Is honoring the dead Christian or pagan?

Full Gospel Central Church in Seoul, South Korea, is easily the largest single congregation in the world. Recently, however, its 200,000 members have discovered that numbers cannot insulate it from the problems that plague smaller churches, and indeed may aggravate them. The unlikely issue—from a Western perspective—is the honoring of the dead.

Under the leadership of Pastor Paul Yonggi Cho, Central Church was founded in 1958 as a tent church with a roof pieced together from army tent remnants. It joined the Assemblies of God in 1962, and its 10,000-seat sanctuary was completed in 1973. Services were increased to seven on Sunday and two on Wednesday evenings. But growth still outpaced capacity, and last year overflow auditoriums were added to seat another 10,000 or so. Plans are being made to enlarge facilities to seat an additional 20,000.

The unrelenting growth is based on a multiplication of home cell groups led by lay leaders. Under Pastor Cho are 12 ordained ministers, 260 licensed ministers, and finally 15,000 lay leaders. Each lay leader directs a home cell of from 10 to 15 persons, leading them in weekly worship, Bible study, and evangelism.

Central Church is the hub of a multifaceted missions program, a Church Growth International organization to teach its growth principles to others, and a television ministry that has spread from Korea to Japan, and has now entered the U.S. on stations in Los Angeles and New York. It operates a “Prayer Mountain” retreat center that houses 2,000.

Not surprisingly, Central Church influence looms large in the Korean Assemblies of God. Its membership constitutes about one-third of the denomination; the remaining 450 churches make up the other two-thirds. Many pastors of the other churches are former members, deacons, or elders of Central Church who have entered the ministry and established new congregations.

This dominance may have been resented by denominational officials, superintendent Cho Myung Rok and secretary Kim Gin Hwan. At any rate, observers note a longstanding personal strain in relations between the two and Pastor Paul Cho.

That is the setting into which a uniquely Asian dispute over church belief and practice in honoring deceased relatives was injected last year.

In Oriental society, this is no peripheral matter. Respect for elders is basic to the cultural fabric of the entire region. If you are introduced to a stranger, for instance, it is desperately important immeditely to ascertain that person’s age since you must phrase your response according to the individual’s senior or junior status in relation to you. Children bow to their parents on their birthdays while they are alive, and afterward traditionally on the anniversary of their deaths.

The rub is that this cultural obligation of respect for age is more or less (more in Japan, less in China) intertwined with Buddhistic worship of the spirits of ancestors. In each Far Eastern society, Christians must try to disentangle the two.

In China, this “rites controversy” dominated the Roman Catholic church scene for a century and a half (roughly 1625 to 1775). During this period, the church insisted that no such rites could be combined with Christian faith. But in 1937, the hierarchy reversed itself and ceased to object to ceremonies for deceased relatives. Few Protestant church bodies in East Asia have formally dealt with the issue.

The stage was set for the current uproar in Korea when in 1979 a troubled eldest son in a family came to Pastor Cho, confessing that on the first anniversary of his father’s death he had followed tradition and led his wider family in lighting candles and bowing before the picture of their father. He was anxious to know if he was expected to withdraw his church membership because of this lapse. “No,” replied Pastor Cho, “don’t leave the church. You need the church now more than ever before.”

Much later, Pastor Cho mentioned the incident as a sermon illustration, drawing a distinction between worship of the dead and respect for deceased parents. The Bible says “Honor thy father and thy mother,” he said, and asserted that the command applies whether they are living or dead. The passing comment was blown into a burning issue last fall when the Korean Assemblies of God [KAG] executive authorized superintendent Cho to discuss this and other grievances with Pastor Cho.

Instead, superintendent Cho and secretary Kim took a list of five charges to Korea’s large Christian newspaper. Its next issue carried the banner headline “IS DR. CHO A HERETIC?” In short order, a whole range of leading Korean pastors, including representatives of the historic Presbyterian and Methodist denominations, attacked Pastor Cho’s response to the young man as falling short of the traditional orthodox Christian teaching in Korea.

Pastor Cho responded to the storm of criticism in early October, telling his elders he was willing to submit his resignation. They would not accept it. He also told the KAG he was prepared to repudiate his statements on respect for the dead. Superintendent Cho rejected his overture, and sent a letter to Central Church threatening it with expulsion from the denomination.

This arrived while Pastor Cho and AG missionary colleague John Hurston, then executive director of Central Church’s Church Growth International, were in Europe. On their return at the end of October, Central Church’s board of 58 elders decided that the church and Pastor Cho should withdraw from the KAG, but the rest of the pastoral staff should retain their KAG affiliation.

While Pastor Cho was away again, superintendent Cho, by some accounts, sought to press action against Pastor Cho (presumably defrocking). He implied in personal conversations that he had backing from U.S. Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Missouri. Most of his executive resisted, however, and superintendent Cho denies that he claimed U.S. support for his campaign.

In early November, U.S. AG Division of Foreign Missions Far East director Wesley Hurst (accompanied by Hurston, now president of Melodyland School of Theology in Anaheim, California) flew to Korea, officially to attend the dedication of the new building of another AG Seoul church. But they were soon in session by invitation with first the Central Church elders and then the KAG executive. They told each that U.S. officials were not behind efforts to oust Cho, but otherwise attempted to display evenhandedness and to serve as mediators.

Feeling among KAG pastors ran high. On December 7, more than 300 of them managed to meet with superintendent Cho and secretary Kim, demanding their resignations. Kim resigned, but Cho refused, and by late last month, that is where matters stood. Pastor Cho desires to reunite with the KAG when conditions permit. Meanwhile, the entire Central Church has rallied around its pastor, and attendance is holding strong.

But the fact remains, as Hurston observes, that when churches “get large, it is hard for denominations to contain them.”

And the veneration-of-the-dead issue cannot be forever swept under the rug. One observer estimated that 80 percent of Korea’s Christian minority do conduct services for the dead covertly, but that it is simply passed over in the churches.

Samuel H. Moffett, a long-time Presbyterian missionary to Korea, notes that some churches are trying to produce some kind of memorial for the dead that would not be considered unorthodox. “Christians should have some way,” he said, “of showing to their non-Christian neighbors that they don’t dishonor the dead. This is the impression they sometimes give by their condemnation of any ceremonies at the grave” and after. He acknowledges that the more liberal sections of the church are working harder at this. Conservatives, he says, tend to emphasize their break with the past.

Certainly the surprising uproar over Pastor Cho’s remarks indicates that there is a need for the Christian church in the East to develop a theology that deals with ancestral rites.

Unhappy Shakeup At Evangelism Explosion Ministry

The firing of the executive vice-president of Evangelism Explosion (EE), a well-known evangelistic ministry based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has led to the resignation of 13 staff members and one board member.

Evangelism Explosion began in 1961 at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale. The church had only 17 members when its pastor, James Kennedy, formed the rudiments of EE, a soul-winning method that emphasizes personal witnessing and meticulous training. Coral Ridge grew to more than 5,000 members, and EE spread to hundreds of North American churches. In 1978 it became an international ministry, branching out to such countries as West Germany, England, South Africa, and Australia.

Archie Parrish was unexpectedly dismissed by Kennedy at a board meeting in late November. The specific charges against him are undisclosed (though none are said to involve his personal morality). Kennedy stated that Parrish was fired because of a “continued unwillingness to submit to the direction and authority of the board of directors and president [Kennedy].”

“Archie is in many ways a fine Christian man with some excellent qualities,” Kennedy said of his associate of 13 years. “I am sure the Lord will find a place for him in some other ministry.”

That ministry, it turns out, may be one of Parrish’s own. Three weeks after his dismissal, Parrish said he was considering beginning a ministry similar to EE. He said the new ministry was being pondered at the request of others, and that he had “absolutely no” thought of starting a separate ministry before he was fired from EE. Ten or 11 of the 13 staff members who have resigned EE positions have agreed to spend time in prayer with Parrish, and, if another evangelistic ministry is considered God’s will, to help him with it. Parrish claimed he was not the leader of a personality cult. “This is not a mass exodus based on people following me [out of EE].”

Parrish denies the charge that he was insubordinate and acknowledges Kennedy to be “one of the most gifted leaders I’ve ever been associated with.” Friends of Parrish in the organization say that far from being insubordinate, Parrish willingly worked “under the shadow” of Kennedy. Even since the dismissal, he has only tried to do what is best for EE and the Coral Ridge church, they say. Parrish has stated he is “gravely concerned about a ministry I don’t want unduly damaged.”

But 13 staff members sympathetic to Parrish have already resigned from the 42-member staff. Board member R. C. Sproul, theologian and author of Knowing Scripture, has resigned from the 15-member board. Sproul called the firing “unwarranted.” Sproul came to EE because of his friendship with Parrish. Meanwhile, at least six EE officials in other countries are irritated that they were not consulted about the dismissal.

David Howard, formerly missions director of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, at first remained in his position as senior vice-president. But he informed Kennedy he would present his resignation at “an appropriate time.” Howard said he stayed on “to have a pastoral ministry” to staff members shaken by the Parrish incident. He resigned as of December 31.

Kennedy is open-minded about the complaint of international EE officials that they were not consulted about Parrish’s dismissal. At present, though, “the organization is run by the board. It is not run by a group from various countries. Whether or not that is the way it should be organized is a question that should be considered.” He does not expect “any sort of wholesale resignations” internationally.

Kennedy insists “things are already righting themselves” at EE. “Many people feel this may be a renaissance at EE,” he said, because it could prompt the organization to seek more input from national and international EE leaders.

Parrish has resigned his position as minister of international outreach at the Coral Ridge church. Parrish said the church’s session accepted his resignation by a wide margin. Following presbyterian procedure, the congregation will also vote on Parrish’s resignation.

RODNEY CLAPP

As Tension Grows, World Church Council Debates Nuclear Arms

This building, Olof Palme told his audience at Amsterdam’s Free University, “could be hit by nuclear weapons from the Urals with an accuracy of 200 meters, and they are working to get this down to 50 meters.” Palme, former prime minister of Sweden, was participating in the recent Hearing on Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament organized by the World Council of Churches (WCC).

An 18-member hearing group, presided over by J. S. Habgood, bishop of Durham, England, heard a total of 37 witnesses from different nations and professions. They addressed such issues as political aspects of nuclear escalation, current doctrines concerning the use of nuclear weapons, approaches to disarmament, and nonproliferation.

The four-day proceedings came up with some noteworthy utterances. There was, for example, a fascinating exchange between Gert Krell of Frankfurt and Paul Podlesni of Moscow. Said Krell: “You in the USSR know what Western weapons programs are for the next six to eight years … but we don’t have any idea what the USSR is going to do in this period.”

Podlesni: “The problem for our military men is that the U.S. publishes so much information, we can’t understand what is going on.”

When Roger Shinn of Union Theological Seminary, New York, quoted the view that most West Point cadets were “nuclear pacifists,” he was questioned by panel member General T. B. Simatupang of Indonesia. He went on to declare that pacifism at West Point had nothing to do with pacifism as a whole, but was “a pragmatic judgment.” Shinn indicated that retaining the nuclear deterrent was a staging post on the way to something better. “And,” he added, “I would give the same advice to my Soviet friends—you’d be crazy to give up your deterrent.”

Over 14,500 wars in human history have killed four billion people, stated A. A. Baev of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. In World War II, he went on, 20 million were killed in the USSR alone. He gave a vivid account of the immediate and subsequent devastation that would be done by a single nuclear bomb of one megaton. His conclusion was totally unexpected. “The seven angels in Revelation who had the seven cups full of the last plagues of God,” said the Russian scientist, “could inflict no more devastation than the effects of nuclear attack of that scale.”

George Rathjens of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a former adviser to President Carter, said that bilateral negotiations tended to be counterproductive because they encouraged superpowers to build up weapons as bargaining chips. He prophesied that the Reagan administration would argue in the current negotiations that it needed both its new MX ballistic missile and its B1 bomber program in order to negotiate effectively. “That argument,” commented the professor, “will carry weight with members of our Congress and with the public. No one will want to be accused of denying the administration these important chips (if you like) to play this negotiating game, so they will approve programs that they otherwise would not approve.”

Proceedings were conducted throughout with the kind of responsible and somber tone set at the beginning by D.C. Mulder, chairman of the preparatory committee. He had warned, “This is not a happy occasion.” Participants often unofficially reflected the position of their own countries, but points scoring was clearly not a major preoccupation. A deep impression had obviously been made by the previous weekend’s (unconnected) peace demonstration that had brought out 350,000 people in Holland’s largest city. This gave added point to Olof Palme’s warning that the people themselves will demand a halt in the arms race. He quoted President Eisenhower in 1959: “I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it.”

Prof. Mitsuo Okamoto of Tokyo, who saw massive popular movements as the only effective measure, called for the “delegitimization” of nuclear weapons in the same way that apartheid in South Africa had now been delegitimized in the eyes of the world.

J. D. DOUGLAS in Amsterdam

World Scene

The United Nations has adopted a declaration on freedom of religion and belief that was 20 years in the making. The eight-article declaration proclaims the right of the individual “to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching,” limited only by the state’s need to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The state is to take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief “in all fields of civil, economic, political, social, and cultural life.”

Another mission has adopted a policy to guide it in coping with kidnappings and other forms of violence. The Latin America Mission U.S. (LAM) board of trustees last month approved a set of emergency policies that denounces terrorism in any form regardless of political objectives. It says no ransom will be paid under any circumstances and that LAM will not negotiate with outlaws. Its missionaries are prohibited from relating to the CIA or other undercover organizations.

Austrian believers have formed a new association of evangelical churches limited to denominations that seek a “regenerated only” church membership, and baptize individuals as an external witness to personal faith. The association, formed in November by some 30 denominational groups, is in these respects less inclusive than the existing Evangelical Alliance, which is dominated by Lutheran and Reformed churches. It is designed to help these small groups cooperate in evangelism, youth work, and public relations. Austrians—overwhelmingly Roman Catholic—typically confuse evangelicals with the cults.

Suppression of Solidarity in Poland last month, with the imposition of martial law, once again left the Roman Catholic church the only significant force in the nation with which the Communist regime could discourse. Archbishop Jozef Glemp asserted in an official communiqué that his nation was “terrorized by military force,” and protested “the drastic reduction of civil rights.” He said he was convinced the nation “cannot give up the democratic renewal that has been announced in the country.” He pled for a revival of the labor union’s legal activities and for more humane conditions for, and the freeing of, prisoners. With communications with Poland cut, the church’s reporting through its own channels became the primary souce of outside information on events inside Poland.

A U.S. delegation of evangelicals has established contact with the official Protestant church in China. A 10-member group sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals, and led by NAE executive director Billy A. Melvin, met in November with Bishop Ding Guanxuan (K. H. Ting), chairman of the Chinese Christian Council and leader of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSM) in Nanjing. The TSM has made contacts with ecumenical circles but tended to overlook evangelicals. For their part, evangelicals generally have supported the unofficial house churches and are suspicious of government manipulation of the TSM.

Anglican Bishop Of Sidney Retires

At the end of January, Marcus Loane retires after 15 years as archbishop of the largest Anglican diocese in the world—Sydney—and after four years as Australian primate.

It has been a remarkable ministry of evangelical leadership. Loane has been president of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican communion, president of Scripture Union, and a supporter of many evangelical enterprises. He took a leading role in the Australian crusades of Billy Graham in 1959, 1968–9, and 1979.

A New Testament scholar and historian, he wrote more than 30 books, and will keep writing in retirement. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth six years ago for services to church and community.

A shy and self-effacing man, his more remarkable feats are little known. But at his public farewell in Sydney Square, his exploits as a World War II army chaplain were dramatically illustrated by a film. It told how Loane, accompanied by a 14-year-old orderly, Ravu Menao, walked 15 times over the rugged Kokoda Trail in New Guinea, ministering to Australian and American servicemen repelling the Japanese land advance.

Ravu, already a Christian, later felt called to the ministry and is now a United Church bishop. In the middle of the film showing, Bishop Ravu, specially flown 2,000 miles from Port Moresby for the occasion, walked on to the stage to hug the surprised archbishop.

Loane’s successor will be elected at a diocesan synod of 800 members in March. But either of the main contenders will continue the evangelical leadership than Sydney has provided within the Anglican communion for more than 50 years.

Personalia

John Mostert has announced his retirement in 1982 as executive director of the American Association of Bible Colleges (AABC). He has been with the AABC 19 years, seeing the number of member institutions double during his tenure.

Brenda Bitterman, widow of martyred missionary Chester Bitterman III, recently wed Ken Jackson. He and the former Mrs. Bitterman both serve under Wycliffe Bible Translators. Chester Bitterman was murdered last March in Bogota, Colombia.

Rodric H. Pence has been named president of Big Sky Bible College in Lewistown, Montana. He is a graduate of Multnomah School of the Bible (Portland, Oregon), was a missionary for 10 years, and a pastor for 9.

NEWS

Missing witnesses and a divided defense muddled the issue.

Rather than Eden, the appropriate biblical setting for Arkansas’ creation-science trial would seem to be the Tower of Babel, also found in Genesis.

There were multitudes of sides: evolutionists versus creationists; evolutionists versus evolutionists; creationists versus creationists; liberals versus conservatives.

These were the constitutional issues to be decided in Little Rock, Arkansas: Whether Act 590 of 1981 violated the separation of church and state, abridged academic freedom, and was too vague to be understood. Underlying all this was the question: Is creation-science as defined in this law really science, or is it just religion in disguise?

By the trial’s end, it seemed that the state would be hard pressed to persuade Federal District Court Judge William R. Overton that “scientific creationism” was anything but a Sunday school lesson, but Overton seemed to be in no hurry to rule.

Overton flatly told a high school science teacher who was testifying for the law that creation-science belonged in Sunday school. And Overton made another revealing statement in his closing comments at the end of the trial, December 17:

“I will not undertake to decide the validity of the biblical version of the creation of earth and man,” Overton said, “Nor will I decide the validity of the theory of evolution.” The state had been trying to divorce the creation law from any sort of biblical framework.

It was no surprise to anyone then, when Overton ruled on January 5 that the law was unconstitutional. He declared that creationism was not only religious in nature, it was bad science.

Arkansas’ law was the first of a new type of creationism law. It was the first ever to seek “equal time” for creation with the important provision that no reference be made to any religion or religious writing, namely the Bible. Passed in March 1981, the statute was followed in July by similar legislation in Louisiana. The American Civil Liberties Union also has filed suit there and a trial is expected in the spring or early summer.

Many supporters of the Arkansas law feel that its defense was handled badly. They fear the case may become an unfavorable landmark decision. Meanwhile, they have swung support to the Louisiana defense. Since Louisiana and Arkansas are in different federal appeals court districts, the Louisiana case could become the landmark decision.

The Louisiana attorney general has deputized two evangelical lawyers recognized as experts in First Amendment law: Wendell Bird of El Cajon, California, and John W. Whitehead of Manassas, Virginia. They offered to help the state of Arkansas defend its law, but could not reconcile differences with Attorney General Steve Clark, who handled the case in court. Clark had drawn the criticism of some creationists since the ACLU filed suit against the law in May. They felt he was not dedicated to doing the best job he could in defending the statute.

Two television evangelists, Pat Robertson of the “700 Club” and Jerry Falwell of the “Old-Time Gospel Hour,” fired broadsides at Clark. Robertson charged him with “crookedness,” and Falwell followed with accusations of “collusion” with the ACLU. Falwell and Robertson were incensed that Clark had participated in an ACLU fund-raising auction on November 21.

Clark defended his action by saying he supported a number of nonprofit groups, including such conservative ones as the American Legion. The ACLU got $25 when someone purchased the right to have a meal with the attorney general.

Other developments stole headlines from the central issues of the trial.

There were the missing creationists. Duane T. Gish and Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) were conspicuously absent from the lineup of state witnesses. Gish, who did attend the trial, explained that he and Morris did not want to “put ICR on trial.”

There were other witnesses for the defense who did not show up. Several scientists who had been listed as potential witnesses for the state, backed out because of what Clark termed “peer pressure.”

Another state witness, Dr. Dean Kenyon, a biophysicist at San Francisco State University, mysteriously disappeared on the eve of his day in court. He had flown into Little Rock on a Sunday evening, but when one of Clark’s assistants went to take his deposition he could not find him. Kenyon had checked out of the hotel and flown back home. Bird had encouraged Kenyon not to testify, although Kenyon taught evolution theory for 16 years until three years ago when he became a creationist. Bird, who is general counsel to ICR, said he attempted to get other defense witnesses not to testify after he perceived the trial as botched by Clark.

Bird said he was not trying to sabotage Clark’s effort. He said he merely had told several witnesses for the state that “I don’t think you should jeopardize your reputation with the way [the trial] is being handled.” Clark stated he was considering legal action against Bird, whose actions, he said, were “tantamount to tampering with justice.”

The plaintiffs in the trial—23 organizations and individuals, including about a dozen clergymen—argued that the law served to promote only a narrow fundamentalist Christianity. Yet, the strongest testimony for the law clearly came from a Buddhist astrophysicist, N.C. Wickramasinghe, head of the applied mathematics and astronomy department at Wales University. Wickramasinghe, a collaborator with noted British astronomer Fred Hoyle on the theory of “cosmic microbiology,” told the court that Darwinianism is about as plausible as “a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.”

Wickramasinghe is not a “young-earther,” one who subscribes to the theory that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. His figures on the age of life on earth coincide with those of most evolutionists, about 3.8 billion years.

Yet he disagrees with the prevalent theory of evolution that life began spontaneously and developed from one-celled organisms to man. There is “not enough time in the whole universe to explain life by the evolution model,” he testified, adding that it is “ridiculous to suppose” life moved from one-celled organisms to incredibly sophisticated forms by billions of what he called genetic “copying errors” (mutations).

Teaching only evolution is “narrow-minded,” Wickramasinghe said, and reflects an “anti-religion bias” that is an extension of the “mechanistic” view of life that was rooted in the Industrial Revolution.

One evolutionist testified on behalf of the creationism law. He was W. Scott Morrow of Spartanburg, South Carolina, and he said the scientific community represents a “stacked deck” for the creationist. “I know enough of my fellow evolutionists to know a closed mind when I see [it],” he told the judge. Holder of a Ph.D., and professor of chemistry at Wofford College, Morrow, when asked to cite an example of discrimination against creationists, could not bring one to mind. Overton interrupted and chastised him for testifying for over an hour without citing an example. After the trial, Morrow said that Overton, too, was closed minded.

One evangelical who testified for the ACLU agrees the law is too narrow. Rather than a poorly handled case, it was a “badly framed law” that damaged the state’s case, according to George Marsden, professor of history at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. Marsden feels that the law represents only one extreme view among scientists who are evangelical Christians and believe in creation. He is concerned that the trial has given the impression that Act 590 is the last word on scientific creationism. “I am a creationist whose position is not represented by creation-science” as defined in the law, he said in an interview after the trial.

Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological Seminary feels Marsden, a former colleague, has misread the law. Geisler, who testified on religion for the state and served unofficially as religion consultant, feels that the law does not limit creation-science to those characteristics listed in Section 4a.

Geisler, not a “young-earther” himself, is philosophical about the trial. A loss “may be for the better,” he said in an interview. It might assure creationists of the same sympathy that Clarence Darrow won for evolutionists who were shut out of the classroom a half-century ago.

During the trial, Geisler created a stir in the secular press. An ACLU lawyer pressed him for his view of UFOS, and Geisler said he believed they are caused by Satan. Geisler’s statement made headlines in several papers.

Gish, who is associate director of ICR, was also philosophical about the possibility of a loss. He said ICR had been opposed to such laws that forced the teaching of scientific creationism. He would have preferred to work at the local level and persuade teachers, he said in an interview, but others “were not that patient.”

Many corridors crisscross political pathways at the National Council of Churches.

The upper reaches of New York’s Riverside Drive, it might be thought, are no place for an evangelical—and an alien, to boot. I hurried past Union Theological Seminary, only to find myself in Reinhold Niebuhr Place. On my right was Riverside Church, built in 1930 by decree of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., so that Harry Emerson Fosdick might continue “fearlessly teaching the modern use of the Bible,” and further his crusade to insure that the fundamentalists should not win.

On my left was the $20-million, 19-story Inter-Church Center, which, “sheathed in Alabama Limestone,” stands on a block-long site made available by Rockefeller, who also contributed handsomely toward construction costs. Dedicated in 1960, the center houses some two dozen agencies, and is known in the trade (a secular journalist told me) as “The God Box.”

At the elevators, visitors come under unobtrusive security scrutiny; an upper-floor notice from the building superintendent warns against thieves given to discarding empty billfolds on the stairways. A sizable section of the building is occupied by the offices of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (NCC). This was my destination. The editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY wanted an article on that body, and had fingered me for the task. Since he cannily refrained from telling me how to handle it, I began by finding out what the NCC says about itself.

The preamble to its constitution calls the NCC “a cooperative agency of Christian communions seeking to fulfill the unity and mission to which God calls them. The member communions, responding to the gospel revealed in the Scriptures, confess Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, as Savior and Lord. Relying on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the council works to bring churches into a life-giving fellowship and into common witness, study and action to the glory of God and in service to all creation.”

Its 32 member bodies include Serbians and Swedenborgians, Friends and AME Zion. Combined membership tops 40 million. It does not include Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, various Lutheran and Reformed bodies, and a large number of smaller conservative evangelical groups. The NCC’S 266-strong governing board meets twice yearly.

I perused “A Message to the Churches” from its May 15, 1981, meeting. “The polity of the new [Reagan] administration,” it declared, “is not just to cut back on human services, but to deny that people are entitled to them.” It was, moreover, giving away public lands to private entrepreneurs; abandoning old international friends and commitments; proposing to make the U.S.A. “Number One” in the world militarily, but not in humanitarian projects; and seeking “to reverse the record of half a century.”

All good knockabout stuff, even if it did ring in parts like a Democratic manifesto. The same meeting nonetheless approved a message to USSR President Brezhnev, urging freedom for Sakharov and other “prisoners of conscience.” I wanted now to learn less about the headline catchers and more about bread-and-butter matters.

The NCC, I found, has provided over five billion pounds (weight) of food, clothing, and health supplies in emergency situations around the world. It supplies materials for church schools and stewardship campaigns; is involved in projects concerning child and family justice; cooperates in producing religious radio and TV programs on the major networks; brings people together for biblical scholarship (it holds copyright to the RSV); works to improve relationships with those of other faiths, such as Muslims and Jews; champions the rights of minority groups; and has coordinated the placement of over 300,000 refugees in U.S. communities.

When I sought interviews with top NCC executives, the media department arranged these with promptness and efficiency. Two key staff people who would be away during my visits made themselves available for extended telephone interviews. There was no instinctive distrust of questing journalists who might have been about heresy-hunting business. Whatever else I was to find, the NCC was at least sound on courtesy.

Claire Randall has been NCC general secretary for the past eight years. Formerly an artist and religious education specialist, she chaired a task force that recommended relaxation of the NCC’S stand against abortion, and immediately prior to 1974 was an executive with Church Women United.

She fielded a little gingerly my inquiry about evangelical representation on the NCC staff. Naturally the council would not wish to discriminate against such people (many of whose denominations are council members), but the crux seemed to be whether evangelicals would be “comfortable” in staff posts that often called for a breadth of outlook that might be unacceptable to those of a more conservative viewpoint. On the wider front, Randall pointed out, nonmember groups often cooperated with the NCC. Asked why the NCC had held no general assembly since 1972, Randall responded that this was due largely to financial considerations.

I asked her about the NCC cable last May to Irish Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders, expressing “profound regret” at the death of hunger striker Bobby Sands. Was this action not likely to be misunderstood by British Christians unless balanced by expressed sorrow for the innocent victims of IRA bombs and bullets?

I repeated the same question later to outgoing NCC president William Howard, but neither official seemed personally well informed about Northern Ireland, or about whether the British Council of Churches had been consulted before the cable was sent. Howard indicated that in this instance they had relied heavily on J. Richard Butler, who, I discovered, was director of the NCC’S relief and development work in the Middle East and Europe.

When I raised the matter of possible NCC membership for the Metropolitan Community Churches (the so-called gays), Randall referred me to a statement by Arleon Kelly, head of constituent membership affairs. This read: “Considering the historical position and doctrinal practices of the communions that compose the National Council of Churches of Christ, it appears to me extremely doubtful that 21 of the necessary members would vote for the inclusion of the MCC.”

Here I pause for ironical reflection. The NCC might conclude that to have drawn a circle that takes in as many as possible might not have been such a good idea after all. The MCC feel they fulfill the formal requirements for membership. It is hard to imagine the NCC rejecting such an application solely on biblical grounds. For the council to have recourse to “the historical position and doctrinal practices” of member denominations has an oddly archaic, even disingenuous, ring about it. On other issues, a one-time identification with the Westminster Confession, for example, the rock on which Fosdick the Presbyterian had foundered in 1925, did not noticeably sway some NCC groups in 1981.

In addition, for the NCC to reject the MCC without reason adduced might be regarded as contravening its own vaunted emphasis on religious toleration—and justice would not have been seen to be done. But as news and information executive director Warren Day reminded me, the MCC’S application was not received until mid-September, and had not yet come under official scrutiny.

Ncc president m. William Howard welcomed me to his offices on the eighteenth floor. Born in Georgia the year after World War II ended, he grew up in Americus, “one of the toughest anti-civil rights towns in the nation,” but a grandmother had taught him an “informed compassion for racists.” Another great influence on his life was Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated during Howard’s senior year at Morehouse College, Atlanta. “In Georgia,” he said, “there is no distinction between social justice and a living Christian faith.”

I found Howard less intractable than many professional conciliarists. “We have had moments of arrogance and failure,” he admitted (I found myself wishing that Geneva was listening). To his condemnation of South Africa he was willing to add a postscript that showed fellow feeling toward white politicians there who had taken a public stance against apartheid and other evils.

Howard is a strong advocate of the Program to Combat Racism, and would not agree with me that soon after its inception the PCR changed its target from racism generally to white racism. This had always been implicit, he declared. (The 1980 wcc central committee meeting had in fact “noted” the existence of nonwhite racism.)

I asked the president about his reference to “a scriptural mandate for unity.” He recounted the pragmatism that brought pre-NCC societies together, chiefly concerned with such things as relief work. “Not till ten years later did we dare to talk about theology. There is now a greater and growing appreciation of the central role of theological perspectives.” He saw this as an “anxiety-producing” area, but division was sin, and it was necessary that Christ’s call to unity should be clearly heard.

Questioned about his three-year term of office, which terminated in November, he said he had been told that no president had been exposed to so many people. “The council is concerned now to be a religious organization to be reckoned with. More people have seen in the NCC some aspects of religious expression they might like to see in the local church.” He added that the NCC had started conducting Bible study only during this period, and that the tendency was growing.

Was it true, I asked, that he thought that blacks in his native Americus had fared better in segregated schools than they did now under desegregation? No, he would put it differently. Black students in certain integrated school systems in both North and South were not always getting the attention they formerly had from the loving and supportive teachers of the segregated days.

Howard’s fellow black, Kenyon C. Burke, is associate general secretary for the NCC’S Church and Society division. The latter concerns itself with such matters as economic, social, and racial justice, the disadvantaged, the unprotected, the vulnerable, rights of women, religious and civil liberties, international affairs, and the Vietnam generation, including veterans and their problems (especially those in prisons, many of whom are black or Hispanic).

Burke’s division was campaigning for a 10-year extension of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. The VRA promised, said Burke, and it delivered. Census data from 1964 to 1976 show a 60.7 percent rise in black voter registration in Mississippi, 35.1 percent in Alabama, 31.9 percent in Louisiana. There was also a significant upsurge in Hispanic voter registration. Voter rights had marched on since Selma in 1965, but while rigged literacy tests and intimidation of blacks have gone, there are now “more sophisticated evasions and gerrymanders.” Burke called on religious bodies to support an act designed to purge racism, bigotry, and “all its ugly residuals.”

That led on naturally to a question: Had an official NCC decision been taken not to support Bob Jones University over the threatened IRS withdrawal of its tax exemption status?

This proved to be a wormy can, but Burke tackled it candidly. The issue had caused a difference of opinion within the NCC, which on occasion was called “to stand up for very unpopular people.” A working group on religious liberties favored entering the case on BJU’S behalf; a working group on racial justice disagreed because of BJU’S discriminatory policies.

At first it seemed that BJU would find an improbable ally, but I gather that the current consensus in NCC counsels warns that this is not an opportune time to support religious liberty at the expense of racial justice.

Would his division support bodies such as the Church of Scientology and the Unification Church against the use of conservatorships by zealous deprogramers? (A conservator is someone designated to assume and protect the interests of an incompetent.) The NCC, came the reply, was opposed to deprograming activities. And brainwashing? Yes. From whatever source? Yes.

Burke pointed to the need to show that “there is a biblical base for social justice.” He criticized those who, with no personal knowledge of real poverty, “are easily moved by stereotypes that say the poor are irresponsible and inept people.” He recommends nightly readings of Matthew 25:31–46—a passage that hits the sort of strong eschatological note not commonly featured in conciliar parlance.

Next, I was interested in NCC finances. The budget in recent years has varied between $19.5 million and $30 million. The fluctuation is concerned with emergency programs where the council acts in effect as an administrative and financial agent. Separate accounts are kept with respect to Church World Service, the NCC’S relief arm, whose 1980 budget was over $61 million.

The highest source of “real” NCC income (39 percent) comes from member denominations or church-related agencies. In expenditure, 78 percent goes “to minister outside the U.S. through evangelism, education, healing, community development, and relief to those in need.” The next largest figure is 6 percent that goes “to extend the Gospel ministry through Christian commitment and witness across the U.S.” Only 3 percent of expenditure goes “to administer, supervise and finance the council.”

David ng, San Francisco-born Presbyterian minister and D.D. of Westminster College, Salt Lake City, heads the NCC’S Education and Ministry division. He emphasizes his “deep concern for evangelism and church growth, and a very solid practice of spiritual discipline.” He thinks that one of the most refreshing developments of the 1970s was “a renascence of evangelical activism.” He claims that the NCC has had a part in the increasing openness of mainland China. Drs. Howard and Randall were going there in November at the invitation of Bishop Ting.

Ng is unhappy about press reports that the NCC is planning to produce a “de-sexed” version of the Bible (a 1990 publication of the revised RSV is anticipated). He assures me that the Bible committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Bruce Metzger, is “firmly committed to a literature translation, as the text permits.” (Over the RSV, Howard told me earlier, the NCC had had “the meanest mail.”) The NCC is, however, planning an “inclusive-language” lectionary. This will avoid the masculine-biased terminology that deeply offends some women who feel it “cuts them off from full participation in the community of the Church.” Inclusive language, claims an NCC leaflet, “helps us to proclaim the identity of all of us as heirs of God.”

The Reverend Joan Campbell of the NCC’S Local and Regional Ecumenism Commission, who was in Washington for the Solidarity Day demonstration on September 19, felt that evangelicals too readily assume that “ecumenical people” are not also pastoral people. They do not understand the depth of the faith held by many such, she opined, nor do they always recognize that “there is a special ecumenical calling to which they have responded.” Nicely put—and well worth a ponder or two.

Author J. D. Douglas lives in Saint Andrews, Scotland. He is editor at large forChristianity Today.

One cannot enter the Promised Land without first sojourning in the wilderness.

Why? That was the only question my mind could entertain after months and years of pain and suffering. I had systemic lupus (SLE), a painful, degenerative, uncurable disease. Why? I joined the chorus of people who have asked that question since time began.

As a Christian, I turned to the Bible for the answer, and didn’t have far to look. The first mention of pain occurs in the third chapter of Genesis: “I will greatly increase your pains in child bearing; with pain you will give birth to your children” (v. 16, NIV). In Psalm 38:3 the poet laments, “Because of your wrath there is no health in my body; my bones have no soundness because of my sin.” Other biblical authors describe a painful punishment for sin visited on descendants and entire nations. (Ex. 20; Hos. 8:9–10).

I tried that answer on. I had SLE because I had sinned. “No,” I’d shout, “I haven’t done anything that bad.” My joints hurt because God was punishing me. “God is love,” my mind said. “Love wouldn’t cause me to hurt this much.” But that was not the only answer in Scripture. The pain and suffering Israel experienced was sometimes seen as chastisement from God to correct the ways of his people so that they would return to him. Isaiah tells of God’s impending judgment: “I will turn my hand against you; I will thoroughly purge away your dross and remove your impurities” (Isa. 1:25).

I considered this reason. I was in a wheelchair because God was chastising me in order to bring me back to him. “That might have been true a few weeks ago,” I’d plead, “but I am trying my best to be what he wants.”

In the first chapter of Job another answer is given when the cause of pain and suffering is placed at the feet of Satan. My kidneys were bleeding because Satan was attacking me. “No! God is more powerful than Satan.”

Pain and suffering are also explained as a tool God uses to test and refine his people, as Peter wrote: “Now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These may have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Peter 1:6–7).

Seizures shook my body because God was refining me. “Refining me?” I’d cry, “They’re destroying me!” I couldn’t button buttons or hold a spoon because God was testing my faith. “Testing my faith? There is no faith left!”

With those words I abdicated. I had not been able to find a satisfactory answer, so I chose the only out that seemed viable to me: death. It would be an escape from the physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering I had endured for 10 years. I went to a motel, took a month’s supply of three potent medications, and lay down for the final escape.

But I had not reckoned with God’s sovereignty, which he demonstrated over me and the death I had chosen. Inexplicably, in medical terms, I awoke 16 hours later, called for help, was rushed to a hospital, and spent the next months struggling within its walls.

It was during those months that I began to develop a theology of pain and suffering that invited me toward life instead of death. I returned to the Book of Job because the entire book seems devoted to ferreting out the answer to one question: Why do people suffer, particularly the righteous?

Here, at the point when God takes the stage, all expect him to provide a solution. But then he does not even seem to address the issue as he declares the extent of his sovereignly. What seemed to me to be pure sidestepping on God’s part angered me at one time. It has since provided me with the key for coming to terms with my own pain and suffering. In the year following the overdose I came to three conclusions: (1) death is not the answer to pain; (2) fixating on why you suffer has little value and is often immobilizing; and most important, (3) God is sovereign over pain and suffering, and over death.

I discovered that in all the time I had spent with the Bible trying to understand my suffering I had overlooked (or perhaps underlooked would be a better word) the one thing on which all biblical authors are in agreement: God is sovereign. No matter if the perceived cause of suffering is evil, sin, Satan, God’s punishment, God’s reprimand, God’s testing, or even if it is unknown, God is in control.

Answering why i hurt really is not crucial, for no matter what the cause, God is sovereign over me and over the pain induced by the SLE. And because God’s power is much greater, he can do what I alone could not. My strength had been shown to be inadequate; I chose death. His power was dramatically demonstrated; he chose life for me. If he could give me life, I could certainly rely on his strength to see me through pain-filled times.

My pain did not decrease, but my attitude toward it changed. My strength was no longer pitted in mortal combat with suffering. It was not necessary to win the battle with pain for it was no longer my “enemy.” It just was. I hurt, but it was okay to admit that I hurt. It was okay to admit that I was not strong enough to cope with the hurt. God was sovereign over that hurt.

The reality of Paul’s experience became mine. He said: “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given to me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:7–8).

Grace, God’s grace. It was grace that chose ancient Israel, grace that led slaves out of Egypt into the wilderness, grace that led them to the Promised Land, grace that forced a stiff-necked people into exile, grace that became incarnate in Jesus, grace that hung on a cross, grace that conquered death through an empty tomb, reached out and led me through a wilderness, rescued me from self-chosen death, and claimed me. I could do no more than respond.

Whether pain and suffering are the result of evil, God’s active intervention, or just a chance encounter with a bacterium, God can and will work to lead a child of his toward life. It may not necessarily be a pain-free life, but it will be the “abundant life” that only he can give.

In our society we erroneously believe that suffering in any form detracts from life. We think pain should be avoided at all cost, eradicated, medicated, or banished. This attitude can be detrimental, leading an individual from doctor to doctor, church to church, drug to drug, seeking some means—any means—to dispel what he or she perceives to be destroying the quality of life. It can even lead, as I demonstrated, to suicide.

But suffering is not the antithesis of life. It does not have to destroy the quality of life. To be sure, pain is not pleasant, but that does not mean that good cannot emerge from individual or collective agony. My knowledge of who and what I am in relation to God, others, and self has arisen out of my wilderness of suffering.

A professor under whom I once studied commented that one cannot enter the Promised Land without first sojourning in the wilderness. Biblical evidence points to the validity of this statement.

A rag-tag bunch of slaves discovered who their God was and consequently who they were in the barren Sinai before they entered into the land of milk and honey. The psalmist’s cry, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” turned into a song of praise after experiencing the agony that led to rescue (Psalm 22). Jesus echoed the same cry on the cross, but God turned the suffering of Gethsemane and that cross into the greatest victory the world has ever known.

I now know such victory, but I had to journey through the wilderness of pain in order to understand that it was for me. Traveling through it destroyed my pride, leaving me unable to cope with using my own resources. It brought me face to face with God.

Pain and suffering—physical, emotional, and/or spiritual—are part of our human experience. While we may not be able to tell why, we can know that God is able to work in and through our personal agonies to bring us into a new relationship with him, to bring us to life.

Merrily Anderson is research assistant to the dean at Western Evangelical Seminary, Milwaukie, Oregon.

It is time to drag this weekly trauma out from under the church carpet and equip teachers to handle it.

Public schools, it is said, have lost control of the kids. Professional educators are alternately pitied and blamed for what Gallup says the public perceives as the most pressing problem in education. Christians, in particular, see lack of school discipline as both reflecting, and contributing to, lax moral standards in society as a whole.

But perhaps we should recall the biblical admonition about the beam in our own eye. Maybe we ought to turn our scrutiny inward to those Sunday morning church school classes that often never settle down, and at times break into open revolt.

Lack of discipline in Sunday school is a rarely publicized, pervasive problem in many churches. Tardiness, rowdiness, talking back to the teacher, and refusing to participate actively are often the standard menu of behavior on Sunday morning in the juvenile wing of the church. Sunday school teachers are often frazzled after only 45 minutes with a relatively small group of youngsters. It is not unusual to see these poor souls drag in late and dazed to the 11 o’clock service, stumble exhausted and depressed into a pew, and lapse into a glazed stare indicative of fervent, silent prayer. Happily for them, Sunday school happens only once a week and only for a brief period.

But why isn’t Sunday school a delightful experience? Why do students often act even worse in Sunday school classes than in public school classes? What can be done to improve church school behavior?

We will look in vain for simple answers. Perhaps Sunday school misbehavior arises from circumstances that relate more to the preparation and status of Sunday school teachers than to the characteristics of young people. When we look closely at how teachers are recruited and trained in many churches, the wonder is that student behavior is not worse than it is.

In most churches, Sunday school teachers are decent people who have been talked into “serving” through some subtle or not-so-subtle pressure. I was recruited by a dentist who, standing over me with drill in hand, said he didn’t know whether he could go on if he could not get away from “those kids”—his eighth-grade Sunday school class—for at least a summer. But goodness of heart, guilt, or (in my case) fear do not prepare one to do that job well. Even taking a job out of personal or religious commitment does not guarantee success.

What does prepare a person to do a job well is training. But very few Sunday school teachers come to the task with the needed skills, and even fewer learn those skills through on-the-job training. It is not completely true that good teaching prevents discipline problems; nonetheless, good teaching is of more help than good intentions.

Sunday school teachers need training in how to teach, and particularly in building a group, in speaking in front of a group, leading discussions, asking questions, planning lessons, and using audio-visual aids. A well-thought-out lesson, developed through questioning and discussion, supported by visual aids, and brought to a stimulating close, does not happen by accident or through good will. Sunday school teaching, no less than other teaching, requires training in instructional skills.

It also requires training in the skills of class management and discipline. Only recently (and reluctantly) have educators come to realize that good instructional skills alone will not create an orderly atmosphere for learning. The historical reluctance of those who educate public school teachers to go beyond instructional into management skills is part of the reason for the crisis over discipline in the public schools. But until these same skills are taught to Sunday school teachers, we cannot reasonably expect Sunday morning discipline to get better. Class management skills include nonverbal signaling, attending to two or more things at once, moving closer or farther away as the situation demands, and manipulating the physical environment.

Class management skills complement instructional skills and can be learned at the same time. For example, leading a successful discussion requires that the teacher first provide the students, generally through a visual aid, with something interesting enough to talk about. Then it requires careful questioning and refereeing. But discussion is also enhanced by a seating arrangement that lets students see one another’s faces instead of the backs of each other’s heads. Also important is a teacher’s eye contact, and movement that signals students nonverbally about when to talk and when to stop talking.

Teaching skills, of course, are form without matter unless the teacher has something to teach. Many Sunday school teachers simply do not know much about the content of religious education. Some curriculum guides are a tremendous help, but the teacher must understand the Bible and Christianity well enough to answer difficult questions students pose. The answer, “We accept this on faith,” may be true, but when given too often, it sounds like ignorance. Rigorous study in the content of Christianity is required.

But no one is a professional Sunday school teacher. Most teachers have other things to do, and must make time to prepare lessons and to teach. It is hard enough to get people to teach without also asking them to attend training sessions. We can partially solve the problem by attacking yet another reason for the poor discipline in Sunday school: the lack of status of the office of Sunday school teacher.

Status, it can be argued, is a particularly unchristian concept; we are all equal before the Lord. However, here on earth high status, authority, and respect seem to go hand in hand, and it would help Sunday school discipline if churches were to take steps to raise the status of the Sunday school faculty in the eyes of their students. Students know that for the most part, their teachers have little or no training or expertise in the subject or in its communication. Training, as already suggested, will remedy that to a large extent.

But in many cases, to get teachers to participate in training, churches will first have to raise their status. The initial step is recruitment. Church leaders must quit begging for warm bodies, and they must establish standards for teachers. These standards may not be exceptionally high necessarily, but high enough to lend some credibility to the people who meet them, and some desirability to the job.

Next, the people selected should be dealt with as a group. They should meet together, be referred to as a faculty in church notices, and should function as a group vis-à-vis other church activities. This would both make Sunday school teaching more attractive to those who shy away from it because it isolates people from their peers at church, and increase student regard for their teachers as people who are a little “special.”

Sunday school teachers would benefit from a little low-key “marketing and selling.” Having faculty members introduced in church at the start of the new church-school year is a good idea. So is devoting a bulletin board to a “teacher of the month,” or including short biographical sketches in the church bulletin or newspaper. What is badly needed is a perception of the Sunday school teacher as a person worthy of the respect of both adults and children.

Higher status, visibility, and training in teaching and content will improve discipline by increasing the teacher’s authority. How we feel about authority and our changing attitudes about what constitutes legitimate power are issues at the very heart of the discipline crisis in both public schools and Sunday schools.

Less well recognized are several different kinds of authority or power one person can exercise with another or with a group. The kind most used in Sunday schools is “normative” power. This calls on social or cultural norms that govern a situation, and these are assumed to be held in common. It sounds like, “Remember where you are, folks,” and “Is that how Christ would want us to act in his house?” In some churches, normative authority is the only kind the Sunday school teacher ever tries.

Unfortunately, many young people do not recognize such authority as legitimate in the Sunday school classroom. The teacher’s norms are not the same as those the student recognizes. Students are more likely to consider Sunday school as a time to socialize and visit with friends rather than as a time for reverence or spiritual growth. The student’s norms are social, the teacher’s are spiritual, and no amount of “ought tos” and “shoulds” can close that gap.

Happily, there are other kinds of authority that are both readily accepted by students and effective. “Exchange” power uses the promises of reward in return for good behavior: “If you will all just be quiet so we can get through the lesson, I’ll let you out five minutes early.” Exchange power has been used successfully in some Sunday school classes, but of the possible alternative kinds of authority it is ultimately the least effective. Rewarding children for good behavior works only up to the point where they come to value the behavior themselves. After a child has come to value “listening,” for example, a reward for that behavior decreases the likelihood it will be performed.

Similarly acceptable is “referent” power. Its use depends on the child’s desire to identify with some person or group. One common type is peer pressure, and all parents of teen-agers know how strong this can be. The effective teacher views peer pressure not as an adversary, but as a friend. The most well-disciplined and effective classes are often those where students control each other’s behavior.

Peer pressure works for the teacher when he or she turns over some power to the students. In practice, this means the Sunday school teacher needs to let the class have a say in determining class rules and curriculum. This is not accomplished by saying, “Okay, kids, what’d’ya want to do today?” Rather, the teacher may decide in advance on some alternatives, present them to the class, and let the members choose. That way, the students buy into the curriculum or rule, and have a stake in seeing it followed.

Another kind of referent power is often called “modeling.” Here the student is attracted to the teacher as a human being, and wants to grow up to be like that person. Modeling can have extraordinarily strong effects which, in the extreme, can be undesirable, but which in moderation can lead to enormous personal growth for youngsters, and to good behavior. Successful modeling, of course, depends upon the Sunday school teacher possessing personal characteristics that are worth emulating.

Another effective kind of power is “ecological” power, and is at the heart of many class management techniques. It depends on the teacher’s successful manipulation of the physical or social environment. The teacher who seats himself right beside the class talker is exercising ecological power, as is the teacher who refrains from handing out the paint or clay until instructions for its use are given.

The last kind of authority is “expert” power. This is grounded in the students’ recognition of the teacher’s superior knowledge and skill. It requires that teachers actually have more knowledge and skill than students, and that they are able to convey that knowledge and skill through instruction. This leads us, of course, back to the necessity for training in content, instructional techniques, and class management skills.

Sunday school classrooms can be well run. They can be places of learning. But to bring that about we need to recruit teachers into status positions, and systematically train them in content and teaching skills. Until that happens, many Sunday schools are likely to remain little more than places to stash the kids while the adults go about their business, and the teachers are likely to be little more than frazzled baby sitters. Surely religious education deserves more.

Margaret S. Verble is a writer and instructional consultant living in Greenville, Kentucky. In 1980 she wrote a television course, “Dealing in Discipline,” consisting of 12 programs and a book (University of Mid-America).

Sociopolitical prophecy must not be confused with personal and spiritual promise.

I greatly appreciate Dr. Hanna’s insistence that God has a distinct future in store for Israel. I can also agree that we must shun anti-Semitism in any form. I, too, believe we have an obligation to love and witness to all men, Jew and Gentile alike. However, a number of his points greatly trouble me.

The first is the way he presents the options: Either Christians should be pro-Israel to the point of condoning every act of the state of Israel, or they should be positive but impartial to all people with no special emphasis on Israel. Either you use Genesis 12:3 to condone all of Israel’s actions, or you follow the New Testament teaching that God has no favorites.

Hanna seems to think that most fundamentalists and evangelicals (dispensationalists especially) hold the former position. He urges the latter.

I do not agree with either view, nor believe they are the only options. Why can’t a Bible-believing Christian (1) recognize Israel as God’s chosen people (Deut. 7:6–8); (2) recognize that the establishment of the modern State of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy (Ezek. 37; Isa. 43:5–6); (3) recognize Israel’s special position socially, politically, and economically in the kingdom (Ezek. 36:30, 33–38; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:16–19; Amos 9:14–15; Isa. 49:22–23; 60:14–17; 61:6–7; Zech. 8:22–23); and (4) recognize Israel’s God-given right to the land (Deut. 28–30) without having to condone every specific act of the State of Israel? Hanna does not seem to consider that possibility, which seems to be the most biblically sound view of all.

I am also disturbed by what seem to be theological and biblical errors. Hanna urges us not to overemphasize Israel’s importance because the real people of God are the saved of all ages. They will share equally in the blessings of the kingdom, whether they be Jew, Arab, or whatever. I do not deny that the saved are the people of God. But we must also follow Scripture when it says Israel is God’s special inheritance (Deut. 7:6–8; Ps. 135:4; Isa. 41:8–9), and when the New Testament teaches that God has not cast off his people Israel (Rom. 11:1–2, 11, 25–27).

I think Hanna’s basic mistake is refusal to distinguish between the spiritual aspects of kingdom blessing and its socio-politico-economic aspects. Certainly all believers share equally in the spiritual blessings of the kingdom; that is true now as in the future. But that is not the issue at stake. Scripture teaches a special socio-politico-economic position for Israel in the kingdom. It also teaches that God has ordained a series of events, including the presence in and possession of the land by Israel, as preparatory to setting up the kingdom.

I also find Hanna’s handling of the remnant confused. He is right that not the whole nation but only “a redeemed remnant of Jews will constitute the nucleus of a new nation of Israel in the kingdom age.” But he gives the impression that this means national Israel before the kingdom has no special right to the land because of unbelief. I find this unacceptable in view of Scriptures that show God has promised to bring Israel back to the land, even though in unbelief (Ezek. 37:8, 12–14; Zech. 12; Zech. 13:8–9). These same Scriptures indicate that Israel’s presence in the land as a nation is the first step in God’s plan to drive it back to himself.

In fact, does not the tribulation that will drive Israel to seek God presuppose its presence in the land as a nation? How, then, can Hanna seem to suggest that the truth of a redeemed remnant is grounds for removing unbelieving Israel from the land? Hanna cannot have his cake and eat it too. If he accepts the doctrine of a saved remnant, he must accept the presence of the whole nation in the land prior to the salvation that goes with it.

Third, Hanna’s handling of Scripture concerns me. He appeals to Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 6:28; Romans 12:14, and James 2:1–9 to prove that Jews deserve no special treatment. Unfortunately, he has ignored the contexts of these passages: they deal with the Christian’s general obligation to all men at the level of interpersonal relationship. That is not relevant, however, when the issue is God’s treatment of and our attitude toward nations.

Moreover, God is impartial to all men when it comes to spiritual matters. Christ died for all men (Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2), and he desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). But again, the topic is not just spiritual standing and blessing before God. The topic is socio-politico-economic blessing, and God does distinguish among nations in those areas.

Beyond that, impartiality is only one side of the story; it has to be fitted together with other doctrines of Scripture. If God really intended that there be absolute impartiality in all matters, would he not either have to send us all to hell or save us all? Certainly Hanna overemphasizes and misunderstands the biblical teaching on impartiality. Even worse, though, is his dismissal of passages like Genesis 12:3 and Psalm 122:6 because they are not repeated in the New Testament.

Moreover, if Hanna’s practice were followed, the Davidic Covenant he holds to as a dispensationalist would have to be thrown out because 2 Samuel 7:12–16 is repeated nowhere in the New Testament. (Incidentally, Psalm 23 is repeated nowhere in the New Testament. Should we dismiss it, too?)

Hanna’s whole point seems incredible in light of Romans 11. Paul finishes speaking about what God will do for Israel in the future and then sums it up by saying “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. 11:29), a reference to the whole message of the chapter. That should be enough certification that God’s attitude and plan for Israel is no different than it was in the Old Testament.

Finally, Hanna’s logic is too unconvinching at too many points. For example, he complains that a pro-Israel stand has been abused by Christians. As a result, many Arabs have been turned off toward Christianity. That is probably true—but how is it relevant to what God’s Word teaches about his program for Israel? Since when do we determine what biblical truth is in virtue of how Christians use or abuse it?

Likewise, Hanna urges us to consider that we have many Arab brothers and sisters in Christ, and that our tie with them is stronger than with unbelieving Israel. I thank God for all Arab Christians, but what does their existence prove in relation to the issue? I don’t know what to make of it, especially when I think of all my Hebrew-Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. Scripture does teach that ultimately there will be blessing upon both Israel and upon Arabs in the kingdom (Isa. 19:24–25). But neither the existence of my Hebrew-Christian nor my Arab-Christian brothers and sisters in Christ helps me on the issues under discussion.

I appreciate Dr. Hanna’s discussion of these issues, and I thank God for him. However, I remain unconvinced by his arguments. The best scriptural evidence also demands that we call sin what God calls it. Thus, if Israel acts in a sinful manner, no one should condone such actions. That, however, has nothing to do with Israel’s right to exist, its right to the land, its future position in the kingdom, or the fact that God will fulfill his promise in Genesis 12:3.

Mr. Falwell is pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, Virginia, and president of Moral Majority.

Anti-Zionism must not be dragged into the hyperbolic net of anti-Semitism.

What should be the Christian’s attitude toward Israel?

This question is sparking a renewed debate among evangelicals. Adding fuel to the dispute is Jerry Falwell’s public and apparently unqualified support of Israel’s actions and his conspicuous identification with Menachem Begin. In early September, Falwell was shown on national telecasts meeting with the Israeli prime minister.

Although there is considerable anti-Semitism in the world—and it seems to be increasing—little progress can be made in our thinking about present-day Israel without recognizing that the charge of anti-Semitism can be overdone and turned into a bugbear that perverts our understanding and our sense of justice. Jingoists for Israel have made propagandistic hay out of the term on many occasions. Not infrequently Zionist supporters dub as “anti-Semitic” anyone who raises a question about Israel’s actions. Evangelicals (and fundamentalists) are not immune to this skewed perspective that virtually precludes the possibility of Israel’s culpability in any of its decisions.

The reasoning of such partisans is simple—and simplistic. Israel consists of Abraham’s descendants. God made a covenant with Abraham and his posterity (Gen. 12:1–3; 22:16–18). In it, he gave the land of Canaan to them in perpetuity. Moreover, God said he would bless those who bless the Abrahamic line and curse those who curse them. Thus, if one wants to believe the Bible and obtain God’s blessing, he ought to be a loyal, enthusiastic supporter of Israel. Israeli Jews, therefore, have the supreme right to the land of Palestine. Any action they take to defend or strengthen their hold on the land ought to be approved.

Although varying degrees of this bias favoring Israel can be found across the spectrum of evangelicals, dispensationalists are seen as that nation’s most ardent partisans. They interpret the establishment of the State of Israel as the major sign that we are in the last days before the Tribulation (Matt. 24:21) and the return of Christ to inaugurate his kingdom on earth (Matt. 24:29–30). The destruction of Israel would therefore mean for them the frustration of these prophetic expectations for the near future.

While I oppose anti-Semitism and the destruction of the State of Israel, I want to challenge the widespread use of the former term as a ploy to obscure questions of truth and justice concerning the Middle East situation. As a moderate dispensationalist (I maintain that there is a fundamental distinction between “Israel” and the church as two distinct but not unrelated peoples of God), I want to refute the notion that dispensationalism theologically requires a pro-Israeli stance. My focus on the Bible, however, should not be taken to imply that historical and psychological motives for supporting political Zionism have been unimportant in shaping the attitudes of both Christians and non-Christians.

Anti-Zionism

The term “anti-Semitism” is too broad to use in reference to either anti-Israeli sentiment or anti-Jewish prejudice. First of all, the Arab peoples are themselves Semitic, so it follows that when the shibboleth “anti-Semitism” is employed to squelch an impartial assessment of Israeli actions against Arabs, one is being anti-Semitic—that is, anti-Arab.

Second, propagandists for the State of Israel, from the time of Theodor Herzl and the first Zionist Congress in 1897, have tried to persuade the West that anti-Zionism is a species of anti-Semitism—that is, anti-Jewishness. That this equation is false is demonstrated in three ways. For centuries Arab societies accepted Jews as citizens and equals, some of them rising to positions of great influence. That relationship was undermined, however, by Zionist activity that sought to plant a new state in Palestine. This was contrary to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which designated the area a “national homeland” for refugee Jews, and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who lived in Palestine at the time. Jews owned about 6 percent of the land when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine, thereby making it possible for Zionists to create the State of Israel.

Furthermore, anti-Zionism cannot be equated with anti-Jewishness because a sizeable group of Orthodox Jews (e.g., the Neturei Karta) opposes the Zionist State of Israel for spiritual and theological reasons.

Finally, reflective and highly informed Jewish intellectuals like Alfred Lilienthal (see his recent volume, The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?, Dodd, 1978) are adamantly opposed to the Zionist state of Israel on historical, legal, moral, and political grounds. None of these three groups is anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish), but all of them are anti-Zionist. Evangelicals need to understand this distinction and keep it before them as they assess the Middle East situation.

Dispensationalists are fond of quoting Genesis 12:3 to justify their partisan bias that favors Israel. Of all biblical interpreters, they are given to making distinctions in the text of Scripture and to emphasizing the limited application of its pre-epistolary sections. But they seem to have a blind spot here. Genesis 12:3 is not repeated in the New Testament. What do we find instead? The New Testament consistently teaches the principle of impartiality in our attitudes and actions toward all people (Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 6:28; Rom. 12:14).

The Epistle of James says that “if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (2:9). No Christian should be anti-Semitic or anti any people. It is high time, therefore, for evangelicals to recognize that a blind and one-sided pro-Israeli partiality is a sinful attitude, for its flip side is the negative prejudice that views Arabs as less than full persons. Let us bless Jews, but if we want to be true Christians, let us also equally bless other people. It is our indifference to impartiality and distributive justice that robs us of God’s blessing far more than our neglect of Genesis 12:3.

If we want to bless Jews—indeed, if we want to bless anyone—the greatest thing we can do is to demonstrate to them the love of Christ so that they are attracted to the Savior who is the source of every blessing (Eph. 1:3). The pro-Israeli bias of evangelicals, however, has driven countless Arabs, Muslims, and other “Third World” peoples from the Savior.

We are not told in the New Testament to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. That is another Old Testament injunction (Ps. 122:6) that has been assimilated into a larger New Testament imperative. We are to pray for all men and for peace everywhere (1 Tim. 2:1–2). There will be no permanent peace in Jerusalem until Christ returns. In the meantime, we ought to be praying for peace in Berlin, Beirut, Belfast, Warsaw, and in every troubled city of the world in addition to Jerusalem.

Prophecy Need Not Mean Approval

Evangelicals, especially dispensationalists, fall into a major exegetical error when, in an effort to justify their bias, they turn to biblical passages that speak about Israel’s future. This mistake is threefold.

First, they misapply scriptural passages that prophesy a glorious future for Israel. Although I do not deny that Israel will have a special role in the messianic kingdom on earth, passages containing this reference should not be lifted out of context to buttress Israel’s contemporary claims. Some of the passages frequently misused in this way are Deuteronomy 30:3–5; Isaiah 11:11–12; 35:1, 2, 6–7; Jeremiah 23:3.

Second, it is often forgotten that the mere foretelling of an event by biblical writers does not necessarily carry the stamp of God’s approval on that event or its participants. Thus, even in scriptural passages that presuppose or imply the existence of an Israeli state in Palestine prior to the return of Christ to the earth (Ezek. 36–37; Zeph. 2:1; Matt. 24:15–21; Rev. 11:1–2), we are not to inject an added factor, namely, the assumption that such events are according to the directive will of God. After all, biblical prophets foretold the rise and activities of arrogant Gentile nations and wicked rulers (Dan. 2; 7; 8; 11; Hab. 1:6), unbelief in the Messiah (Isa. 53:1–3), and the coming of Antichrist (Dan. 11:36–45; 2 Thess. 2:8–9; Rev. 13). Although the crucifixion of the Messiah was foretold in the Old Testament (Ps. 22; Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26; Luke 24:25–27), that did not absolve his murderers of their guilt (Acts 2:23). And neither did God’s covenant promise to Jacob absolve him and Rebekah of the treachery they used to obtain the blessing (Gen. 27). Neither prediction nor promise provides grounds for exonerating all human acts related to its realization.

My dispensational perspective leads me to believe that there must be an Israeli state in the Middle East in order for certain end-time prophecies to be fulfilled (Dan. 9:27; Zech. 12:2–3; 13:8; 14:1–4; Matt. 24:15–20), but the existence of such a state does not carry with it a divine voucher any more than Jacob’s possession of the blessing he extracted from his father did.

In an effort to justify Zionist military action, some ask, “Didn’t Moses and Joshua use force to take the land of Canaan from the people who were inhabiting it at the time?” Of course; but have we forgotten a crucial difference? Divine revelation gave Moses and Joshua explicit instructions to go in and possess the land, executing capital punishment on debauched and impenitent peoples whose sin was a threat to the survival of the human race (Lev. 18:24–25).

Theodore Herzl did not have such revelation. Neither did Chaim Weizmann, nor David Ben-Gurion, nor Golda Meir, nor Menachem Begin. And all the evidence indicates that the Palestinian Arabs were not morally or spiritually worse than the Jews who occupied their land by illegal immigration and acts of terroristic violence (as committed by the Irgun and Stern Gang, for example). To be sure, history records atrocities perpetuated by both Jews and Arabs in the course of the long conflict that began shortly after 1917.

Who Are The People Of God Today?

Third, end-time prophecies pertaining to Israel are misconstrued when biblical teaching about “the remnant” is ignored. From the time of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, the nation was a mixed multitude. Even though God dealt with the people as a sociopolitical-religious entity, they apostatized again and again (Exod. 32; Judges; 1 Kings 18; Isa. 1:9; 6:13; 29:13–14). The Scriptures indicate that during the Tribulation period, two-thirds of the Jews living in Palestine will perish (Zech. 13:8). Those who survive will not all belong to the believing remnant, for at the inauguration of the messianic kingdom, unredeemed Jews and Gentiles will be removed from the earth by divine judgment (Ezek. 20:33–44; Matt. 8:11–12; 13:41–43). Thus, a redeemed remnant of Jews will constitute the nucleus of a new nation of Israel in the kingdom age (Isa. 60:21–22).

Israel today is not the people of God, nor should that nation be confused with the redeemed nation that will emerge from a small remnant during the messianic kingdom. Perhaps no nation in the world today is more opposed to the Christian faith and its missionaries. A Christian Hebrew is such an anomaly in the eyes of the State of Israel that he or she is not recognized as a bona fide Jew.

Biblically, when a Jew becomes a believer in Christ he becomes a member of the body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Rom. 11:1–5; Gal. 3:28). And in the future, it will only be believing Gentiles and true Jews—those who trust in Jesus as Messiah and Savior—who will enter the kingdom: “If the Lord is pleased with us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it to us …” (Num. 14:8; Rom. 9:4–8; 10:21; 11:25–27).

Who are the people of God today? Not Israelis or Jews or Gentiles, but regenerated believers in the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1–4; Rom. 1:16; 1 Pet. 2:9–10). We must not forget either the many thousands of Arab Christians who are part of the body of Christ and so related to us by a spiritual bond that can never be matched by the historical ties of Israel to the West and the church.

When I am asked whose side I am on in the Middle East conflict, I find myself questioning the questioner: Do you think there are only two sides—the Arab and the Israeli sides? In actuality, a diversity of positions exists among both Arabs and Israelis concerning claims and counterclaims in the Middle East. The only proper answer for the Christian is: I am on neither the Arab side nor the Israeli side, but I am seeking to be on God’s side.

How does a person determine what that is? By interpreting and applying the Scriptures with great care and integrity. As I seek to do this, I find that biblically the demands of truth, justice, and compassion take precedence over preferential treatment for any group of people, Jews not excepted (Prov. 21:3; Isa. 59:14; Jer. 23:5).

If we want to see Israel blessed, then let it and us abide by the words the Lord enjoined on Abraham: “… to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what he has spoken about him” (Gen. 18:19). As we relate to Arabs and Israelis and seek to evaluate the ongoing Middle East crisis, “let us do good to all men” (Gal. 6:10), equally and compassionately in the name of Christ, for his throne will be established and maintained with “justice and righteousness … forever” (Isa. 9:7).

Mark M. Hanna is associate professor of philosophy of religion at Talbot Theological seminary in La Mirada, California. He is also director of evangelism and teachig for International Students, Incorporated.

The Looming Menace of 1997

Gather around me, children, and I will explain why 1997, not 1984, is the critical year for world history. Oh, I know all about 1984 and Big Brother and all that. But 1997 is a real date and not something conjured up by a novelist. I mean, 1997 is a real part of history.

“What,” you may ask, “is so all-fired important about 1997?”

I will tell you, my child.

It is the year the lease runs out for the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. That’s what.

1 well know that there may be serious repercussions on the international scene: China may want all her property back; Russia may interfere. For all the prophetic implications, phone Salem Kirban. His “Prophetic Hot Line” is always open, and you can use your VISA card to pay.

But it is not politics or prophecy that I’m concerned about. My burning question is: When Hong Kong loses its lease, what will happen to the clothing industry? For years, missionaries and other foreign travelers have depended on Hong Kong tailors to get them through. The seasoned traveler knows that the bargains are in Hong Kong. In fact, you don’t have to arrive to have a suit or dress tailored for you: your airplane pilot will be happy to wire your measurements ahead, and you can select fabrics and styles from catalogs in the seat pocket. As soon as you clear customs, there stands your friendly tailor, waiting to help you into your new garments. What could be simpler?

I repeat: What will happen to all of this? Must missionaries come home without new clothes? Will they have to wear American or British clothing and have no loose threads to pull (“Oh, well, I didn’t need that left sleeve!”) or odd styles to explain? How will our missionaries evoke pity and thus increase their offerings?

Oh, my children, the situation is serious, and we have only 15 years to plan our attack. Talk to your pastor. Write your senator. Write the United Nations. But please don’t write to

EUTYCHUS X

Appalling Cover

I was appalled by the cover on your December 11 issue. Although you had a good point to make, I feel the cover was in bad taste and showed poor judgment.

PHYLLIS VERMILLION

Dallas, Tex.

May I commend you for the courage it took to make such a strong visual statement. These types of visual editorials are so visceral in their impact that the need to thoughtfully reflect on what you were trying to say is lost in their “shock value.” I believe Christians should seriously question the place “Saint Nick” has usurped from Christ Jesus. Although many articles on the subject have been written in recent years, the hard decisions faced by parents raising children in our secular society are summed up perfectly in your cover. Who is Lord at Christmas? The one who came to die, or the one who is a lie?

R. H. EDWARDS JR.

Springfield, Va.

“The Secular Grinch”?

Your recent spoof of Santa by Eutychus, “Christmas Without Santa” [Dec. 11], is found offensive. I do not believe Santa Claus should be part of any Christian observance of the Incarnation, yet your Eutychus evidently would portray me as some “religious nut.” I find this portrayal of people opposed to Santa an open invitation to allow anything at the stable. Perhaps we ought to make sure that Rudolph is there to guide the wise men!

REV. G. J. GERARD

Kingsborough Presbyterian Church

Gloversville, N.Y.

Superb Article

“Christmas Grinches: Thieves of Joy” [Dec. 11] by Win Couchman was superb. I too had been struggling with the “Spiritual Grinch.” Mrs. Couchman’s article helped me to reaffirm my desire to help my family enjoy our Savior during this season.

REV. RON CREWS

Manna Fellowship Church

Rocky Mount, N.C.

Nazarene Aloofness

One comment concerning the so-called aloofness of the Church of the Nazarene to the NAE and the NCC [“Sampling the Spirit of the Smaller Denominations,” Dec. 11].

The Church of the Nazarene is fundamental as opposed to fundamentalist. It is cooperative as opposed to ecumenical. And it carries these perceptions in the earthen vessel of a cognizant distinctness. Nazarenes love their brothers and sisters in all branches of Christ’s church, while at the same time, understanding that the very nature of our mission (“… to spread doctrinal holiness, to get people into the experience of entire santification”) implies several very real theological differences.

Our articles of faith incorporate the broad themes of historic biblical theology while avoiding the narrow constraints of later tradition—for example, speculative eschatology.

REV. DAVID J. FELTER

Linwood Church of the Nazarene

Wichita, Kans.

Nicene Confession

It was a pleasure to read of your belief in a 1,600-year-old faith [“I Believe: A 1,600-Year-Old Confession of Faith” Dec. 11]. As for me, I am trying to believe what the Bible itself says. It tells me the Father is God—so is Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit appears to me as the essential power of God and Christ to perform their purposes.

However, let us for a moment go to literality—as the Nicene Confession demands. The Holy Spirit is a real “he.” This makes him a real personality. But John also says he looks like a dove. You know what the Nicene Confession has done? It has made the Holy Spirit a personality coequal with the Father and Christ. You have created a God who looks like a bird. If you choose to make the Holy Spirit a personality (rather than the power of God), you have created a bird-god.

I wish you success with your philosophical concept as formed at Nicea. As for me, I find the whole thing irrational and unbiblical.

ERNEST L. MARTIN

Foundation for Biblical Research

Pasadena, Calif.

Delight to Disappointment

My delight in discovering Robert Frykenberg’s article, “World Hunger: Food Is Not the Answer” [Dec. 11], turned into disappointment before I finished reading it.

Food is the answer for the world’s hungry. But neither “giveaway” food nor better food distribution systems alone will solve the problem. There is far more being done by Christian relief and development ministries to help people become self-sufficient in food production than the writer’s research uncovered. The information is available to those whose conclusions are not already drawn.

ARTHUR L. BEALS

World Concern

Seattle, Wash.

This is a very timely article for us laymen who are consistently barraged by a steady flow of letters soliciting our aid for the starving people of the world. We need more such articles. Perhaps in that way the solution can be found.

VERNON HOLST

Newell, S. Dak.

Sanity in the Prophecy Gristmill

I am grateful for the injection of sanity into the prophecy gristmill provided by Samuel Creed [“The Profitable Proliferation of Hot-line Prophecy,” Dec. 11].

Not only does he reject the heresies of dispensationalism concerning the “parenthesis” of the church (God’s Plan B!), but he is very perceptive concerning the borderline blasphemy of any system that overturns the progressive nature of revelation and reverts to Old Testament Israel’s religious system. Such would overturn the work and person of Jesus Christ, the act of which Scripture declares to be apostacy and blasphemy against God.

MARSHALL J. PIERSON III

Akron, Ohio

Interesting Anomaly

The Reformed tradition is conspicuously ignored by Bruce L. Shelley in “Sampling the Spirit of the Smaller Denominations” [Dec. 11]. The Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, would have been a good representative. On the other hand, an essential Reformed tenet was propounded (unwittingly?) in the helpful article, “The Profitable Proliferation of Hot-Line Prophecy” [Dec. 11]: the church is not a parenthesis, and the salvation of none will involve a reversion to the Old Testament dispensation. I feel half pleased.

JAY L. WOOD

Zondervan Publishing House

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Slight Alteration

It is not the Southern Baptist Church that is planning the television network [“Congregational Video: A Viable Ministry,” Nov. 20]. Rather, it is the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Radio-Television Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

REV. BOB GILLCHREST

Olivet Baptist Church

Lancaster, Calif.

Correction

The title of Richard C. Hutcheson, Jr.’s book, from which “Where Have All the Young Folks Gone?” was taken [Nov. 6], is Mainline Churches and the Evangelicals, published last year by John Knox Press.

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.

For many evangelicals, Riverside Drive in New York City is the center of power for the National Council of Churches. It is a mysterious nest from which are spawned an endless brood of irritants to evangelicals—if not downright heresies. J. D. Douglas sheds light on the home of the NCC, and reveals it to be inhabited by well-meaning individuals doing their best to set the world aright according to their lights. Even a little light helps us to see better, and in this case, perhaps, the shedding of light will dispel some of the mystery and some of the fear of that important religious structure that purports to represent 40 million American church members.

Though the light in Dr. Douglas’s article will hardly dispel evangelical opposition to the works of the NCC, perhaps it will enable evangelicals to direct their wrath more accurately. No doubt another article is needed to point out the things that the National Council of Churches does that evangelicals can approve of with good conscience. In any case, we plan soon to run an article on the subject “What We at the NCC Would Like Evangelicals to Know About Us.”

Once again, this time after only two years, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship has presented to college and university students a call to missionary commitment at Urbana. Eager students have just returned to their home churches, where the flaming vision will sputter and die—or be nourished, strengthened, and sustained. In this issue’s Minister’s Workshop, youth pastor Paul Borthwick tells how to keep that flame for missions burning brightly for youth.

Mark Hanna’s “Israel Today: What Place in Prophecy?” is a hard-hitting article demanding no special treatment by evangelicals for the nation of Israel. He writes as a dispensationalist, although he thinks dispensationalists generally are Israel’s most ardent supporters. Jerry Falwell’s reply is equally hard hitting. Although it sets forth a strong biblical case for special concern for Israel, it falls short of condoning Israel’s sin or of failing to display Christian love for all Arabs. Falwell’s biblical exegesis is hard to fault—but evangelicals dare not ignore biblical caveats cited by Hanna, either.

While not every evangelical will feel totally comfortable with the inclusions of either view, no one should overlook the immensely significant areas of agreement between them, and especially their stern repudiation of a growing anti-Semitism. In the light of history, I would rather err on the side of favoring Israel too much than of failing to condemn adequately a resurgent anti-Semitism. Never forget: it was nominal Christians who created the Holocaust!