should not be overcome by evil and that we should not try to overcome evil with evil. Evil is to be overcome by good. This means that the end can never justify the means. As Christians, we are not supposed to be living with an “effectivity ethic.” It’s not important whether we succeed, only that we obey. We do what God commands, and he is in charge of the consequences.

The cross is an example. Humanly speaking, it was a failure. But it was what Jesus had to do, and God used his obedience in a very dramatic way. That’s what the third way is all about. It’s not taking sides, but being cobelligerents with certain groups on certain issues, and still never compromising basic principles.

What can the church at large do to help you during this time?

You can pray for a real revival that will result for both whites and blacks in changed hearts. Whites must give up their racism and much of their economic wealth to share with the underprivileged. Blacks must give up their reverse racism and bitterness.

Pray that the church will really be the church, that it will resist the temptation to identify itself with a particular political grouping, but instead will take a prophetic, witnessing stand on crucial issues.

We also have a practical need for scholarships for black students. Their educational opportunities are extremely limited in South Africa, and, since they are going to be the next leaders of our country, the more expert they become, the better. I hope Christians will encourage their colleges and universities to offer scholarships.

It is important that political pressure be brought to bear on the government of South Africa. It won’t respond to anything else. Ironically, the Reagan administration probably has more potential for good with respect to South Africa than any past administration because Reagan is seen as a friend. I hope he can help install a democratic government in Namibia. But in South Africa, current American policies are encouraging the government to dig in harder and remain reactionary. Under the guise of reform, the current U.S. administration, by its tacit and overt support for the South African government, has probably done more harm than any other, and contributed greatly to the suffering of thousands of people in southern Africa.

If the United States can bring constructive pressure to bear on South Africa—it is important that criticism not be seen as destructive—then a great deal of good can be accomplished.

Finally, the church at large must realize that although the South African government professes to be Christian, apartheid is a heresy, and Christians around the world need to know that our government is persecuting our brothers and sisters in Christ.