Theology

Reflecting the Trends

This year’s survey of theological books covers two basic areas: theology proper and philosophical theology.

In theology proper, a good deal of effort was expended looking at the foundations of systematics. Reevaluation is taking place and one needs to start at the beginning, asking where we begin, why we begin there, and where we go next. Although considerable work is being done here, evangelicals are not playing a prominent role.

Two specific areas that received special attention are the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of Scripture. This is not surprising, given today’s situation. The lingering charismatic revival is forcing everyone to rethink who the Holy Spirit is and what his role in church and individual life should be. Most of the books are constructive rather than polemical, and it appears that great good continues to come from this often neglected aspect of theology. The doctrine of Scripture is also being examined. If the foundation is shaken apart, the whole structure is in danger of collapse, so it is appropriate that this fundamental point be analyzed. Evangelicals are contributing significantly here.

Philosophical theology is making something of a comeback. An inordinate stress on practicality is slowly giving way to the realization that we must know what is practical and why. This raises all sorts of questions, especially regarding the relation of theology to other aspects of life. A large number of books were written dealing with social ethics (to be surveyed in the fall book issue), and, broadly, apologetics—that is, the proclamation and defense of Christianity in the world. Here again evangelicals are doing significant work.

Significant Books

Four books were selected as “most significant” for evangelicals from the past year’s production. They were chosen not because they actively defended the evangelical point of view, but because of the way in which they touched upon subjects, and informed evangelicals need to be aware of their existence.

Doxology (Oxford), by Geoffrey Wain-wright, is a new kind of systematic theology. It is an attempt to look at “the praise of God in worship, doctrine and life” (its subtitle); in effect, it is a systematic theology of worship. The standard topics are surveyed—God, Christ, Spirit, church, and so on—but all from the perspective of worship and liturgy. This allows the historical dimension to emerge alongside the doctrinal within the context of the community and its praise of God. This book is well thought out, and it breaks new ground. Scholars will appreciate it (the notes alone cover 125 pages), and so will pastors, as it focuses on theology in the file of the church. It is a most rewarding experience.

Does God Exist? (Doubleday), by Hans Küng, is a major apologetic work. It surveys nontheistic and atheistic alternatives, with their resulting nihilism, and then makes a rational case for belief in God. It ends with a Christian statement of who God is. The discussion is learned and dense, though Küng tried to put it at a popular level, sometimes revising as often as eight times to make it understandable to the man in the street. But this does not detract from the book. It is a worthy piece of work that is worth the effort to read. Küng answers the question, Does God exist?, with “a clear, convinced Yes, justifiable at the bar of critical reason. [The answer] begins with faith and ends with trust. In you Lord, I have hoped, I shall never be put to shame.”

Man and Woman in Christ (Servant), by Stephen B. Clark, is a major work in which Clark looks at the scriptural teaching on the roles of men and women. He carefully assesses it, and concludes that God created sexual differentiation because of his purposes for humanity. He also concludes that if we claim to accept the authority of the Bible, we are obliged to apply its pointedly clear teachings to our situation today; we are not free to alter or ignore it. Clark continues by examining our new intellectual environment, offering suggestions on how to apply the Bible’s teachings in the contemporary world. This is an irenic, helpful book, and of all the multitude of books on this subject it is easily the best.

The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (Harper & Row), by Jack B. Rogers and Donald R. McKim, addresses the burning issue that questions what constitutes the Bible’s inspiration and what should be the Christian’s attitude toward both the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration. Rogers and McKim have jumped headlong into the discussion offering what perhaps could be called an errant infallibilist option. They argue that the Bible infallibly does what God intended it to do (primarily, lead people to Christ) but is errant in lesser matters. They also contend that this is essentially the historic view of the church. Personally, I think they are wrong on both counts; but the book needs to be read. At least the issues are now clearly surfacing—which is a distinct benefit. The authors have also done an immense amount of research that will open up avenues of thought for even those who disagree with them. They can be thanked for that; hopefully, we can all learn from the experience of sharing in their labors.

Introductions/Systems

A good deal of thought is going into assessing what theology is all about. Most of the books in this section fall rather uneasily into two categories, either analyzing the foundations and structure of theology or attempting to work out a system of sorts. Some use traditional ideas, some do not.

Several fall into the first category. T. F. Torrance in The Ground and Grammar of Theology (Univ. Press of Virginia) ably discusses the impact of nondualist Einstinian concepts on essentially dualist theology, arguing that dialogue with natural science will benefit theology. John Jefferson Davis edits an interesting collection of essays on The Necessity of Systematic Theology (Baker), covering a range from Brunner to Gerstner. Baker has also reprinted Abraham Ruyper’s massive classic, Principles of Sacred Theology.

Although a bit weak in spots (see the Resurrection, p. 48), Introduction to Christianity: A Case Method Approach (John Knox), by Alice and Robert Evans, contains valuable insight. Johann Baptist Metz in Faith in History and Society (Seabury) attempts in rather turgid fashion to lay the foundation for a political theology. It is worth plowing through, if only to challenge one’s own ideas. John A. T. Robinson argues that Truth Is Two-Eyed (Westminster), meaning that insights gained from Eastern religions help make sense out of Western Christianity. Langdon Gilkey’s introduction to theology, Message and Existence (Seabury), is an attempt to restate theology in “dynamic” categories; hence God becomes a he/she with the attributes of potentiality, relatedness, changeability, and temporality. Understanding the Christian Faith (Prentice-Hall), by Charles D. Barrett, is more traditional and quite helpful. A very perceptive introduction to the evangelical/liberal conflict is Issues of Theological Conflict (Eerdmans), by Richard J. Coleman. It is highly recommended.

Numerous systematic statements have appeared. A Book of Christian Faith (Augsburg), by Johann C. Hampe, is an easy-to-understand statement of basic Christian doctrine. William Hendricks’s A Theology for Children (Broadman), is not for children, but for adults who want to relate theology to children. It is well done. A prodigious work of massive learning is Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life (Oxford), by Geoffrey Wain-wright. It is a systematic theology written in the context of worship. I Have Believed (The Upper Room), by Bishop Earl G. Hunt, is a simple statement of basic doctrine drawn from a lifetime of belief. A Handbook of Christian Theology (Abingdon), edited by A. A. Cohen and Marvin Halverson, is a dictionary of sorts covering 101 topics from Adam to Vocation. The essays range from very conservative to moderately liberal.

Basic Doctrines

God. Both practical and theoretical works have appeared on this fundamental topic. Practically, the concern seems to be how we can know God better in our own experience. In various ways, the following books offer helpful insights: W. Phillip Keller, Walking with God (Revell); J. Oswald Sanders, Enjoying Intimacy with God (Moody); Overton Sacksteder, Streaks of Light (Logos); Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The God of Jesus Christ (Franciscan Herald); George Lefebvre, God Present (Winston Press); Bill Austin, The Back of God (Tyndale); Morris Ashcraft, The Will of God (Broadman); and M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will (InterVarsity).

Cornerstone Books has made available an excellent collection of essays on the being of God, One God in Trinity, edited by Peter Toon and James Spiceland. God Our Father (Saint Andrews Press, 121 George St., Edinburgh, Scotland EH2 4YN), by Alan P. F. Sell, touches devotionally and thoughtfully on the general doctrine of God. Emil Brunner’s The Christian Doctrine of God (Westminster) is now available in paperback.

Christ/Atonement. Karl Rahner and Wilhelm Thüsing in A New Christology (Seabury) offer an attempt to restate traditional ideas in nontraditional form; it is not altogether successful. More traditional is What the Bible Teaches About Jesus (Tyndale), by Geoffrey Grogan, and Focus on Christ (Collins), by John Stott.

Several reprints have appeared on the Atonement: The Cross and the Common Man (Northwestern Publishing House), by Herman W. Gockel; The Atonement (Bethany Fellowship), by Albert Barnes; The Doctrine of the Atonement According to Christ (Alpha), and The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles (Alpha), both by George Smeaton.

The Holy Spirit. It is difficult to subdivide the numerous books that have appeared on the Holy Spirit because they overlap so much. Basically, there are two groups: doctrinal and practical/charismatic.

The Holy Spirit: Lord and Life-giver (Loizeaux), by John Williams, is a moderate, basically anticharismatic treatment of the Spirit’s work. Its positive statements are well made. Somewhat more critical, and from a holiness perspective, is The Holy Spirit: Friend and Counselor (Beacon Hill of Kansas City), by Milton Agnew. Moderate, and from a Brethren perspective, is Flamed by the Spirit (Brethren Press), by Dale W. Brown. Arguing that “tongues are a necessary and essential evidence of the baptism in the Spirit” is The Holy Spirit, a Pentecostal Interpretation (Gospel Publishing House), by L. Thomas Holdcroft. One of the best statements I have seen defending the reality of the charismatic phenomenon for today is The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today (Logos), by J. Rodman Williams. A readable and helpful treatment of the Spirit’s work in the New Testament is The Answer Is the Spirit (Westminster), by R. E. O. White. Two older, standard works by A. W. Tozer are in print again: The Divine Conquest (Revell) and When He Is Come (Christian Publications). A collection of Charles G. Finney’s lectures relating to holiness and the Spirit, with a very instructive introduction by Timothy L. Smith, is The Promise of the Spirit (Bethany Fellowship). A series of challenging, academic essays is Conflicts About the Holy Spirit (Seabury), edited by Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann.

Three essentially noncharismatic treatments of Spirit living are: Let It Show (Christian Herald), by Dick Mohrman, a discussion of the nine fruits of the Spirit; Live by the Spirit (Servant), by Michael Harper, a clearly written general statement of the Spirit and life; and Living in the Spirit (Seabury), by Rachel Hosmer and Alan Jones, which is basically community oriented and traditional. Essentially charismatic are: The Gift Is Already Yours (Bethany Fellowship), by Erwin Prange, a moving personal testimony; and See How the Wind Blows (Logos), by Bob Slosser, which looks at charismatic renewal and church unity. The Catholic charismatic movement is discussed in: A Portion of The Spirit (Carillon Books), by Michael Scanlan, This Charismatic Thing (Our Sunday Visitor), by David Parry, The Theological Self-Understanding of the Catholic Charismatic Movement (University Press of America), by James F. Breckenridge, and an excellent collection of charismatic documents, Presence, Power, Praise, three volumes (Liturgical Press), by Kilian McDonnell. An attempt to structure a system of charismatic worship in the Reformed tradition is In Spirit and Truth (Dorrance), by Calvin H. Chambers. Two academic studies from the University Press of America are Neo-Pentecostalism: A Sociological Assessment, by Cecil David Bradfield, and Perspectives on Pentecostalism; Case Studies from the Caribbean and Latin America, edited by Stephen D. Glazier.

Scripture. The inspiration of the Bible continues to engage the interest of theologians. Because so much is at stake, great effort is being expended to define as clearly as possible how the Bible is the Word of God. H. D. McDonald writes a helpful overview of the entire subject in What the Bible Teaches About the Bible (Tyndale). Shorter, but stressing the infallibility of the Scripture just as strongly, is Take God’s Word for It (Regal), by John F. MacArthur. Richard S. Taylor looks at Biblical Authority and Christian Faith (Beacon Hill of Kansas City). B. H. Carroll, Inspiration of the Bible (Nelson), and John H. Gerstner, A Bible Inerrancy Primer (Alpha), both argue strongly for the full infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, Carroll going so far as to include the Hebrew vowel points. S. Lewis Johnson finds an argument for biblical inspiration in The Old Testament in the New (Zondervan), which is a helpful book in many ways.

J. I. Packer in God Has Spoken (InterVarsity) argues broadly the case for biblical authority, including discussions on the nature of God and Christ. He also contends that we must move on from narrow conflicts to the larger issues in Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Cornerstone). Two collections, both valuable and in defense of the full authority of the Bible, are: Inerrancy and Common Sense (Baker), edited by Roger Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, and Inerrancy (Zondervan), edited by Norman L. Geisler. I prefer the latter because it covers more topics in more depth, but both are well worth reading.

The current thinking of the World Council of Churches that the authority of the Bible is relational and that inspiration is something that happens, not that happened, may be found in The Bible: Its Authority and Interpretation in the Ecumenical Movement (WCC), edited by Ellen Flesseman-van Leer. Paul Achtemeier says much the same thing in The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Westminster).

Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (Harper & Row) argue, not convincingly that I can see, that the central church tradition is that Scripture’s authority lies in its ability to bring people to Christ, not in its being a repository of inerrant words. In particular, they say the Hodge-Warfield tradition has distorted the historic view of the church.

Faith. Gerhard Ebeling’s The Nature of Faith (Fortress) has appeared in a new printing. It remains a challenge to those who read it. What the Bible Says About Faith andOpinion (College Press, Joplin, Mo.), by W. Robert Palmer, is a basically conservative statement by a writer in the Restoration Movement of the Church of Christ.

Salvation.God’s Eternal Good Pleasure (Reformed Free Publishing Association/Kregel), by Herman Hoeksema, is a series of strongly Calvinistic sermons on God’s sovereignty. More moderate are John Gerstner’s booklets, A Predestination Primer (Alpha), and A Reconciliation Primer (Alpha). R. G. England surveys Justification Today: The Roman Catholic and Anglican Debate (Latimer House, 131 Banbury Road, Oxford, England). Unconditional Good News (Eerdmans), by Neal Punt, argues that all are saved except those whom the Bible declares are lost, rather than all are lost except those whom the Bible declares are saved. All are elect in Christ (whose death saves) except those who reject it. Thomas C. Oden, Guilt Free (Abingdon), ably discusses one of the chief benefits of salvation: overcoming guilt.

Man. Eight years of careful research went into Alister Hardy’s The Spiritual Nature of Man (Oxford). His experimental conclusions include the necessity of a transcendent personal God. Arthur Custance, in The Mysterious Matter of Mind (Zondervan/Probe Ministries), argues philosophically, and well, for a substantive view of mind: “Man has a computer, not is a computer.” Trinity of Man (Logos), by Dennis and Rita Bennett, uses a modified trichotomy to explain man and offer healing and wholeness. Morton T. Kelsey looks at Healing and Christianity (Harper & Row) and its relation to the essence of the person. This is a new printing of the paperback edition. Stephen Swanson discusses personhood, virtues, and vices in The Double Cross (Augsburg).

Nature. The 1978 Warfield Lectures (Princeton Seminary), by George Hendry, have been published by Westminster Press as Theology of Nature. It is a thought-provoking series of lectures.

Sanctification. J. Kenneth Grider explains Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrines of Wesleyanism (Beacon Hill of Kansas City), and it clears up numerous misconceptions.

Perseverance. The Primitive Baptist Library has made available J. H. Oliphant’s The Doctrine of the Final Perseverance of the Saints, first published in 1878.

Hermeneutics. Daniel P. Fuller rejects both covenant theology and dispensationalism in Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum (Eerdmans). The basis of unity seen by Fuller is “the obedience of faith” in both law and gospel.

Philosophical Theology

Numerous books appeared in this category last year, covering a wide range of specific topics. They are difficult to classify, but have been grouped under several subheadings for this survey.

Philosophy. Several introductions and surveys have appeared. A well-written but hardly Christian treatment is Anthony Flew’s Philosophy: An Introduction (Prometheus). Three Christian works are now available: Introduction to Philosophy (Baker), by Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, which will probably become a standard text for a lot of people; With All Your Mind (Abingdon), by Yandall Woodfein, which is more a Christian philosophy than a Christian look at philosophy; and Reason Within the Bounds of Religion (Eerdmans), by Nicholas Wolterstorff, which is a marvelous essay that pulls faith and reason together. Gordon Clark’s standard history of philosophy, Thales to Dewey, has been reprinted in paperback by Baker. The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860–1930 (Yale Univ.), by Bruce Kaklick, is a definitive work. No one interested in the subject would want to miss it. Mirrors of Man in Existentialism (Abingdon), by Nathan A. Scott, is an introduction to existentialism, and a good one.

Philosophers. Princeton University Press continues its studies in Kant with Kant and the Philosophy of History, by Yirmiahu Yovel. Frank Peddle analyzes both Kant and Hegel in Thought and Being: Hegel’s Criticism of Kant’s System of Cosmological Ideas (Univ. Press of America). A very readable introduction (and evaluation) is Hume (Routledge and Kegan Paul), by Barry Stroud. Frederick Sontag has explained the seemingly unexplainable in A Kierkegaard Handbook (John Knox). Wittgenstein (Routledge and Kegan Paul), by Robert J. Fogelin, introduces the subject well and Wittgenstein for Preaching: A Model for Communication (Univ. Press of America), by Thomas D. Peterson, opens up some new areas of thought for ministers. Moore: G. E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), by Paul Levy, is a model of historical philosophical writing. The whole complex subject comes alive. Gabriel Marcel on Religious Knowledge (Univ. Press of America), by Neil Gillman, is a careful and helpful work. Two Roads to Ignorance: A Quasi Biography (Southern Illinois Univ.), by Eliseo Vivas, is an unconventional self-study by one of America’s most challenging thinkers.

Philosophy of Religion. The University Press of America has published two books in this area: Religious Perspectives and Problems: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, by Allen Eikner, a book of readings topically arranged, and Ideas of Religion: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Religion, by John Edward Sullivan.

Science and Faith. Two significant works are now available. Stanley L. Jaki’s Gifford Lectures, The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Univ. of Chicago), is in paperback. One cannot speak too highly of this work, which shows the rationality of belief in the existence of a Creator. A. R. Peacocke’s Bampton Lectures, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford), is a defense of Creation, theistic evolution, and the reality of God. It is a deeply religious work in many respects.

Apologetics. In addition to the above two works that ably defend rational belief in God, others have been written with the express purpose of establishing that there is a God. These include Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Think about God (Macmillan); William Craig’s The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe (Here’s Life); Josh McDowell and Don Stewart’s Answers to Tough Questions (Here’s Life); and Alan Hayward’s God Is (Nelson). Of special significance are Hans Küng’s massive Does God Exist? (Doubleday), a monumental defense of theistic belief, and George Schlesinger’s Religion and Scientific Method (Reidel, 160 Old Derby St., Hingham, Mass.), a rigorous defense of the methodology used to establish theism and, hence, of theism itself. Both of these books are of great value.

Language. Two very different approaches to this subject appeared. Gordon H. Clark looks at Language and Theology (Presbyterian and Reformed) in a very perceptive book, and Albert Cook has written a major work on Myth and Language (Indiana Univ.). Both books tackle difficult subjects well.

Liberation Theology.Called to Freedom (Westminster), by Daniel L. Migliore, is art attempt to restate traditional doctrines in liberationist terms, defending liberation theology. Others are not so sure that liberation thought is the answer. J. Andrew Kirk argues this well in Liberation Theology (John Knox) and Theology Encounters Revolution (InterVarsity, 38 De Montfort St., Leicester, LEI 7GP, England). The Integrity of the Gospel (John Knox), by René de Visme Williamson, is a critique of liberation theology. So, in its own way, is Reconciliation and Liberation (Fortress), by Jan Mileč Lochman.

“Premature” Puberty: Advice to Parents

One of the most perplexing problems confronting parents and pastors is teen-age sexuality, and in some cases, promiscuity and pregnancy. In the following interview with CHRISTIANITYTODAY, Donald Joy, professor of human development at the Center for the Study of Children, Conscience, and the Family at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, answers questions and gives practical counsel.

Dr. Koteskey mentions you in his opening paragraph. Is there a dialogue going on between the two of you on adolescence?

Yes, we have lunch together once a week. Ron saw my definition of adolescence. In it I compared Stone Age, agrarian, industrial, and technological cultures, and pointed out that in some societies there is no “adolescence phenomenon”—no lapse of time between sexual maturity and rites of passage into adult status, jobs, independence, and marriage. This triggered Ron’s curiosity.

Are you comfortable with his analysis and his recommendations?

I think they are very helpful. But I am more optimistic than he is. Looking at both biological and cognitive development, I conclude that God has made us in such a way that, as moral demands of a given society become more intensive, its adolescents are capable of an unbelievably early moral sensitivity. Then, by the age of 25 or so, they can make a commitment to an advanced ethical system; they can develop moral maturity. Such sensitivity and wisdom have traditionally been reserved for the aged.

Are you saying that children’s brains, as well as their sexual development, are actually different from past generations?

Research isn’t completed, but the best clues we have suggest exactly that. Piaget, looking at only “moral reasoning,” found a shift from objective responsibility (how much damage was done) to subjective responsibility (what the person’s intentions were) occurring just ahead of puberty. We know that the thickening of the myelin sheathing of the correlation fibers of the cerebral cortex and the thalmus is not completed until sexual maturity. This sheathing in the brain evidently makes possible high speed reflective and evaluative thinking. We are just beginning to discover the powerful effect of the brain—as far back as the third fetal month—in shaping sexual orientation. I am suggesting that God creates us so that no child comes to sexual maturity without the necessary brain capabilities to deal with complicated moral choices.

How can teen-agers best handle their early sexual maturity?

By the age of eight, most children should have to take final responsibility for some choices they make. Children need to handle a week’s money, for example, and deal with the consequences of poor decisions. Eventually those children are going to make sexual decisions on their own. They must be able to make choices and live with the consequences.

A child’s emerging sexual energy is an enormous responsibility; sex should not be the first “final moral choice” category to deal with. When parents, physicians, or public agencies suggest that birth control or abortion cover the only moral aspect of sexuality, they trivialize sex. They veto the only “curriculum” that might have produced a moral giant of the young person.

What is crucial is that the teen-ager deal with the issue with full, final responsibility. An adolescent can use the frustrations incurred in saving virginity for the wedding night and turn them into moral growth. On the other hand, an adolescent who gets into a pregnancy may also deal with the realities of sexual feelings and of fertility in ways which lead that person into wisdom and sensitivity and a profound respect for the ultimate human values of life, family, and attachment.

Should parents go along with their teen-agers who want to marry early? Isn’t the divorce rate for early marriages literally sky high?

Statistically, we have never bothered to sort out early marriages that received the full emotional and spiritual support of both families and those that didn’t. Throughout history the best marriages were those that openly belonged to the two tribes, and the economic support was built in. Age at marriage is not the first priority to consider. The deeply sensitive Christian family will be more concerned to support a high quality developing bond between two young people, than to sacrifice it on the altar of pagan values of money, promiscuity, birth control, and abortion. Biblical taboos for sexual intimacy are consistently directed toward the rapist, the predator who violates a sexual bond that belongs to another, and the sexually promiscuous person. We have not been quite honest in developing biblical standards for sexual intimacy for engaged couples.

Are you saying that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable?

No, not at all. The timing of sexual intimacy really needs to be understood and honestly taken into account by the couple and their families. The wedding date needs to be sufficiently flexible to adjust it to the schedule of developing intimacy. Sexual intimacy before marriage is likely to trigger promiscuity in one or both if the frustration of delayed marriage continues. Sensitive, understanding parents will not use economics, graduation, or whatever, to delay the marriage if the intimacy development is running ahead of a schedule set on the basis of those other criteria.

Do you see any turnaround to this early age of sexual maturity?

Yes. I think if we slip into an energy blackout, it will reverse. It reversed slightly in the United States during the Great Depression. We have thought for years that the early age of puberty and early achievement of body height were effects of climate or of diet, or even of nomad-like intermarriage. It now appears that light is rushing puberty. As we have lighted our homes, our playgrounds, and our cities, and as our children have spent some 15,000 hours watching television, we may have speeded up their sexual and physical development. If it should happen that we go back to hard times, to eight or more hours of fully darkened sleeping, we may find children developing more slowly. Melatonin, a chemical produced by the pineal gland, evidently acts as a brake on the development of the primary sex organs and later on the ovarian cycles and on hormone production in both males and females. But it seems to appear in the bloodstream only under conditions of total darkness.

If teen-agers have been sexually active, is it inevitable that they will have “bonded,” as you say? Should they marry in all cases, or are there exceptions?

They may not have bonded in a way that would justify their being married. Here are questions I use to test the quality of the developing bond: “Who else knows how intimate you have been?” “How close do you feel to each other’s family?”“How do you see this relationship ending?” Confidentiality is one mark of a respect-filled developing relationship. If either has “leaked” information to friends, the quality of the relationship will be seriously in jeopardy. Similarly, if each person has not become attached to the other’s family, the bond, even though strong, will lack the outside support needed to launch and sustain a marriage. Finally, if either expresses any feeling that he or she might be able to survive without the other, the bond is immature or deformed.

If they have reached the intimacy stages involving breast and genital contact, and the bonding questions I mention suggest a deformed relationship, the relationship needs to terminate and each will need time and space for healing. If a healing space is not carved out—normally from six months to three years of no romantic relationship—each tends to take the next relationship almost immediately to the same intimacy level, and the promiscuous pattern is under way.

You seem to like the word “bonding.” What do you mean by it?

It is a happy word that means just what popular connotations mean: attached, cemented, “joined together.” Today, “birth bonding” studies show, for example, that if parents have skin-to-skin contact with the newborn for more than 15 minutes out of the first two hours, the baby will cry less at the end of three months; nonbonded infants cry 540 percent more! And mothers worry less about keeping the baby from becoming messy—nose, eyes, mouth, diaper; nonbonded mothers spend 550 percent more time cleaning their babies. Between a man and a woman, the “bond” expresses itself in confidentiality, respect, fidelity, attachment in every way. Eventually the pregnancy, birthing process, and joint parenting tasks continue to strengthen the pair bond. This bonding is obviously lifelong and ever increasing if the two persons continue the bonding behaviors.

What is the most important factor in helping teens to understand and cope with their sexuality?

Everybody I have ever talked to has had some really positive adolescent sexual feelings, yet most of us have worried that those feelings were somehow bad. Young men typically “beat their brains out” at mourner’s benches begging God to forgive them and to take the sexual monkey off their backs. But God leaves them fully charged. The one most important factor is accepting their sexual feelings, the developing appetite, for what God said it was: “very good.” The immediate second step, then, is to take full responsibility for “having dominion” over both appetite and fertility, and, knowing that God’s purpose is to furnish a lifelong attachment, to complete the “one flesh” display of the “image of God” to the honor of the character of the Creator.

Growing up Too Late, Too Soon

The Invention of Adolescence

Parents facing the problems of their teens’ adolescence often think these problems have been around for thousands of years. This is not true, however: the phenomenon of adolescence has occurred only during the last century.

According to Donald Joy, adolescence did not, and does not, exist in preliterate, agrarian societies. Adolescence occurs in industrial, technological societies where the age of economic independence and marriage has been delayed past the age of puberty. The age of puberty—the stage of maturation in which a person becomes capable of sexual reproduction—is lower in industrial, technological societies. We need not look at different cultures to see this; we can observe the emergence of adolescence during the last century of our American culture.

Adolescence is defined here as the period between puberty and full adulthood. Adults are expected to support themselves, are held legally responsible for their actions, and are permitted to be married. During most of the last three thousand years of human history many cultures have considered persons in their early teens as adults (see chart). The age of puberty is thought to have taken place in the late teens during this era. There was thus no period of adolescence, because teens were considered to be adults before or at the time of puberty. It is only since the Industrial Revolution that puberty has occurred before teens were considered to be adults. Consider the factors illustrated in the chart.

The Age At Which People Were Considered Adults

We need first to know at what ages people were able to work to support themselves and were held responsible for their actions. Until recently, this age has been 12 or 13. Hebrew boys go through bar mitzvah at age 13 and read a part of the Torah in the synagogue as their first religious act as adults. From about age six or seven, Roman boys were the constant companions of their fathers on the farm, military field, or in the forum. They learned in the school of life. During the Middle Ages, German youths were freed from their father’s authority when they were able to bear arms, about 12 to 15 years of age. Among Anglo-Saxons, boys were made freemen, responsible for their own behavior, at the completion of their twelfth year.

Many of the workers at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution were children. In fact, manufacturers sought machines that could be operated in part by children 5 to 10 years of age. Child labor was approved; frequently whole families were employed in industry. As child labor was abused, however, states began to pass laws to prohibit teen-agers from being economically independent and socially responsible. One set of laws relates to compulsory education: most children must remain in school until about 16 years of age. They might as well stay in school, because another set of laws prohibits many types of work before age 16 (16 states), or age 18 (26 states). In some cases, though teen-agers may mow their own lawns at home, they may not work on a job that requires them to run the same lawn mower.

Even if such laws did not exist, work has become more complex; more preparation is needed. One cannot enter many occupations without a high school diploma (18 years of age), a college degree (22 years of age), or graduate degrees (24–26 years of age). A male 12 years of age in a primitive culture may know about gathering wild grains and fruits and be an expert at spearing fish, so that he is ready to support a family. However, a similar male in our culture who wants to be a doctor or lawyer cannot support a family even when twice as old. We simply do not allow people to be adults until about age 18. At that time they can work, vote, drink (in some states), and be tried as adults in a court of law.

The Age At Which Marriage Occurred

As can be seen from the chart, the minimum legal age for marriage has, until recently, been 12 to 14 years of age. In older cultures girls could be married earlier than boys, reflecting differences in the rate of maturation. The minimum legal age for marriage among the ancient Hebrews was at the end of the twelfth year for girls and at the end of the thirteenth year for boys. The Talmud states that persons were expected to be married by age 18. If not married by age 20, some considered their singleness a sign that the wrath of God was upon them. A father could contract for the marriage of his daughter long before the age of puberty. If the girl refused to carry out the contract when she reached legal age, the contract was null and void. Few girls refused; most of them were submissive and realized that marriage meant security and social position.

Roman girls also were often betrothed during their childhood. The parents would consider wealth and family connections and make arrangements in a businesslike way through marriage brokers. Husbands were actively sought when Roman girls reached their thirteenth year; girls not married by age 19 were considered “old maids.” In these early cultures the choice of a marriage partner was considered too serious a decision to be made by a teen-ager in an emotional state, and so such decisions were made by the parents and nearly always accepted by the children.

During the Middle Ages in England parents could betroth their children as early as seven years of age. This contract could be broken until the child was 10 without any penalty, but if broken between 10 and 12 years of age, a fine was levied on the parent, and if broken after 12, both parent and child could be fined. During the Renaissance, betrothals often occurred when the girl was 3 or 4 years of age, with marriage at 12, the legal marriageable age in most of Europe. Most parents considered it a mild disgrace to have a daughter unmarried or unbetrothed by age 16 or 17.

Early marriages were also the rule in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Any boy of 14 and girl of 12 who wished could be married without their parents’ consent and at little expense. Hampstead Chapel advertised marriages for only five shillings, and by 1716 was offering marriages at no cost if the couple would have their wedding dinner in the chapel gardens.

The Puritans in America also encouraged early marriages because they believed this was the best way to avoid premarital sex. They disagreed with the Catholics who “ensnared” their children in vows of virginity. The Puritans believed that the children would “not be able to contain.” Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud agrees with the Puritans’ reason for marriage at an early age. Not to have one’s daughter married at an early age was seen as a violation of the command, “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore” (Lev. 19:29; Sanhedrin 76a). If she does not get married, she may become unchaste; thus, she should be married as soon as possible. One rabbi noted that “he who is 20 years of age and is not married spends all his days in sin”—at least in sinful thoughts (Kiddushin 29b).

Early marriages are seldom found in our contemporary Western cultures, however. In fact, they are illegal in every state (except Utah), because individuals must be 18 or older to be married without parental consent. According to the Bureau of the Census, most marriages take place even later than this—at about 21 for girls and 23 for boys. Since the Industrial Revolution we have had a sudden increase in the age at which legal marriages can take place.

The Age Of Puberty

These changes in the legal ages at which people can work and get married would probably be of little consequence if it were not for another important change. As seen in the chart, the age of puberty has declined steadily during the last century. Unfortunately, we do not have data on the age of puberty in antiquity, but we do have data from 1840 to the present on the average age at which girls experience their first menstrual period (menarche). Data from Norway, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, and the United States all show a remarkably consistent drop from about 17 years of age in 1840 to about 13½ years of age in 1960. It is much more difficult to specify at what age males become sexually mature, but we can assume that they, too, are achieving puberty earlier.

Although we do not have data before 1840, we assume puberty was later than the ages at which teens could go to work and be legally married. There was thus no adolescence, no period following puberty before the teen could become a full member of adult society.

Why has the age of puberty dropped? Generally, because of the economic prosperity that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. This has meant better diets and better health care. The amount of light in our culture is a crucial factor, too. At any rate, it is significant that teens become physically mature (average age 13½ for girls) from five to seven years before they are free to marry and participate as full members of adult society. While physically they are adults (though perhaps not emotionally), they are not allowed to support themselves or to express themselves sexually in socially acceptable ways. They are also shielded from responsibility.

Results Of Adolescence

Statistically, we know that both masturbation and premarital sexual intercourse are increasing. Kinsey et al. (1948, 1953) found that 45 percent of all males and 15 percent of all females had masturbated by age 13. Hunt found that these percentages had increased to 63 and 33, respectively, when he did his studies in 1974. Kinsey’s research indicated that 71 percent of all males 33 percent of all females had had premarital sex; by Hunt’s time, the numbers were 95 and 81 percent.

These behavioral changes I attribute at least partially to adolescence. There is a period of five or more years during which it is impossible for young men and women to get married. While other factors no doubt play a part in the rising incidence of both masturbation and premarital intercourse, it seems to me that postponing marriage for legal or economic reasons is a major cause.

What Can Be Done?

Granted the historical data and recent changes in sexual behavior, what are the implications of this analysis for parents, teens, and Christian leaders? We can’t turn the clock back to pre-industrial Revolution days; neither can we return to Old Testament culture. There are no easy solutions to the problems caused by adolescence, but I propose some things that concerned, sensitive Christians can do.

First of all, we can give sexual instruction to our children as they enter adolescence. Early in adolescence each child needs help in working out biblically acceptable patterns of sexual behavior during adolescence. Since the Bible does not deal with adolescence as such, we must apply general principles. We must help our children prepare for this period of celibacy while living in a sex-saturated culture that glorifies instant gratification.

For example, parents, pastors, and youth counselors should recognize the following factors: (1) Young people are going to face sexual frustrations not faced by people a century and more ago. (2) Adolescence is a creation of our culture, not of God, and it does not make much sense. (3) The Bible does not give direct counsel about how to handle adolescence. (4) Certain manifestations of sexual maturity are likely to occur before marriage; that is, orgasms while asleep and masturbation. (5) The Bible specifically forbids premarital intercourse, homosexual behavior, and bestiality. The Bible mentions neither orgasm during sleep nor masturbation. Some counselors say masturbation is sinful (Jay Adams); other claim it is a gift of God to be used thankfully (Charles Shedd); still others believe that sometimes it is sinful and sometimes it is not (Herbert Miles).

Second, we must help young people who have transgressed moral codes. Often they are trapped by guilt and guilt feelings by the end of their adolescence. Some of those who masturbate also have to deal with feelings of guilt or immaturity. As teens emerge from adolescence they often need counseling about how to express sexuality in marriage. This is a transition from a situation wherein sexual behavior is suppressed to one in which it is not only accepted, but expected. Sexual instruction at the end of adolescence must be tailored to meet individual needs.

Thrid, we must not simply go along with popular adolescent culture; we must expect different, more responsible behavior. While we do not want to return to child labor, we should make it possible for adolescents to work and encourage them to do so. They should be expected to do responsible work in the home and allowed to work outside the home. Juvenile delinquency needs to be treated by parents and the courts so that adolescents must live with the consequences of their misbehavior.

Parents need to teach teens how to get along with others, how to handle money, how to manage a home, how to work, and so on. Another unfortunate by-product of the Industrial Revolution has been the tendency to turn child rearing over to women. Earlier, boys usually accompanied their fathers to the fields or shops; now they are at home with their mothers and taught primarily by women in elementary school. Many adolescent boys have an identity crisis because they have lacked a male role model.

Although most states do not allow marriage before age 18 or 21 without parental consent, it is permitted two or three years earlier with parental consent. Early marriage with parental approval is a scriptural concept, and it has been the rule rather than the exception throughout most of human history. Early marriage was part of a whole package of cultural values emphasizing commitment and fidelity. Although we cannot return to that culture, we can and should revive marital commitment and fidelity. Also, churches can make premarital pastoral counseling mandatory. Early marriages today are frequently followed by divorce because many of them are an escape from intolerable home situations.

Finally, early marriage may yet be a viable alternative to adolescent sexual promiscuity, if we do not abandon our children once they are married, but give them support without interference. In biblical times, the newly married couple became part of an extended family; they were not expected to face the world alone immediately after marriage. Today many parents stop helping their children as soon as they are married, and many young married couples, of course, soon move away from their families. If parents are not near their children, or do not have a caring relationship to them, the church can function as an extended family. Newly married couples can be paired with mature couples who can help them develop their marriages. Young people must have contact not only with couples going through similar struggles, but with those who have been through the struggles successfully and can tell them how to come out on top.

Today’s churches must face the problems of adolescence as realistically as the apostle Paul did. He encountered promiscuity in the church at Corinth and told people to get married to avoid immorality. He told them to have regular sexual relations unless both husband and wife agreed to abstain for a limited time for prayer. He told them to resume regular sexual relations so they would not be tempted (1 Cor. 7:1–7).

He was not satisfied that this was the best solution (remaining single was best for him at that time), but at least he was not afraid to prescribe simple and direct conduct. He did not duck the issue; he took the same common sense approach that is seen in the Talmud. We read there that if a man wanted to study the Torah and get married, he should study first. But if he couldn’t get along without a wife, he should marry first and then study (Kiddushin 29b).

There is no one best counterattack to adolescence. Even the Puritans were not totally satisfied with early marriages. But either way, we have a serious contemporary social problem with important ramifications for families and churches. My plea is for church leaders, parents, youth counselors, theologians, and ethicists to stop ignoring what Western technological culture has done to teen-agers, and face the problems and develop acceptable alternatives.

Cover Story

The Concerns and Considerations of Carl F.H.Henry

An interview.

For almost half a century since Carl F.H. Henry found Christ as a Long Island newspaperman he has contributed significantly to evangelical life and thought. Holder of five earned degrees—including doctorates in theology and philosophy—and numerous honorary degrees, he has taught on the faculties of leading evangelical seminaries and colleges. Currently, as lecturer at large for World Vision International, he teaches abroad annually for three months and has lectured to students on all the continents. His major theological work, God, Revelation and Authority (Word; four volumes have already appeared), is in its third English printing, is available in Korean and Mandarin, and is being translated into German. Founding editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY from 1956–68, he was chairman of the 1966 World Congress of Evangelism in Berlin and the 1971 Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy. He is president of the American Theological Society and former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. His contributions to evangelical thought and life have had a shaping influence in theology, personal and social ethics, evangelism, and sociopolitical involvement. Henry currently lives in Arlington, Virginia, where with his wife Helga he maintains at 68 a disciplined work schedule that would stagger even many younger scholars. Because of Dr. Henry’s unique contributions to the cause of evangelicalism, the editors of CHRISTIANITY TODAY conducted this wide-ranging interview with him, to gather his insights and observations on a host of relevant theological, social, political, and ethical issues of the day.

What religious trends do you consider most important?

• The inability of political atheism (either behind the Iron Curtain or the Bamboo Curtain) to eradicate the religious nature of man; religion is flourishing under some governments officially committed to atheism.

• The fascination that the experiential religion of the so-called electronic church holds for television viewers.

• The continuing deterioration of the older liberal theology and its evident drift toward secular humanism.

• The vulnerability to attack and negation of conventional ethics wedded to naturalistic metaphysics.

• The failure of “process theology” to establish itself as a credible Christian option, thus revealing its nature as a philosophy of the university classroom, but not a religion of the people.

• The intellectual probing and spiritual searching by university students, and their growing interest in the rational defense of evangelical theism.

• The ongoing theological change among the evangelicals who compromise the full authority of Scripture and who, not surprisingly, find it increasingly difficult to maintain “all of orthodoxy except inerrancy.”

What do you foresee as key issues for the 1980s?

The problem of biblical authority will probably continue to disturb evangelicals very deeply. The issue will focus not simply on inerrancy, but also on interpretation as well, and especially on the culture-relatedness and culture-dependence of biblical revelation. Evangelicals insist that although the Bible was written in particular historical and cultural milieus, it speaks with binding authority to our different historical and cultural situations (for instance, on such a subject as marital faithfulness).

Another issue, resurfacing after lying quiescent for half a century, is higher criticism. Some evangelicals contend that conservative theological positions are compatible with liberal conclusions in “higher” or literary criticism of the Bible. But divergent, conflicting, and widening concessions will eventually show how deeply those mediating judgments are rooted in personal voluntary preferences rather than in rationally necessary conclusions.

There is also a growing danger that evangelicals may divide over political commitments.

Another key issue will be the problem of ecumenism. For nonevangelicals it will reemerge through an attempted rehabilitation of COCU (Consultation on Church Union). This may force institutions like Fuller Seminary to consider closer ecumenical identification.

On the other hand, discontented evangelicals in theologically pluralistic mainline denominations will more seriously consider broader evangelical liaison either with consistent evangelicals from other mainline denominations or with evangelicals in the newer and (usually) smaller denominations committed as denominations to evangelical positions. Both evangelical and nonevangelical crosswinds are currently too confusing, however, to give a clear signal about any ecclesiastical realignment.

Both you and Harold Lindsell hold to inerrancy. How would you distinguish your position from his?

In the successive stages of his “battle” for the Bible, Dr. Lindsell seems to be continually refining his views, and gratifyingly so. There were initially extreme positions: unjustifiably branding some evangelicals as “false,” imposing the “domino theory” of inevitable apostasy on individuals, and so on. I still object to Lindsell’s elevation of inerrancy over authority and inspiration as the first claim to be made for the Bible. His view of inerrancy also eclipses the equally important issues of revelation and culture, hermeneutics, and propositional revelation. To concentrate on inerrancy as the sole decisive issue is to wage the battle on too narrow a front. And I do not like the distrust he raises over all but a small handful of conservative institutions.

His overstatements made it easy for opponents of inerrancy to gain an undeserved sympathy for their views; such overstatements weakened the intellectual effectiveness of the evangelical thrust, and they cloaked the inerrancy forces with a reactionary image they do not deserve. One costly consequence was that evangelical enterprises like CHRISTIANITY TODAY recoiled from aggressive involvement in a conflict in which the leading evangelical magazines might well have provided truly balanced leadership.

What strategy would you urge to strengthen the churches’ commitment to inerrancy?

The eye of the storm is shifting to two issues: the cultural conditioning of revelation, and the interpretation of Scripture. These central concerns bear on the possibility of our knowing and thus profiting from the truth. The churches should continue the Pauline stress on God’s inspiration (really outbreathing) in order to profit man; our profit-oriented society strangely neglects the second half of 2 Timothy 3:16 with its emphasis on the profit of inspiration both intelletually and experientially.

As part of the church’s educational program the crucial issues in debate should be freely discussed at the various levels of intellectual competence represented in the congregations. Church libraries need monographs of solid in-depth scholarship, and literature in a more popular vein. The aims in either case should be both theoretical and practical, issuing in a scriptural world-and-life view. Our writing should help clarify the Christian’s role in society amid the vigorously presented alternatives. The goal should include a new devotion to personal and group Bible study. The Sunday school must become such an effective place to search Scripture that students change their minds and their lives.

The idea of “propositional” revelation often comes under popular attack. Some say it suggests a God who reveals himself in Euclidian terms more appropriate for classroom debate than suited to the needs of real life. What do you mean when you affirm propositional revelation?

Simply that God reveals himself in intelligently formed statements. Nobody has ever caricatured Jesus as Euclidian because he spoke divine truths in human language. For instance, after telling the parable of the woman who found her lost coin, he said, “In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10, NIV). The only connection between Euclid’s geometry and the biblical idea of propositional revelation that I detect is that, like every logically formed system of doctrine, Euclid’s geometry is built on axioms, or fundamental presuppositions, and that Christianity, too, has its basic “axioms” (the living God and intelligible divine revelation of truth) on which all its other claims depend. A God preoccupied with geometric abstractions is not my god; some say he was Galileo’s. Evangelical Christians do not invite the world to an unknown and unknowable X!

A proposition is simply an intelligible, logically formed statement, a declarative sentence that is either true or false. The question is: Does God tell the truth or doesn’t he? The evangelical maintains that he does. He asserts that Jesus spoke an understandable true statement when he said to the Jews, “… if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24, NIV). To be sure, God reveals himself universally in nature, history, conscience, and the mind of man. But he reveals himself specially in Jesus Christ as attested by the Bible. While biblical revelation includes many commands and exhortations, it also provides at its very center true ideas about God and his relations to man and the world. We believe these biblical ideas are not just human guesses but verities that God has provided for us and the world.

The alternatives to propositional revelation are either that God gives us in the Bible only unsharable gobbledygook or that the Bible is just a book of human guesses, containing no revealed truths at all. Neoorthodoxy teaches that divine revelation is not propositional; it denies that God reveals truths about himself and his purposes. Small wonder that this God concept collapses into existential decision and finally death-of-God speculation.

Do you equate propositional revelation with the propositions or statements of the Bible?

By propositional revelation I mean not simply that the Bible is written in meaningful sentences—as most books are—but that God has revealed himself intelligibly and rationally in units of human speech involving sentences, words, and syntax that Scripture attests, and thus gives us an inspired literary document. Even when God revealed himself to the prophets in dreams and visions, the center of the revelation was always the shareable Word that the prophets prefaced by the formula: “Thus said the Lord …” God’s universal revelation in nature and history, no less than his revelation in redemptive history, is an intelligible revelation. But for man fallen into sin, the content of that general revelation is objectively stated, along with the content of God’s special saving revelation, in the truths set forth by the Bible.

In your recent debate with Professor Daane of Fuller Theological Seminary, most of us agreed that Daane in the Reformed Journal seemed to give up the case for revealed truths. But some felt that you were uneasy with revelation that is personal. Would you care to comment?

Of course revelation is personal: its source is a personal God; it is addressed to persons; special revelation is often conveyed through persons, and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. What I criticize is his Barthian insistence on “personal nonpropositional” revelation. Neo-orthodoxy rejects any objective divine revelation of truths to chosen prophets and apostles and now objectively given in Scripture. But the God of the Bible is not a dumb mute. He not only acts in external history but also intelligibly interprets his acts. Neo-orthodox theologians emphasize divine personal internal revelation intending thereby to reinforce the reality of God. But God who cannot be known to be “there” in any objective sense, soon simply fades into nothingness, like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire cat.

Some reviewers call you a rationalist. Is that fair to your view?

If they are pleading the cause of irrationalism they are welcome to it. Christianity is a faith—but so are Buddhism, Shamanism, communism, and humanism. The main issue for the intellectual world is whether the biblical revelation is credible; that is, are there good reasons for believing it? I am against the paradox mongers and those who emphasize only personal volition and decision. They tell us we are to believe even in the absence of good reasons for believing. Some even argue that to seek to give reasons for the faith within us is a sign of lack of trust or an exercise in self-justification. This is nonsense. Against any view that faith is merely a leap in the dark, I insist on the reasonableness of Christian faith and the “rationality” of the living, self-revealed God. I maintain that God creates and preserves the universe through the agency of the Logos, that man by creation bears the moral and rational (as opposed to irrational) image of his Maker, that despite the fall, man is still responsible for knowing God. I believe that divine revelation is rational, that the inspired biblical canon is a consistent and coherent whole, that genuine faith seeks understanding, that the Holy Spirit uses truth as a means of persuasion, that logical consistency is a test of truth, and that saving trust in Christ necessarily involves acceptance of certain revealed propositions about him. We are called to “reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1) of the Logos and, further, that nurturing “the Christian mind” is a crucial aspect of spiritual growth. Those who reject these affirmations rest their case on neo-Protestant and neo-Christian novelties rather than on historic evangelical and biblical theism.

What ethical developments are noteworthy?

First, fierce moral relativity is encompassing our secular society. Having lost its biblical moorings, our age stifles its conscience and displays an utterly shameless sensuality. One cannot but note the rampant perversion of sex, the breakdown of family life, and the cruelty and inhumanity evident in the ready massacre of fetal life. One must mention also the failure of the great universities to sustain fixed moral values, the inability of humanism to mount ethical resources requiring self-sacrifice, and the widening effort by frontier scientists to gloss over the ethical and moral implications of their experiments by an appeal to mere utilitarianism. Then too, prime-time television highlights cultural trivialities and poses little challenge to ethical waywardness. Yet I detect a new longing by disenchanted youth—after a spate of sinful living—for personal worth and for lasting love. Some are turning to the life-changing dynamic that revealed religion offers even the most profligate.

Do you see the Bible as having significance for public issues?

The Bible lays an authoritative claim upon both our generation and all nations. Neither the protests of radical biblical critics nor those of secular humanists have invalidated that claim. Neglect of the main elements of biblical revelation renders most modern intellectual centers powerless. It may seem trite, and I know it leaves unsettled the matter of political specifics, but nothing is more needed than national repentance—national repentance on the part of people ungrateful for their blessings, and unwilling to make the moral sacrifices requisite for national well-being. The times cry out for spiritual renewal alive to the high claims of divine truth and universal morality, for ethical dedication to neighborly good will, to human rights, and duties under God. A nation that settles its political specifics in this context cannot go far wrong, and even when it does, it has a built-in method of correcting its mistakes. The illusion that all the world’s problems can be solved merely by political change is disastrous. But to neglect political imperatives can likewise be naturally devastating.

How do you regard the alleged growth of the evangelical movement?

“The more, the better” makes nonsense if there is confusion about who evangelicals are. Traditional evangelical agencies seem no longer to preserve the term “evangelical” for the biblical essentials. The term is becoming a banner over many aberrations, and it increasingly means different things to different people. Some revel in “the day of the evangelical” and, to show how multitudinous the army is, boast of all possible varieties. Others define the term too narrowly and propose a purge list of “false evangelicals,” thus pitting brother against brother in the body of Christ. Still others, pleading evangelistic priorities or denominational peace, avoid or even repress open discussion of the inerrancy of Scripture.

Do you think it is possible for the NAE to become an effective counterweight to the NCC?

Given a coalescence of the right leadership, the right issues, the right program, the right strategy, and the right launch pad, NAE could still attract wide grassroots support. But many evangelicals now look upon it as almost as irrelevant as the United Nations. NAE has played too small a part in accelerating a cooperative evangelistic thrust, in coping with the evangelical authority crisis, in launching evangelicals into today’s cultural and political crisis. It has not effectively coordinated fellow evangelicals in the mainline ecumenical churches. For all that, NAE is to be commended for its many constructive activities.

How do you assess the awakening evangelical interest in politics?

Evangelicals must get their priorities straight. Christians have a biblical mandate to preach the gospel to the world and to work for national righteousness. I’m gratified that evangelicals are finding their way back into the public arena, but disconcerted lest they act unwisely and lose their opportunity. The strident criticisms by liberal intellectuals need not trouble us; evangelicals are damned for social lethargy if they are not involved, and damned for intruding sectarianism into politics if they oppose cherished prejudices. It does, I think, reflect adversely upon evangelicals when many show less interest in getting biblical truth and right into national life than in promoting a born-again candidate or in getting prayer back into the public schools. The evangelical movement needs to get publicly involved for the sake of social justice, not simply for the sake of private moral renewal.

Evangelicals tend to be single-issue or singlecandidate oriented. Their agenda is often much narrower than that of Catholics, ecumenists, and liberal Jews. However, the ecumenists, who have long championed special causes, are in no position to protest. They have criticized single-issue involvement (for example, prolife, though surely not ERA!), and have conveniently and routinely overlooked some specific moral issues, like inflation, crime, alcoholism, and addiction to cigarettes and drugs. They have baptized Communist rulers in Hanoi and Peking and Havana as revolutionary carriers of divine justice.

What should evangelicals do?

They had better agree on an agenda, make their objectives known, and move toward a better day. The American economy and foreign policy are in disarray and the moral temper of the nation is low. All citizens have public duties and are called to support the right and the good in national life. Yet the Christian fails his nation if he permits the evangelistic imperative to eclipse political duty. Evangelical churches need to speak out on both the gospel of grace and the revealed principles of social and political life.

This must be done without confusing specifics valid only for the Hebrew theocracy with civic imperatives for pluralistic nations envisioned in the New Testament. Instead of seeking political power, the churches should delineate and promote the proper use of power. God’s people should be a mighty voice for justice in the land—aware that biblical justice does not necessarily coincide with propagandistic perceptions of justice. Given a comprehensive vision and theology of politics illumined by scriptural principles, God’s people have the task of translating these into policies and platforms and support for desirable programs and candidates.

What of a Christian or evangelical party?

To take the route of a Christian party is, in my view, a mistake. But neither is it right to commit oneself unreservedly to one of the existing parties. Better yet, why not forge a moral majority in which evangelicals join forces locally with their townspeople on crucial issues? This would overcome the specter of an ecclesiastical party. Participation in local politics is good training for state and national involvement; the opportunity for political engagement in the United States is exceptional, a privilege unknown in many modern nations. The Christian ought to be politically active to the limit of his or her opportunity and competence. Unfortunately, these two qualifications do not always coincide. The Christian should try to bring into the political arena objectivity and balance, and especially, concern for the general welfare rather than personal self-interest.

What do you think of the direct role taken by prominent evangelical preachers in political campaigning?

The clergy are ordained to preach the Word of God and should “stick to their last,” that of clarifying the truth of revelation, including the Judeo-Christian principles of personal and social ethics, and of exhorting church members to exemplify and apply those principles as conscientiously and consistently as possible in public affairs.

What is your reaction to the identification of evangelicals with the new political right?

If political pluralism means anything, then evangelical Christians have as much right to promote their views as anybody else. But the Moral Majority has claimed to be not a minority but a block of 30 million votes that could decisively affect national outcomes. The secular press recognized that as an exaggeration. The Bible gives no blueprint for a universal evangelical political order. The Moral Majority was misguided by its leaders, who promoted a Christian litmus test of specific issues used to approve or disapprove particular candidates. Its spokesmen retreated to an espousal of “principles” without carefully defining them or logically deriving specifics from them.

The evangelical right differs in significant ways from the intellectual, political right. The evangelical right lacks historical perspective, theological depth, and philosophical rationale (most would be astonished to learn that classical political liberalism first promoted some positions that political conservatism now champions). It seeks a quick fix and misunderstands the historical depth of sinful perversity. Corrupt features of a society often have resulted from deeply entrenched wickedness that only a change of mind and will can alter. Effective social change requires both a political and a spiritual thrust. Shallowness accommodates a promotion of right-wing causes simply as political and economic preferences rather than on principle and by reasoned argument. Moral Majority was reluctant to dissociate itself from the campaigns of some political conservatives, including a criminally convicted (Abscam) legislator and another congressman involved in a repulsive sexual offense. In a simplistic way, moreover, the conservative litmus test leveled to the same plane of black or white, very different kinds of issues, such as abortion and the B-1 bomber. The consistent alternative to the political left, which all too often follows a pragmatic more than a principled course, is an informed and self-critical right.

Do you have any warning to evangelicals standing on the left wing of political and social involvement?

They run the risk of turning into an illusory ideology what often begins as a proper protest against a simplistic conservative solution. Socialism has failed woefully to live up to its promises, and communism even more so; the notion that they are benevolent is ill-founded. Why duplicate the errors of the ecumenical left? Pragmatically oriented programs too often end up in glaring contradictions, such as promoting American pacifism while approving the violence and revolution of others. The whole Christian heritage stands on the side of peaceful, legal, and orderly processes of change in society, rather than on the side of violence and revolution.

How influential are the mass media?

The average American gives 15 percent of his time to the mass media and less than 1 percent to the church. The emergence of the electronic church indicates that many people hunger for a personal faith. Much of this programming encourages an experiential religion, which, however, in the absence of adequate biblical teaching, can lead to theological error. The Christian movement must use the media to confront people’s basic assumptions, habits, and even subconscious drives, by sharing the truth of God’s revelation. Instead of allowing the media to crowd out the Mediator, the claim of the Mediator must be affirmed upon and through the media.

What practical steps could evangelicals take to achieve their objectives in public life?

1. In the local churches: repent and rededicate ourselves to the service of God; reject the proud pretense that evangelical politicians or even an evangelical majority can right the wrongs of the nation and perhaps of the world; clarify the relation and difference between the political and the evangelistic duty of Christians, lest misguided congregations proclaim: “Behold the candidate who solves all the problems of the nation,” and neglect the message: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

2. Among the leaders: share convictions, identify national goals, and explore common and divergent strategies for achieving them; links with nonevangelicals who share our political concerns and aims should also be on the agenda.

3. In the thought journals and evangelical colleges and seminaries: explore scriptural principles governing political life, of divergent inferences drawn from biblical principles; encourage articles, theses, dissertations, and books; explore and weigh national priorities; mount a great wave of public opinion in which faculty and students share; and enlist evangelical and other media in the cause of national political renewal.

Others Say: Having Found the Truth …

We fundamentalists have been getting a bad press lately. Worse, if our critics ever omit to charge us with spreading everything from galloping dandruff to rampant Republicanism, one of us will almost certainly disengage his brain, open his mouth, and launch some stupendous piece of verbal folly. Such was the recent unbiblical statement that God does not hear the prayers of Jews. If he doesn’t, there may be hope for those who read the Bible selectively (the great Thomas Jefferson kept his scissors busy; I believe he is now better advised).

Now, my fundamentalism is not that of the cover-to-cover Bible believer. It’s worse. I believe the cover, too: Holy Bible, Biblia Sacra, Die Heilige Schrift, La Sainte Bible. The holiness of these books is not a matter of my predilection, inclination, or choosing, and needs my affirmation no more than it suffers from the skeptic’s negation. It is fact.

I believe the Bible to be the written Word of God himself (the pronoun’s gender is not of my choosing; he could have elected to be the Mother of his children; his actual choice may emphasize the special blessedness all women share and convey to those of us men who by his grace can perceive it). Patently, the God who is himself Truth has no countenance for a lie.

I further believe his Spirit spoke to the Bible authors in words, since the human mind, at least in this life, has no other vehicle for ideas. And since we, like his other creatures, are fallible, he has taken special pains to create in his chosen the best possible hearers, keepers, and spreaders of his Word. The long, hard course in holiness God gave the Jews includes a meticulous care in the minutiae of scholarly toil, a diligence rooted in awful love.

Of course there have been scribal errors; the two greatest works of modern scholarship, Migne’s Patrologia and the Oxford English Dictionary, are also marred by mistakes; to be human is to make mistakes. But they are nugatory—the wrong vowels turned grape pulp into dove’s dung—and the simple old man who reads devoutly will hear Love’s own voice. And he’ll be far more accurate than the learned dolt who thinks he knows what God would have written if he’d studied under Rudolf Bultmann.

And of course, the Bible contains poetry—the world’s best, said no less a judge than John Milton—and drama and much more humor than dull fools suppose (I’m just quoting Comus and mean no offense to anybody who disagrees) and games with words, including puns. We have imagination because, as fundamentalists know, God made us in his image (male and female, sisters!) and gave us attendant gifts: a sense of humor, of music, of kinship with this world, and of homesickness for the next.

In the Bible every essential is preserved as God would have it. He has chosen to speak Hebrew, a little Aramaic, and Greek, and we can be thankful.

But let me set aside rhetoric and dialectic and come to the end of the matter. The real reason I believe the Bible is that Jesus Christ believes it.

This is why I am glad to line up with the Primitive Baptists and the pope; with Dante Alighieri and Dr. John Donne; with the old ladies, black, white and any other color, and Bishop Schereschewsky; with Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, and Billy Graham; with Martin Luther (Das Wort sie sollen lassen stehen!) and Mother Teresa. I thank God for them, and with them pray: Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!

But the devils, too, believe, and tremble. What matters vastly more than what I believe of the Bible is what of it I live, and that’s where I’m in trouble. I’m afraid I like talking, even arguing, about the Bible more than applying it. I hope all of us who believe can stop pretending to know, let alone judge, what others believe. May we all apply whatever we have received of Truth to loving more and accusing less.

Please pray for me; I do for you.

CHARLES LLOYD1Dr. Lloyd is professor emeritus of English at Davison College, North Carolina. This article is adapted from the Charlotte Observer, and reprinted by permission.

Ideas

Public Aid and the Churches Duties

The reordering of the federal budget presents the church with a fresh opportunity.

For most of two generations now, the government has steadily moved in to deal in institutionalized fashion with human needs once relieved by local churches in more personal fashion. As New Deal policies, resulting from the Great Depression of the 1930s, have permeated our society, food baskets delivered to the poor in the congregation and a deacons’ fund to meet the rental or mortgage payments of unemployed members are an almost forgotten memory for the senior few, and totally absent from the experience of most of the younger church. Growing government largess allowed the church, almost unnoticed, to stop exercising its function of caring for physical needs within the community. Most believers perceived that sections of government had expanded to bloated proportions, but few noticed that a vital aspect of church life had atrophied, leaving the church less robust.

The radical reordering of economic policies being championed by a new administration in Washington presents the church with a fresh opportunity to recover its lost role and rebuild its shriveled muscle.

President Reagan’s general promise that his proposed austerity measures would penalize only the greedy and not the needy is hard to square with specifics being mentioned as this issue goes to press. Unemployment compensation, we are told, will be cut off after a lesser number of weeks. Food stamps are to be discontinued for entire categories of current recipients.

As such retrenchments occur, evangelicals are presented with a made-to-order opportunity to translate increased social awareness into action. Make sure your officers know who has been laid off work in your congregation and when their compensation cuts off. Budget to pick up those payments in equal amount for the duration of the need. Find out who in your church family has received food stamps and be prepared to provide a functional equivalent if these are curtailed. Unemployment, moreover, is running several times higher in the inner city than in most parts of the country. If yours is a suburban church, therefore, budget an amount at least equal to your own needs to share with a sister urban church whose congregation will be much more deeply affected—as the Macedonian churches gave for the church in Jerusalem.

This is a cause around which all evangelicals can comfortably unite. Those of more conservative political persuasion who helped vote in the Reagan administration have a built-in interest in seeing his policies succeed. They will logically want to pair the philosophy of less reliance on government with that of a return to reliance on the church. Those of more liberal political inclination should now support the church in assuming those welfare functions being jettisoned by the federal government that historically have been the church’s natural sphere.

Changes are coming in television (see News, p. 74). Pressure groups are gunning for sex and violence. There’s talk that Jerry Falwell has in mind getting some friends to buy control of the ABC network. Boycotts are in the works. Broadcast material is so rotten in some communities that cable companies are offering key devices so children can’t see the worst of the stuff. In one town, 1,500 people jammed city hall to try to keep cable-carried profanity, sex, and excessive violence off their TV screens.

We like the ideas of getting monitors to chart program content and sponsors. Disregard the squeals of protest from producers; boycotts are legal and acceptable. Obviously, no Congress or court is going to save us from TV. The people who pay the networks to broadcast smut must be forced to suffer at the cash register when people who have had their fill decide to stop buying their goods.

If wealthy Christians want to buy enough stock to control ABC, that is their privilege. It has seemed strange to us that while Christians have made millions in many other legitimate businesses, they apparently have not done so in the communications media. Why not?

We think the virtually unlimited access to the public’s mind, sense, and values by those who so far have exercised precious little restraint must be curbed. It’s plain that self-control hasn’t worked among publishers and broadcasters. They have almost totally disregarded both community standards and the old test of redeeming social value.

Since our story (Jan. 2) about how one city flagged X-rated movies, we’ve received similar accounts from other cities. Changes for the better are coming. In the meantime, until the boycott works and until Jerry Falwell buys ABC, you can still do the best thing of all: turn off your television set. You don’t have to watch TV’s junk food for your soul.

During the last decade or so we have witnessed the rediscovery of the gifts of the Spirit as God’s way of providing the local church with complementary strengths in its members to equip it for its supernatural task in the world. This is a healthy development that we applaud.

But every fresh emphasis carries within it the seeds of abuse. In this case we are not so much concerned by excess in the pursuit of the particular gifts as by neglect of those duties that are normative for all believers.

The danger is that awareness of the gifts of the Spirit may become a convenient cop-out: “Oh, I pray for my neighbors’ conversion, but I haven’t spoken to them. Evangelism just isn’t my gift.” Nonsense! The Great Commission applies to every believer; each is required to bear witness to the truth he or she has experienced. Or, “I contribute occasionally to the church, but I don’t attempt anything like tithing. I haven’t been blessed with the gift of giving.” This is absurd. Paul clearly instructed (1 Cor. 16:2) that each believer is to contribute regularly in proportion to his income.

In recognizing and harnessing the gifts of the Spirit among its laity, the church has regained a dimension far too long lost. But it would be tragic if new truth were allowed to obliterate the old: that it is the privilege and responsibility of every believer to worship, pray, give, and witness in faithful obedience to his or her Lord.

Eutychus and His Kin: March 13, 1981

“Once Upon A Midnight Dreary …”

Many years ago, I read about a philosopher who woke up in the middle of the night with a profound insight into the nature of the universe. With trembling hands he reached for his notebook and, without even turning on a light, wrote down his profound insight so that he might develop it the next morning. Imagine his chagrin when he read: “Everything in the world is a manifestation of turpentine.”

Okay—his insights weren’t so good; but the idea of writing down ideas has stuck with me. Just recently I discovered an old file of midnight memos, and I thought I ought to share some of them with you. Perhaps some enterprising reader can run with one of these ideas and help change the world.

1. Get Sunday school kids to collect soft drink cans and build an organ out of them. It will help save aluminum and promote the cause of good music. (Come to think of it, an organ made of soft drink cans might be better for pop music.)

2. Start a ministry for people who are too busy. Schedule meetings for them that you plan to cancel. Maybe it could be a clearing house for pastors who invite each other to preach and then cancel the invitation, thereby giving them a week at home when their church officers think they are away. That’s a good name—Cancellation Clearing House. Our motto: “We have hands on your time.”

3. Idea for a doctoral thesis in church history: King James (of the Bible translation of the same name) introduced golf into England. Could this be the reason most fundamentalist preachers who use the KJV are rabid golfers? What is the actual correlation between Bible translations and golfing?

4. Write a song for the ecumenical crowd: “On Hearing the First COCU in Spring.”

5. Over seven million aspirin tablets are swallowed annually in the United States. Think of the witness we could give if there were Bible verses on each box or bottle. Possible name: “Gos-pill Witness.”

I’ve been sleeping very soundly lately, so I haven’t written down any exciting ideas. But I’m going to start taking my notebook to church with me. Our pastor is in his third year of a series on Job, and I sometimes get rather sleepy …

EUTYCHUS X

Priceless Training

“What to Expect of a Seminary Graduate” [Feb. 6] encouraged me. Having spent seven months candidating after seminary graduation, I have become sick and tired of comments such as “Oh, he just graduated from seminary,” or “He doesn’t know anything just out of seminary.” One church treated me worse as a recent graduate than if I had been living in adultery for the last four years. But it was not adultery, only study of the Word of God.

Seminary training has been priceless in personal spiritual development.

DAVID J. VOHAR

Dallas, Tex.

Don’T Rush Them

Your stand [Eutychus, Jan. 23] is one which must be heard. The far right must soon realize: not all fun is of Satan. There are far too many “good Christians” who would do away with fairy tales, the tooth fairy, Snoopy, and anything else they say cannot be found in Scripture. Did the children in the day of Jesus sit around with the elders and talk of the latest doctrinal dispute? Nothing good can come from imposing a 60-year-old mind on a 5-year-old child. The wisdom of the elder comes through years of fun, joy, experience, trouble. The trouble will come soon enough. We must not rush it by taking away the fun and joy.

God protect the fun and joy of my children from those who would destroy it.

JAMES W. STAUFFER

Middletown. Pa.

Natural Or Supernatural?

Your editorial on life manipulators [Jan. 23] is a little disturbing. If “life” can be totally explained by reference to natural materials and processes, why will morality be jettisoned? The author seems to think that religion is a prerequisite for morality, when in fact many atheists and materialists lead very moral lives. And why should the same explanation render life less special or sacred? When God uses an earthquake to fell Jericho, does it follow that God did not do it at all? Do we require that all of God’s actions be devoid of natural materials and processes? Surely not. If we did, we would have no Bible. Only if our Christianity is founded solely on special revelation to the exclusion of any natural revelation will a natural explanation from science militate against the sovereignty of God.

DENNIS TAYLOR

Champaign, Ill.

Personal Application

Perhaps the most valuable lessons from Bill Gothard’s experience [News, Feb. 6] are, first, that all of us honored to be full-time Christian leaders should begin insisting that our gross annual salaries should regularly and voluntarily and often be made known to one and all, especially to the people whose contributions make our salaries possible. And, second, that people who are members of boards who run churches, denominations, and organizations begin insisting on the same. What apparently happened to Gothard could happen to any of us.

REV. GUNNAR HOGLUND

Bethel Baptist Church

Janesville, Wis.

Making Progress

I appreciate so much the article “Homosexuals Can Change” by Tom Minnery [Feb. 6]. I am a closet homosexual—a minister in a very conservative denomination. Only God knows the pain, suffering, guilt, and self-condemnation I’ve gone through. If the “powers that be” knew, I’d get my credentials taken so fast, they wouldn’t even care to pray with or for me. I am making progress and pray that in time before the Lord calls me I’ll get complete victory.

NAME WITHHELD

Sociobiology

Part of the problem with Ray Bohlin’s article, “Sociobiology: Cloned from the Gene Cult” [Jan. 23], is that there are really two sociobiologies. The first is an area of scientific research, that is, the relationship between evolutionary pressures and behavior. That genetic differences affect behavior is a proposition I hope you will not deny. The difference in behavior between a man and an ant is not entirely due to nurture. The real question is in what ways and to what extent. This question can only be answered empirically. The most theoretical research can do is suggest new avenues for investigation.

The second sociobiology is a theory of ethics, which does indeed recommend such things as deception, hypocrisy, abortion, and euthanasia. A better name for it would be ethical egoism. Furthermore, to derive ethical egoism from sociobiology of the first sort is nothing less than an example of the naturalistic fallacy. (Going from is to ought.)

That the second sociobiology is based on a fallacy should be cold comfort to you. Bohlin and the rest of you are guilty of worse. He admits that most of religion is false. What isn’t false is so wrapped in slippery words as to be impossible to pin down, and thus meaningless. And yet he is still religious. Do you value honesty so little? You are guilty of the inverse of the sociobiologist’s sin: believing something is true because you think it ought to be. At least show the honesty of doubt!

BRETT P. BELLMORE

Houghton, Mich.

Misdirected Surgery

The “contemporary community standards” scalpel lifted by Christenson to “Excise the Pornographic Cancer” [Jan. 2] is the only tool now provided by the Supreme Court for such surgery, but constitutionally it is more dangerous than a “Saturday night special.” If it succeeds in killing pornography, that will be its second victim. The first was the First Amendment itself.

While we Christians attempt to save ourselves and our children by attacking pornography as violative of community standards, let it not escape our notice that our “constitutional right” to freedom of speech has become a privilege conferred by democratic vote. The “community” decides what its “contemporary” standards permit. As times and neighborhoods change, morality and law also change, thus amending the Constitution by public opinion polls.

The third victim to fall under the knife will be religion. Having created a First Amendment doctrine that permits regulation of speech according to its content against a standard of popular morality, the “public nuisance” laws now identified with sex in the cinema will be redefined to encompass politics in the church.

DAVID L. LLEWELLYN, JR.

Santa Ana, Calif.

Additional Tributes

I know that there are many such as myself who will remember John R. Rice’s exhortation to be soul winners [News, Jan 23]. We will remember his dynamics of prayer, which he proved over and over again in his own life. But most of all, we will remember his compassion. He never preached a sermon without a tear in his voice. He never witnessed his faith without a mighty compassion for the lost soul.

REV. DAVID E. DRYER

Immanuel Baptist Church Kenosha, Wis.

In your January 23 issue you wrote some extremely nice words about Walter Bennett. As one who was intimately involved in the “Hour of Decision” maneuverings in 1950, I can appreciate the accolades you heaped upon Walter, and can affirm that he was eminently entitled to everything you said about him. I did feel it was a bit out of balance to refer only to what he did for Billy Graham. He was equally important to Walter Maier and the “Lutheran Hour,” and to Myron Boyd and the “Light and Life Hour.”

GERALD F. BEAVAN

Phoenixville, Pa.

Wrong Composer

The editorial commenting on John Lennon’s murder is typical of CT’s unfortunate propensity for appropriating “the world” and fecklessly stashing it wherever possible in CT’s evangelical stance.

First, “Let It Be” was sung and composed by Paul McCartney, not Lennon, and the song’s references to Mother Mary are quasi-religious at best.

Second, to claim that Lennon’s “Help” constitutes “a strong apologetic for conversion” and “describes the condition of fallen man” is tantamount to suggesting that “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else But Me” has something to say about original sin.

ANDREW SAYLOR

Telford, Pa.

Editor’s Note from March 13, 1981

Evangelicals have always been specially sensitive to issues of personal morality. Even in earlier and better days when evangelicals stood at the forefront of social and political battle for justice and human rights, the Wesleys, Wilberforces, Robert Raikeses, and Harriet Beecher Stowes of former times were deeply troubled at any breakdown in standards of personal morality. They fought equally and valiantly for the integrity of the family, for personal purity, for truth telling, for honesty in business, for private modesty, for careful stewardship of personal resources, for public and private piety, and in England and America, at least, for careful observance of the Sabbath. In recent years, no concern has weighed more heavily on evangelicals than the disintegration of public and private standards relating to sexual ethics. Western Christendom generally observed a double standard with far more tolerance of illicit sex for men than for women. Evangelicals condemned unequivocally and without reservation any deviation from the biblical standard that limits sex to husband and wife. In all honesty, however, it must be admitted that evangelicals have often proved more free to forgive a man than to forgive a woman.

During the last two decades, societal standards in this area have declined drastically. The Kinsey report first made Americans aware of the radical nature of this shift, and recent studies only confirm the drift towards wide acceptance of premarital sex. While most Americans still insist that married partners are bound to remain faithful to each other, roughly three-quarters of American males and half of American women of ages 18 to 30 see nothing wrong in premarital sex. While evangelicals continue to denounce all sex outside of marriage, the looser standards of the society around them have affected both theory and practice of church people and of professing evangelicals.

To this problem, Asbury College professors Ronald Koteskey and Donald Joy address themselves directly. They point out one widely unknown but highly significant factor that partly accounts for the astounding change over the last few years. They also probe what evangelicals can do to reinforce biblical standards within the Christian church. Both writers affirm that there is no easy solution to the problem. But we can be more understanding, and we can do something about it.

The Shroud of Truin: Scientists Conclude It’s Not a Forgery

The American scientists who have been trying to fathom the mystery of the Shroud of Turin since they examined it in Italy two years ago are preparing to conclude and publish their findings, possibly in April, thus closing the most sophisticated scientific investigation ever performed on an ancient object.

The team set reporting dates several times previously and failed to meet them. Some members now are pressing hard to finish, in light of the significance of what they will be able to report—or, more accurately, what they will be unable to report. “Every member of the team came aboard bound and determined to prove this was a forgery,” said John Heller, a biophysicist at the New England Institute. He and nearly all of the 30 members of the team are coming away convinced it is not a fraud.

While they have not been able to determine that the ghostly, full-length image is that of the crucified Christ, much of the evidence released so far suggests the image on the cloth is a light scorch, the product of a burst of heat and light. Thus, the final report will probably be enough to convince many that the Shroud of Turin bears the genuine imprint of Christ’s resurrection.

Ken Stevenson, an IBM computer technician and the team’s official spokesman, is already delivering slide presentations in which he concludes that the shroud is the same one used on Christ’s body. Heller doesn’t go quite that far, but he says, “It sure does make you pious.”

Samuel Pellicori, a spectroscopist at the Santa Barbara (Calif.) Research Center and a member of the team, is one who suggests a different conclusion. In the current issue of Archeology magazine, he writes that the scorch may not be a scorch at all, but simply the effect of prolonged contact with the fluids from a decaying body.

He has not been able to account, however, for the results of an astonishing experiment conducted by the leaders of the team, which seem to discount Pellicori’s hypothesis. John Jumper and Eric Jackson, two air force scientists, observed in 1974 that the intensity of the image varies in proportion to the distance a particular portion of the body would have been from the cloth. On the face, for example, the imprint of the nose and chin is stronger than the cheeks. The two scientists concluded that whatever made the image did not have to be in direct contact with the cloth, contrary to Pellicori’s view.

To test their idea, Jackson and Jumper used a VP-8 image analyzer, a device used to make computer-enhanced photographs of Mars and Saturn. The analyzer converts image intensity to vertical relief, and when they used it on the shroud, the result was an accurate, three-dimensional image of a man. That suddenly seemed to put the shroud far beyond the range of some forger in the fourteenth century, to whom many shroud critics attribute it; it was then, in France, that the shroud first turned up. The results of the three-dimension test attracted the attention of many highly qualified scientists, who met in Albuquerque in 1977 and launched the Shroud of Turin Research Project. Umberto II, the former king of Italy who lives in exile in Portugal, is the relic’s official owner, and in October 1978, allowed the team five days to conduct tests. The scientists hauled in 72 crates of equipment and worked around the clock in shifts, finishing just in time. Since then, some of the findings have been published piecemeal by the individual researchers.

Besides the scorch-like body outline, the shroud bears “blood” stains, from punctures in the wrists and feet, from a wound in the side, from many smaller lash marks about the body, and from many small head wounds, conceivably the result of a crown, or more probably a cap, of thorns. From what is already known about the research, the final report will likely conclude that the blood is genuine.

The circumstantial evidence also suggests that the shroud is genuine, according to one of the team members. The kind of cloth—linen—with its herringbone weave, corresponds to first-century Palestine. Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist, even found microscopic pollen samples of a type peculiar to the Dead Sea region (others point out that pollen blows great distances and the shroud has been displayed in the open air several times in the past).

What most troubles many evangelicals, aside from a natural distaste for relics, is that the shroud seems to contradict the Bible’s testimony about Christ’s burial.

Gary Habermas, an associate professor of apologetics and philosophy of religion at William Tyndale College (formerly Detroit Bible College), is one evangelical who is convinced that there are no discrepancies, and he delivered a lecture on the subject at the December meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Here are some of the issues he dealt with:

• The gospel accounts mention a face cloth used to cover Jesus’ head, and therefore, the image should have been on it and not the shroud. According to Habermas, the face cloth was rolled, placed under the chin and tied at the top of the head, much like someone suffering a toothache, the purpose being to keep the jaw closed as rigor mortis set in. Habermas says the practice is mentioned in the Mishnah, the collection of early rabbinical practices, as well as the section of the Code of Jewish Law that deals with burial customs. (The man in the shroud seems to have just such a cloth around his head.)

• The body whose image is on the shroud was evidently not washed for burial, contrary to Jewish custom. Habermas, again citing the Code of Jewish Law, notes that in cases of those executed by the government, the blood was to be left on the body as a token of the culprit’s payment for illegal actions.

• Many assume that Jesus was wrapped like a mummy, although the Greek term used in Matthew 27:59 and in Luke 23:53 can mean either wrapped or folded, according to Habermas. Remains from an Essene (early Jewish sect) cemetery reveal bodies buried in shrouds, and burial according to the Code of Jewish Law in a single, plain linen sheet. Furthermore, when Christ called Lazarus forth from the tomb, Lazarus walked out, which he could not have done had he been wrapped like a mummy.

Habermas concludes in his lecture that the biblical evidence neither proves nor disproves the shroud’s authenticity.

Pellicori, the scientist who offers the variant view of how the bodily image was formed, addresses the central question in concluding his Archeology article:

“Was it the actual burial cloth of Christ? Our research has not been able to prove that weighty conclusion, nor will science ever be able to say. But at the same time, some of the most exhaustive research ever conducted on any relic, object of art, or archeological artifact in no way has eliminated that possibility.”

Heller, the biophysicist, says his belief in Christ still relies on a leap of faith, and many who will pore over the final report of the scientists, looking for absolute proof of the resurrection, will probably be forced to the same conclusion. But the Shroud of Turin may make that leap of faith seem less difficult than it once was.

Unsung Heros

Recognition At Last For Missions’ Other Carey

The birthplace of the first American missionary to Africa has been designated a national landmark for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A one-and-a-half story rural house in Charles City, Virginia, was the birthplace of Lott Carey, born there a slave in 1780.

As a young man, Carey was hired out by his master to a tobacco warehouse in Richmond. After years of revelry, he was converted while worshiping in a segregated church gallery.

Transformed, Carey taught himself to read by painstakingly comparing memorized verses to printed words in the Bible. He bought freedom for himself and his two children (his wife died a slave) for $850, accumulated by selling waste tobacco he collected from the warehouse floor.

Carey began to preach, became pastor of the 800-member African Baptist Church in Richmond, and in 1815 led in forming the Richmond African Baptist Missionary Society, financed by the contributions of slaves and freedmen. With his second wife, he volunteered to be the society’s first missionary.

Carey sailed for Sierra Leone in 1821 and established a mission among the Mandingos. He moved on to Liberia with the aim of reaching the people of the interior. But he also served among the former slaves that had emigrated from America. By 1826, Carey had formed a missionary society in connection with his church in Monrovia. Three years later, while making bullets to defend the colony from slave traders, he was killed in a gunpowder explosion. Lott Carey never knew that he had just been elected to succeed Jehudi Ashmun as governor of Liberia.

There are no current plans for a marker at the birthplace site. But Charles City county administrator Lloyd O. Jones said last month, “If no action is taken by the federal or state governments to mark this historic site, then the county stands ready …”

Malawi

Religious Freedom For All—Except Jehovah’S Witnesses

“Tell it to the commissioner of police!” the Malawian customs official barked as he proceeded to confiscate 16 pieces of literature bearing the verboten name Jehovah’s Witnesses. My wife, daughter, and I had just arrived at Chileka Airport to commence a six-month teaching assignment at the CCAP (Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian) Theological College in Zomba. The booklets were to be used for a course entitled “Christian Deviations.” This I explained to the officer—and later in a letter to the police commissioner. Weeks after the class had completed its study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 14 Christian pamphlets on the JWs were returned; but two JW publications were retained.

Harassment of the Witnesses, who were first banned in 1967 for refusing to join the Malawi Congress Party—the nation’s sole political entity under the one-party rule of benevolent dictator H. Kamuzu Banda—crested in 1972 and again in 1975. “They are not Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are the devil’s witnesses!” Banda was quoted as saying. (The U.S.-educated physician and Church of Scotland elder forsook a lucrative medical practice in Britain and later in Ghana to lead his people to independence in 1964.) Party zealots picked up the cue and proceeded to terrorize Malawi’s 30,000 JWs. Despite strict censorship, reports of atrocities leaked out: murders, rapes, tortures, house burnings. At least two-thirds of the Witnesses fled across the border into Zambia and Mozambique, where scores reportedly died in refugee camps from drinking contaminated water. Most were repatriated, but today the sect has no visibility in the former British protectorate of Nyasaland where it had flourished since its establishment there in 1907 by Joseph Booth. No fewer than 18 Malawian religious sects are traceable to Booth, the eclectic British missionary whose theological pilgrimage from Baptist fundamentalism to Jehovah’s Witnesses via Seventh Day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists left a trail of independent splinters in its wake.

Ironically, another Booth import, the Seventh-day Adventist church, enjoys privileged status in Malawi. On the twentieth anniversary of Martyrs’ Day (which memorializes the 57 men and 4 women slain in the struggle for freedom) in 1979, Life President Banda attended nationally broadcast services in an SDA church in Blantyre. F. E. Wilson, director of the SDA mission in Malawi, informed this reporter that Banda patronizes SDA health services and recently made unpublicized grants of 100,000 kwacha ($122,000) each to SDA dental and medical ministries.

More than half of Malawi’s 6 million people are Christians. (Malawi is the size of Pennsylvania but half as populous.) Most of the remainder—and indeed a large proportion of the Christians as well—are involved in traditional African ancestor worship and witchcraft. Muslims, who comprise 12 percent of the population, coexist peacefully with the Christian majority. The Christian sector is dominated by Roman Catholics (22.6 percent of the population) and Presbyterians (17.9 percent), followed at a distance by SDAS (1.8 percent), Anglicans (1.6 percent), and Churches of Christ (1.2 percent). Twenty-five additional churches of foreign origin include the Africa Evangelical Fellowship, the Assemblies of God, Pentecostal Holiness, Baptist, Nazarene, Greek Orthodox, and Lutheran bodies. Among approximately 40 indigenous sects are the African Gift church (which teaches that the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor. 12 are for Africans only), the Ethiopian church (which condones ancestor worship, polygamy, and beer drinking—practices forbidden by most evangelical groups), the Adam church (distinguished by worship in the nude), the Sent of the Holy Ghost, and the Church of the Holy Donkey. Baha’is and Christadelphians are small, but growing in numbers and influence.

That the Malawian fields are indeed white unto harvest is illustrated by the story of the Emmanuel Tract Fellowship. John Potter, 46, a soil conservationist from Australia, moved his family to Malawi in the summer of 1977. Although tied to his government job five-and-a-half days a week, this charismatic Methodist promptly opened an office for the distribution of tracts and Bible correspondence courses, staffed by his 70-year-old mother Audrey, and 11 largely inexperienced Malawian young people. Using volunteer colporteurs and the mails, in its first two years the ETF distributed 3,644,500 tracts, from which 112,936 decision coupons were returned, and some 204,900 Bible correspondence courses were sent to 46,700 students requesting them; 8,553 certificates were issued to those completing a series of four courses.

The ETF phenomenon bears out David Barrett’s finding that in 1978, while European and North American churches were losing 1.8 million and 950,000 members respectively, African churches added 6 million new believers (16,600 per day).

Largest of the Protestant bodies, the CCAP is markedly more conservative in faith and practice than most of its Presbyterian counterparts in the West. Discipline is strict. Expulsion is the penalty for beer drinking and unauthorized divorce. Smoking by clergy and laity is extremely rare. Due to a shortage of ordained ministers, elders take up the slack and perform preaching and pastoral duties for most CCAP congregations. (The Blantyre Synod, with more than 500 congregations, has only 45 ordained ministers.) Churches are well attended, and those who can read usually carry their Bibles as they walk, often for miles, to church. One Sunday we worshiped at the Nkhoma mission of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, which merged with Scottish Presbyterian missions in 1924 to form the CCAP. When we arrived 15 minutes before the service was to begin, several hundred people had already gathered and were singing hymns lustily, and harmonizing beautifully. There was no organ or piano: such luxuries are only to be found in large city churches. A precentor, supported by a 70-voice choir, led the singing. During the service, conducted in Chichewa, the national language, 75 teen-agers were presented for church membership, climaxing two-and-a-half years of catechetical instruction. I asked the pastor, Killion Magawi, why the young people had been introduced in two groups. He explained that the first list of 22 had already been baptized, having been reared in Christian homes, but that the remaining 53 had come from pagan backgrounds and were to be baptized upon profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Another success story is that of Riach Masomba, who began pastoral duties at the remote village of Bamba in 1961. His flock of 2,000 were divided among two churches and 30 prayer houses (satellite congregations scattered in smaller villages and rural areas). During a seven-year absence, 1966–73, Masomba pursued graduate studies in Glasgow, pastored the CCAP cathedral church in Blantyre, and served as deputy general secretary of Blantyre Synod. Then he returned to Bamba. Peddling a bicycle along the sandy roads, he would stop at intervals to organize Bible classes, many of which grew into viable congregations. Many Muslims were among his converts. In 1976 the gift of a motorcycle enabled him to extend his outreach. When he left to assume the pastorate of the Zomba congregation in 1979, membership of the Bamba parish had quadrupled to 8,000 and the number of churches and prayer houses had multiplied from 2 to 10 and from 30 to 61 respectively. Today, three pastors are required to serve the greatly enlarged parish.

Nyasaland was pioneered by David Livingstone in 1859. The first missions to survive—Livingstonia in the north and Blantyre in the south (founded in 1876)—were named after the great missionary-explorer and his birthplace in Scotland. Livingstone loved Nyasaland. Its scenic grandeur and temperate climate (in the higher elevations) reminded him of Scotland, and he envisioned a Scottish colony there in future years. How delighted he would be were he to return to Africa today and witness the dynamic spread of the gospel throughout this beautiful land!

JOSEPH M. HOPKINS

Greece

Now It’S Legal: Reading The Bible In Modern Greek

The queen was formally censured by the state church. Mobs, urged on behind the scenes by influential conservative forces, rioted for several days, chalking up a total of eight fatalities, 80 hospitalized injuries, and uncalculated property destruction. Finally, the authorities called in the police to impose order. The archbishop resigned his position. The whole cabinet resigned as well, and the government was badly shaken.

It could have happened only in Athens. The reason for the citywide insurrection 80 years ago was that Queen Olga had commissioned Alexandros Pally to translate the text of the New Testament from the original koinē into contemporary, colloquial Greek. Though Bible translations existed, they were illegal because of the Greek Orthodox church’s position that translation of the Word of God into the modern language would be “tampering with sacred text.” Still, the fact that there were no laws on the books prescribing penalties for violators was evidence that the law was not thoroughly constitutional.

Now the issue that convulsed Greece during the 1901 uprising has come to the courts again. The Court of the Magistrate, with the prosecuting attorney representing the state, issued a historic ruling implying the modern translation does not hurt the Orthodox church because it makes it possible for believers to understand the Sacred Word. (Most Greeks feel about as at home with New Testament Greek as most Americans feel with Chaucer.) The verdict states that the New Testament can be translated into modern Greek and that the resulting translation may be read in the church. The original text is still required in the liturgy.

The court verdict constitutes a turning point within the state church. It was hailed in progressive circles with evident jubilation. “The Gospel According to the Colloquial,” headlined a widely circulated daily. “Worship of God is brought nearer to man.”

The current controversy arose partly through the daring initiative of Evangelos Skordas, priest of Saint Paraskevi Church, a Greek Orthodox congregation with a strong element of young people in the Athens suburb of New Smyrna. Following the reading of the original text during the liturgy, Skordas proceeded to read a selection from the modern translation. “We took a poll of our congregation,” says Skordas, “and found that 90 percent called for reading the New Testament in modern Greek in addition to koinē. Seventy percent indicated their preference that the entire liturgy be read exclusively in modern language.”

Such a preponderance led the priest to his controversial stance in religiously conservative Greece. In a church where the only music is the male choir with the Byzantine chant, his innovations such as using an organ, forming a mixed choir, and using stringed accompaniment have also produced ire in some circles. A right-wing newspaper made a scathing attack on Skordas, which brought the matter to the attention of the prosecuting attorney for the state.

The translation Skordas read from is the common-language translation prepared for the Bible Society by Greek Orthodox scholar Vasilis Vellas and three other Orthodox university professors of theology.

Professor Spiros Agourides of the Theology School of the University of Athens affirmed, “We are not out to change the message of the New Testament. Our sole concern is to offer it to the common people in the language which they can understand. Many centuries back, the translation of the Bible into the Slavonic languages by Cyril and Methodius was made with the approval of the church. Why shouldn’t it be offered to the people in their language today?”

In recent years the dissemination of the Bible in modern language, spearheaded by the Bible Society in Athens, has gained remarkable momentum. Modern translations, though illegal, have been received with wide success. This recent decision now sanctions the use of the Bible in current translation, even authorizing its use officially in the state church.

World Scene

Evangelicals launched their own campaign in Peru late last fall—against a tide of pornography, both imported and homegrown, that is sweeping their country. A quiet and orderly antipomography demonstration, organized by the Peruvian affiliate of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students, was applauded in La Prensa and other Lima newspapers. Joining the Asociación de Grupos Evangélicos Universitarios del Perú (a counterpart to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in North America) were other Christian youth movements. However, Zeta, a locally produced pornographic magazine, chose to misinterpret their motives. It ran a two-page story claiming that the demonstration was instigated by outside pornographers out of jealousy. The title: “A Campaign Sponsored by Playboy.”

Argentina’s military government has abolished a decree that banned Jehovah’s Witnesses from the country, it was announced recently. President Jorge Rafael Videla, who is to step down next month (under guidelines set by the junta when it took power in a coup four years ago), announced the decree early in his term. That action touched off protests and charges of religious discrimination by the junta.

Appeals to West German evangelicals to work cooperatively with Pentecostal groups have so far been rebuffed. Morgan Derham, chairman of the European Evangelical Alliance, had urged acceptance of Pentecostals who adhere to the EEA basis of faith, as had chairman Manfred Otto of the German Alliance. But at a January meeting in Dollbergen, evangelical fellowships within the Hanover regional (Lutheran) church rejected formal relationships with Pentecostals. The evangelical fellowships within the established church number some 300,000 members, hold their own worship services at hours other than that of the normal church service, conduct their own Bible studies, and operate their own youth organizations. The fellowships, resentful of a second alternative to established Protestantism, have dissociated themselves from the Pentecostal movement since its beginnings early in this century.

A Council of Evangelical Christians has been formed in Yugoslavia. One hundred persons—including 50 pastors from seven denominations—met at the end of last year at Novi Sad to bring the interdenominational, cooperative grouping into being. The Protestant community makes up only about 1 percent of Yugoslavia’s 22.4 million population (the majority are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Muslim, in that order). But in spite of that minority status, Protestants until now had shown little inclination to work together. A visit and messages by British Anglican clergyman John Stott last April prodded evangelicals to take a step toward unity. The new council represents most of the nation’s Protestant denominations. A coordinating committee was formed to establish contact with the rest.

Although the U.S. hostages have been released, other captives remain in Iran, including three Anglican missionaries from Great Britain. Arrested last August, they are Jean Waddell, 58, formerly secretary to the exiled Anglican bishop of Iran, and John Coleman, 57, and his wife, Audrey, who operated a medical clinic in Yezd.

Refugee placement has dropped off now that the plight of refugees from Southeast Asia is gone from the headlines. But the need to find homes for them has not diminished. World Relief Refugee Services has fallen behind its goal—agreed upon with the U.S. Department of State—of placing 835 refugees a month. The average for the months of last August, September, and October was only 533. T. Grady Mangham, WR vice-president for refugee services, points out that service opportunities passed up by believers will be picked up by other agencies that are not prepared to provide an evangelical witness.

The Wycliffe Bible Translators

Sil Hangs Tough Over Translator Abducted In Colombia

A leftist guerrilla movement abducted a Wycliffe Bible translator in Colombia last month, and demanded as his ransom the withdrawal from Colombia of all Summer Institute of Linguistics staff—about 100 adults plus children. SIL is the overseas counterpart of Wycliffe, and is also responsible for academic training programs in home countries.

Six men—two dressed like police—and one woman, belonging to the M-19 urban guerrilla group, forced their way into the SIL grouphouse in Bogotá at about 6:30 A.M. on Monday, January 19, looking for Alva Wheeler, the SIL director in Bogotá. Wheeler, who lives in a private residence, was not at the guest house, used to house members on errands in the capital or on their way to the villages in which they work. So the terrorists instead seized Chester Bitterman III, an American linguist who had just arrived in the city for medical treatment. They fled with him in one of the SIL vehicles.

M-19 is the same group that staged last year’s takeover of the Dominican Republic embassy in Bogotá, holding 15 ambassadors hostage for two months.

Bitterman, 28, is an economist as well as a linguist who began his work in Colombia in May 1978. His wife Brenda and two daughters. Anna and Esther, remain in Lomalinda, the SIL center in Colombia’s eastern lowlands not far from Villavicencio. Bitterman was suffering abdominal pain and had gone to Bogotá for gall bladder surgery scheduled for that Thursday. Brenda’s parents, George and Joan Gardner, are also part of SIL in Columbia. He serves as flight manager for Jungle Aviation and Radio Service, Wycliffe’s technical arm.

M-19 forwarded to several Bogotá newspapers an open letter to U.S. President Ronald Reagan, charging that SIL is linked with the U.S. Army and the CIA, and stating its intention to kill Bitterman unless SIL had completely withdrawn from Colombia by February 19. On February 2, Brenda received a handwritten letter from Chet, delivered through a newspaper, saying he was well treated, had suffered no recurrence of gall bladder attacks, and had been promised a Bible.

The SIL, which so far has had no direct contact with M-19, made no concessions to the movement’s demand and is continuing its normal program. That reaction was not improvised: it reflects a deliberate policy adopted by SIL at its regular biennial corporation conference in Mexico City in 1975. At that meeting, delegates representing the membership of SIL worldwide passed legislation in anticipation of possible threats to SIL by terrorist groups, stating that SIL would never pay ransoms or submit to terrorist demands of this kind. They reasoned that to capitulate in one instance would be to invite a rash of similar incidents around the world.

Not long after, in February of 1976, that policy was put to the test. British linguist Eunice Diments was kidnapped in the Philippines, and ransom money was demanded. None was paid, and Diments was released unharmed after 21 days.

SIL spokespersons say the institute is very firm in its intention not to capitulate to terrorist demands. “We are there by invitation of the Colombian government,” said press liaison Betty Blair, “and we intend to cooperate with the Colombian government in its resistance to the guerrillas. We are depending on the Colombian government to initiate any action. We are not taking things into our own hands. We have not contacted the U.S. state department from North America; its contacts are with Bogotá.”

Asked by a reporter who Wycliffe would turn to if the Colombian government failed to resolve the situation to its satisfaction, Bernie May, director of the Huntington Beach, California, U.S. division of Wycliffe, responded succinctly: “Nobody.”

SIL’s Latin American director, Jerry Elders, did fly to Colombia after the crisis began. And Colombian branch director Joel Stolte went up from the base of operations in Lomalinda to Bogotá to confer with the Colombian Ministry of Government.

Ties to host governments are both SIL’s strength and weakness. SIL only enters a country on the basis of a contract negotiated with its government. The contract typically calls for SIL to analyze specified minority languages, devise an alphabet for them, develop primers, dictionaries, and grammar texts, and teach the linguistic subgroup to read and write and to begin to produce its own written materials.

Officials dealing directly with SIL realize that the motive behind all SIL activity is translation of the New Testament into minority languages. Governments generally do not wish to include New Testament translation as an explicit part of SIL’s contract, but such work is approved in more general terms: SIL’s task invariably includes the translation of materials of high moral character and literary worth.

For its part, SIL calls on the host government to grant visas for its members along with certain privileges to facilitate accomplishment of the government-assigned task. Where communications with remote villages are difficult and time consuming, SIL seeks permission to establish air and radio links. When supplies and equipment must be imported for official projects, SIL seeks waivers or reductions of normal duties and taxes. Governments sometimes provide SIL with office space, and take a good deal of responsibility for the safety of SIL personnel. The result is an overseas profile distinctly different from most missionary organizations. On the surface it appears less missionary but more closely identified with the ruling regime. At first glance this would appear to make SIL less vulnerable to antimission sentiment than other groups.

But it hasn’t usually worked out that way. Those opposed to a regime in power tend to oppose SIL as well. SIL’s planes and radios feed unfounded rumors about spy connections. And anthropologists and others often criticize SIL’s Bible translation activities under state sponsorship as duplicity.

It is therefore significant that since Bitterman’s abduction the Colombian authorities have continued to speak openly about their contract relationship to SIL.

Colombia is one of about 30 countries in which SIL operates. It was incorporated in Colombia in 1942, and is now working in 36 languages out of the 53 found there. “So,” concluded a Wycliffe spokesman, “we feel like we’ve got more work there.”

Slain in Afganistan: Erik and Eeva Barendsen, 44 and 41, were found in their Kabul home on December 31 bound and stabbed to death. They had served for more then eight years at the eye hospital in Kabul with the International Assistance Mission. Erik was Dutch and his wife Finnish. The children, Asko, 5, and Ulla, 3, were in the house unharmed. No motive is known, but hostility to foreigners has increased since the Soviet occupation, and the murder occurred during the first anniversary week of that event. In spite of risk, the Barendsens had elected to remain in Afghanistan, saying, “We are the only ones to love this people.”

PER-OLOF MALK

Broadcast Deregulation Touches off Mad Scramble for Local TV Stations

New technology makes entry into field feasible for smaller religious groups.

The federal government is deregulating the broadcast industry so fast that thousands of new television stations are expected to spring up across the country in the next few years. New technology is causing start-up costs to drop dramatically, to the point where a church, for example, could start its own TV station for the price of a new parking lot. In the words of one expert, it amounts to “anew Oklahoma land rush” as video entrepreneurs hustle to stake their claims.

The fact that deregulation has suddenly created vast new opportunities to reach people with the televised gospel was not lost on the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) who gathered in Washington the last week in January for their annual convention, held this year in conjunction with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Workshops and seminars to explain the new opportunities drew stand-up crowds of station owners and program producers trying to catch up, or catch on, to the fast-changing field of television broadcasting.

A dramatic and unexpected proposal passed last September by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates the airwaves, sparked much of the interest at the convention. The FCC proposes to grant licenses for “low-power” stations capable of reaching audiences within a radius of 3 to 20 miles or more, depending on the terrain and the quality of the antenna. Licenses will go to those who file first, with preferences to minority groups and nonprofit organizations.

The first-come, first-served rule has touched off a fierce scramble and more than 1,000 applications have already been sent to the FCC, which hasn’t even had time to make up official application forms. Sears, Roebuck and Company’s Allstate division has applied for more than 100 low-power stations, as have other large companies. The Southern Baptist Radio and Television Commission applied for 100 stations, and the Christian Broadcasting Network for 20 stations. Numerous other religious groups are applying. “The time to move is now,” before the choice markets are spoken for, warned one of the many experts on hand.

William Kitchen, president of Quality Media Corporation, a Christian-owned media consulting firm in Columbus, Georgia, predicts there will be 10,000 applications within a year. “They’re excellent strategic moves for ministry as well as good business propositions,” Kitchen told one stand-up crowd in a seminar that went to nearly midnight. He said a church could go on the air with its own station at a cost of $40,000, or even less if it buys used equipment. The FCC proposal requires neither studio nor local programming. The station needs only a low-power transmitter, a videotape player, and an antenna, and it is in business. The FCC’s troublesome Fairness Doctrine, which sometimes keeps television preachers from blasting away on such controversial topics as abortion and homosexuality, will still be in force but will be relaxed somewhat. Neither will there be a lengthy and expensive hearing before licenses are granted. The FCC’s decision to permit the profusion of new stations is still tentative and could be reversed, but that is not expected to happen, given the spirit of deregulation in the federal agencies.

The NAE is the evangelical umbrella group representing 3.5 million Christians from 40 denominations and portions of 33 others. This is the second time it has met jointly with NRB. The theme of this year’s “Convocation 81” was “Church and Media: Partners in World Evangelization,” with NAE representing the message and the broadcasters the means of spreading that message.

The broadcasters, however, dominated the convention, with the glitter of numerous Christian television celebrities who sang and preached, as well as scores of companies that exhibited products for every aspect of the broadcasting business—from videotapes to satellite receiving stations. In fact, the modern electronic wizardry now available to purveyors of the ancient gospel message is beginning to disturb some of the more thoughtful Christian broadcasters. “We tend to worship technology,” said David W. Clark, dean of the graduate school of communications at CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) University in Virginia Beach. “There’s something about the dials and the lights and the cameras that consumes people. People who have two color cameras say ‘Boy, if I just had three color cameras, then I could really win the world for Christ.’ It just won’t happen.” Clark called television a monster that gobbles vast amounts of material, and said broadcasters must start paying more attention to content and less to technology. He said the greatest need today is for creative writers.

The revival of evangelical Christianity in the last few years has brought million-dollar ministries to many preachers, both on and off television. With that has come the ethical problem of raising and spending vast amounts of cash properly, a subject on which there were sharp words during a seminar on ethical practices.

Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ said that as a youngster and a non-Christian, he naturally assumed that all religious leaders were crooked. When in later years he found himself in a Christian leadership role, he was determined to stay above suspicion himself, so the salaries in his organization were kept low and every aspect of its finances were made available for public scrutiny. Bright said that any minister who thinks he is somehow immune to disclosing how he spends the money entrusted to him is “automatically suspect.”

Olan Hendrix, executive director of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, said that in this cynical age every Christian organization needs an audited financial statement, “If your organization doesn’t have one, you ought to question whether you have the right to exist,” he warned. According to the Better Business Bureau, many religious broadcasters organize themselves as churches so they won’t have to file an annual financial statement with the Internal Revenue Service.

Evangelist Jerry Falwell addressed the convention at a breakfast for congressmen, which drew 69 members of the House and Senate. In a press conference that followed, Falwell rebutted in no uncertain terms some of the charges being heaped upon him by liberal pressure groups alarmed at his growing influence in the country.

Falwell said he will not enter politics because he has been called to preach. He said the country must get rid of “hate groups” such as the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Far from being prejudiced against Jews, he declared that he and other fundamentalist Christians are the best friends Jews could ever have because biblical Christians recognize that Jews are God’s chosen people. Some have charged that fundamentalists are out to “Christianize America,” but Falwell said the church has no right to control the government and that any religious leader who tries to do so, in “ayatollah fashion,” should be opposed. Falwell said Christians cannot impose their beliefs on others. Rather they must set the moral climate and show others what the proper standard is.

Later the same day the convention heard from Tyrone Brown, the only black FCC commissioner. He suggested that Falwell’s Morality Majority may contain overtones of racism and he declared the necessity of equal rights in the religious revival now under way in America. His speech contrasted sharply with Falwell’s. Today’s sophisticated technology notwithstanding, it appears that even those within the broadcast business itself are not always able to communicate clearly to each other.

Personalia

Stanley Rader, former treasurer and board member of the Worldwide Church of God, has resigned his position. Rader announced his resignation in a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times, noting he was keeping his promise to resign if the group won lawsuits brought against it by the California attorney general’s office. That office withdrew suits (alleging misuse of funds) when the legislature passed a bill removing the attorney general’s authority to take over operations of the sect.

Woodrow M. Kroll has been inaugurated president of the Practical Bible Training School, Binghamton, New York. Kroll was formerly chairman of the division of religion at Liberty Baptist College, Lynchburg, Virginia.

Denominations

American Baptists Ring The Evangelism Gong

“Witnesses on the Way: Evangelizing Community in the Eighties” was the theme of the American Baptist Churches (ABC) National Convocation on Evangelism held last month in Los Angeles. It was the first national conference devoted entirely to the issue of evangelism in the 73-year history of the denomination.

Attracting some 900 registrants, and as many as 1,800 for evening rallies, the conference symbolized “a renewed commitment to the importance of evangelism” within the 1.6 million-member denomination, stated general secretary Robert C. Campbell. The conference underscored this thrust by assembling an international roster of leaders in church evangelism. Over 50 workshops—on such topics as church growth, urban ministries, the charismatic renewal, the nuclear arms race, evangelism to Asians. Hispanics, and blacks—were open to participants.

At the opening banquet, Orlando Costas, director of Hispanic studies at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, warned that evangelism has become so powerful that it is being used as “an ideological weapon in the hands of those who seek to comfort the rich.” Christians should question the performance of churches that report phenomenal growth but maintain the star is quo, he observed.

Evangelist Leighton Ford challenged conferees to recapture a vision of “the tremendous privilege it is to call people to decision.” And that decision, he said, must be a radical one. “Many Christians have been guilty of offering Jesus as an additive to an already-adopted lifestyle, rather than as a radically different alternative.”

Reviewing religious life in America, sociologist David Moberg noted the need for “holistic ministries for the fragmented people of our fragmented world.” He called for a return to the historic roots of the Christian heritage with an emphasis on the whole Bible as the guide to faith and conduct, to Jesus Christ as the center of religious concern, and the spiritual well-being as the central goal of Christian ministry.

British pastor and evangelist David Watson predicted that “the battle of the eighties will be among Marxism, Islam, and Third World Christianity.” Western Christianity is “too flabby,” he charged, to do anything about it. He also urged preachers and evangelists to be creative in the ways they illustrate God’s love. “In this word-resistant age, people need to feel God’s presence before they can feel his words.” he said.

Other conference speakers included author Letha Scanzoni; Raymond J. Bakke, specialist in urban church ministry; Emma Lou Benignus, head of the ABC’s ministry to the elderly; Christine Brussclmann, a theologian and writer from Belgium; Harold Carter, pastor of New Shiloh Baptist Church in Baltimore, Maryland; Robert Fredrickson, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Wichita, Kansas; and Robert Lee, professor of social ethics at San Francisco Seminary.

Although he said there has always been a basic interest in evangelism in the denomination, Emmett V. Johnson, national director of evangelism (since the post was created in 1979) and the driving force behind the convocation, added that he foresees “a new day” for evangelism in the ABC. “Evangelism will be the center of our concern,” he said, “but not its circumference. We’re not so much interested in winning souls as in making disciples who will affect our world and win others to Christ.”

Campbell agreed, emphasizing the fact that the ABC is still strongly committed to social action. “We are an evangelical and ecumenical denomination with strong social concerns, and those will remain,” he said. “Evangelism is not contrary to those.”

“We’ve been through an era [in which] significant leaders of the church … had defined it as almost the entire mission of the church. When denominational leaders defined it so broadly, we failed to focus it. Now we’re trying to focus it. This conference does not represent a new turn for the denomination as much as a renewal of an ongoing concern. It’s just been a long time since we’ve run that gong properly.”

PHYLLIS ALSDURF

North American Scene

A Nashville pastor has requested dismissal from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. Cortez Cooper, pastor of Nashville’s First Presbyterian Church, resigned along with two assistants because their denomination had “defected from the absolutes of God.” The move shocked evangelicals who remained in the denomination after 300 conservative congregations pulled out in 1973. Cooper was a leader of a group of evangelicals who elected then to stay in the denomination. Cooper and the two assistants especially disagreed with the potential requirement that congregations include women on their governing boards.

The church must pay for a platform used by the Pope on his 1979 visit to Philadelphia, a federal appeals court has ruled. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia must reimburse the city $204,569—the cost of a platform used by John Paul II to celebrate Mass. The appeals court declared, in a 2-to-l decision, that it was unconstitutional for the city to absorb the cost of the platform’s construction.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube