With heated convictions, evangelicals dogmatically dismount at different levels from the precipitous ladder ascending to sexual equality in the ministry. If our inconsistencies were not so tragic they would at times be humorous.

We permit women to teach Sunday school but not mixed adult classes. We commission women to administer mission compounds and ordain them to minister to the distant lost, but they are barred from church boards and ministry at home. Their testimonies or “sermonettes” are acceptable if the pastor pronounces the benediction. With determined religious fervor we withstand the “women’s libbers” and entrench ourselves firmly in our literal biblical bases (man was created first; Paul tells women to be silent; etc.).

Or we throw all caution—and biblical conviction—to the wind and conclude the Bible to be antiquated and uninspired or Paul to be chauvinistic and inconsistent, and we write our own rules at the expense of scriptural authority.

As one firmly committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and who turns to it as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, I must ultimately settle all such issues on the basis of “What saith the Lord?” in Holy Scripture. When our conclusions on this issue are drawn from the Bible rather than church tradition (which we respect, but do not treat as the final authority), we discover that women have full equality with men in church functions.

Equal In Creation

Certainly nothing in either Creation narrative (Gen. 1 and 2) suggests anything less than male and female equality. Both genders equally are created in the image of God (“… in the image of God created he him, male and female he created them” Gen. 1:27 [all Scripture quotations are NIV unless otherwise specified]). Similarly, the mandate to “be fruitful and increase … fill the earth … subdue … rule over …” (Gen. 1:28) was given jointly to both sexes. Eve was not told some of these leadership functions were limited to Adam.

In the second Creation account, God promises to make a “helper suitable” for Adam (Gen. 2:18–20). Some have seen this Hebrew word, yezer, as reflecting subservience. In fact, the term had no such connotation, for it is even used of God toward us. The psalmist speaks of him as being “an ever present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:11). Nor does Adam view Eve as something less than himself. His exclamation, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23) is an exclamation of equality and completeness—“This is part of me; now I’m all here!”

Equal In The Fall

Many hold that women deserve to be limited in the ministry because Eve was the first to yield to sin and then caused Adam to sin. In the account of the fall (Gen. 3) the Tempter tempts Eve who in turn tempts Adam to sin. Does that sequence of temptation make Eve guiltier than Adam? The Bible does not emphasize Eve’s causing the transgression of the whole female race; it places the blame squarely on Adam for the sin of both genders. 1 Corinthians 15:22 states, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive,” and Romans 5 explains death as caused by the trespass of “the one man” (vv. 16–19).

“Agreed,” some respond, “but don’t forget 1 Timothy 2:14; ‘And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.’ ” Even Calvin argues that since woman had “seduced man from God’s commandment” it was only fitting that she be “deprived of all her freedom and placed under the yoke.”

But wait: that is not at all Paul’s point. This passage is so crucial we shall later exegete it more thoroughly; but his point here is not that Eve’s sin was greater than Adam’s. In fact, Adam’s was worse because he sinned with his eyes wide open, without being deceived! Eve’s fault, on the contrary, was less serious because she was deceived and only acted in ignorance.

Some argue that God directly decreed women’s submission to male and church authority as a result of the Fall. They cite Genesis 3:16: “To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Larry Christenson has even written that woman was created subordinate; the decree only increased her subordination. Yet Genesis presents this not as a decree of what ought to be but a curse because of sin. It is a description of what would happen. Man, now in a sinful, fallen state, has found it convenient to use his superior strength to dominate the physically weaker sex.

Equal In Christ

Many current books amply illustrate how our Lord consistently broke societal taboos relating to women. But of greater controversy is Paul’s teaching on women’s position “in Christ.” Although this seems patently obvious in Galatians 3:28, Paul, on superficial reading, then seems to contradict himself in other portions (1 Cor. 11; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 2, etc.). A more careful analysis, however, shows that all of Paul’s teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

In Galatians 3:26–28 Paul reminds us that we have all been baptized into Christ and there is no longer “Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”; for we are “all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul is speaking of three different dominant-submissive catagories, all of which have been nullified by our being baptized into and clothed with Christ. The baptized Greek, clothed with the all-sufficiency of Christ, is as much a son of God as is the previously preferred Jew. Similarly, the emancipated slave of early America, once clothed with Christ, met all qualifications for any church office—contrary to the convictions of many church teachers of that era. Any dissection of this passage that offers less to women than other categories would suggest a prejudiced exegesis. The passage goes on to affirm the purpose of Christ’s coming: “to redeem those under the law [Greek, slave, female] that we [all] might receive the full rights of sons” (v. 5).

The emphasis on women “in Christ” is also crucial to an understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:3–12. For brevity, I must avoid the temptation to explore the “head covering” principle in this passage. It will suffice to observe that women are permitted to pray or prophesy as long as they meet the cultural expectation of covering, showing they have the authority to do so. The reason for the covering seems to be spelled out in verses 8–10: woman came from man and was created for man. Yet Paul makes very clear that he does not mean that women are in any sense inferior. Immediately he adds: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.” In other words, Paul is saying, “The first fact, that woman found her source in man, parallels the second fact that every man since (or, possibly, the man-Christ) has found his source in woman.” (See also 1 Tim. 2:15, to be discussed later).

Once again in Ephesians 5:22–24, woman’s position in Christ is emphasized. This is one of Paul’s five “hupotassō” passages, so named because of the Greek word used in each instance, translated, “submit” or “submission.” It is also used in 1 Corinthians 14:34; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11, and Titus 2:5. Although a full study of male/female roles would require a careful exegesis of all these passages, the present point of importance centers on the phrase “as to the Lord.” It is clear that Paul was not the first to tell women to submit to men: Jewish women had been taught submission for centuries. Paul, ever careful not to upset the delicate cultural fabric of his day, encouraged women to continue to submit. What is new is how they are to submit: as to the Lord.

Equal At Pentecost

“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18).

There is no record of women speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost—in fact, there is no record of women being present. Yet it is plain that as Peter quotes the prophet Joel on this occasion (Joel 2:28–29) he is admitting the possibility of spiritual messages by women. The term “last days” is never limited to Pentecost, but refers to all this present age. A “prophet” need not be a foreteller of future events, but is “a person gifted for the exposition of divine truth” (Harper’s Greek Lexicon). Ever since the Holy Spirit first came, he has been at liberty to impart his gifts to each person “just as he determines” (1 Cor. 12:11). Pentecost represents a divine sanction for prophetic ministry by women every bit as much as by men.

Equal In Society

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him … Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect … Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands … Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives” (1 Peter 2:13–14, 18; 3:1, 7).

Peter makes an interesting point about the position of women. He argues that we as Christians should submit ourselves to every man-made institution, and goes on to list several of those authorities “instituted among men”—kings, governors, masters. Then in 1 Peter 3:1 he states that in the same way wives should submit to their husbands, because—it is implied—female submission is “instituted among men.”

In other words, Christians are expected to operate within the parameters placed around them by society. If slavery is an unchangeable part of the society, then servants are expected to obey their masters—until slavery is no longer “instituted among men.” As we earnestly seek a true biblical role for woman, God forbid that we withhold any gift he desires her to exercise for even one day longer than society requires!

Equal In Ministry

Even those who believe certain ministries must be restricted to men cannot help but notice that Paul is anything but chauvinistic toward women. Paul refers to Junia as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7). Of the 29 people Paul greets in Romans 16, many are women he addresses by name, contrary to Jewish custom: Phoebe, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Julia, Mary. He entrusted his letter to Rome to Phoebe, a task many of our churches would delegate only to men.

It has been argued that Paul’s injunction to women to keep silent in churches (1 Cor. 14:34–36) would prevent them from exercising the preaching gifts. However, he has already agreed that they can pray and prophesy publicly (1 Cor. 11:5). It is unreasonable to think he would contradict himself just a few sentences later. Rather, as in the other instructions in this same epistle, he directs his remark ad hoc to the specific situation in Corinth. In chapter 14 he admonishes the women to be quiet, not because it is wrong for women to speak out loud in a public service. (He has just told them that they may pray aloud and speak in a public worship service so long as they act modestly.) His purpose here is to remind them that “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (14:33), and that in the services “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (14:40).

If anything, the passage reaffirms that Corinthian women knew they were now equal to their husbands before Christ and had every right to speak out in church (14:35). But they were misusing their newfound freedom by disrupting the services to get answers to their questions, and it was because of the disorder they were creating that Paul gives his counsel. Therefore, in the light of the situation at Corinth, he requires two things of them: first, they are to remain silent while in church and save their many questions to ask their better-informed husbands at home; Paul’s command not to speak in no way limits their previous license to pray or prophesy under normal circumstances. Second, Paul tells them to be in submission—not to their husbands, for the context does not suggest it here—but to the church body. Paul requests the same submission of the entire gathered church body at Ephesus: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21).

1 Timothy 2:11–12 presents a similar situation, and the apostle prescribes a similar remedy. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Corinthian women were speaking so as to create disorder in the worship service. In Ephesus, women who were uninstructed in the faith were leading the church into false doctrine.

In verse 11 most people wrongly assume that Paul’s emphasis is on silence and submission. Actually, Paul is emphatically commanding that women be taught (manthanetō is imperative). The quietness and “full submission” (again, to the church body or teacher) is what any teacher would ask of his pupils. Verse 12 is not stated imperatively; rather Paul returns to the indicative mood in the present tense. A legitimate rendering of 1 Timothy 2:11–12 thus would be: “I command that women learn [be taught] in quietness and full submission [to the teaching authority]” (v. 11). “I am [presently] not permitting a woman to teach and she is not to exert evil influence over a man” (v. 12).

Equal In The Diaconate

One could wish that the office of deacon (diakonos) had been carefully spelled out in the New Testament. The closest semblance to a job description appears in 1 Timothy 3:1–13, which initially seems to limit the office to men with marginal reference to their wives. Most commentators, however, exegete 1 Timothy 3:11 to refer to female deacons (technically not “deaconesses,” for it is a neutral term, like “teachers”). The absence of the article and the use of gunaikas may favor “women” over “wives”; F. F. Bruce suggests that “ ‘their wives’ (KJV, NEB) is probably to be rendered ‘women’ (RSV), that is, ‘women-deacons’.”

Only one N.T. woman is spoken of as a deacon, but the passage is significant. In Romans 16:1, Paul says, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.” Paul uses the word diakonos, a masculine term with no article. Every other time it is used in the N.T., the KJV translates it either “deacon” (3 times) or “minister” (18 times). Only here is “servant” used. Whether it is necessary to confer the title “deacon” on Phoebe, one must concede that the burden of proof is on those who would translate the word “servant” in this passage while rendering it deacon or minister in every other passage.

Equal In Ruling

One is hard pressed to discover N.T. passages portraying women in ruling roles. Yet even at the risk of reading too much into the passage, we must once again observe Phoebe. Most significant in Romans 16:1–2 is not that Paul refers to her as a diakonos, but as a prostatis pollōn—which, if it were addressed to a man, would probably be translated “ruler of many.”

The verb, proistēmi, occurs eight times in the N.T. and usually connotes governing or ruling. In Romans 12:8, Paul states that if one’s gift is “leadership, let him govern diligently.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Paul mentions those “who are over you in the Lord.” Twice Paul tells Timothy that an elder should manage (KJV. “rule”) his family well (1 Tim. 3:4–5) and sets the same requirements for deacons in verse 12. Finally, he recommends double honor for those elders “who direct the affairs of the church well” (1 Tim. 5:17). In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Reike concludes his article on Proistēmi: “In I Timothy again, where the verb and especially the participle occur repeatedly, the idea of guiding and caring are both present.… In all these instances, however, the verb has in the N.T. the primary sense of both ‘to lead’ and ‘to care for’ …”

Yet when this same word in feminine form is used of Phoebe it is translated “a great help” (Rom. 16:2). Indeed, the variety of English renderings may indicate the biased reluctance of translators to admit what Paul wished to say—“succourer” (KJV), “helper” (NASB), “assistant” (Berkeley), “good friend” (Good News, NEB), “given protection” (Williams). But Paul presented her as “leader,” “governor,” or “manager.”

Look again at 1 Timothy 2:11–15. This greatly misunderstood passage is imbedded in a context of five sections dealing with false teaching. Consequently these words to women fall in a context (historically as well as literally) of rampantly deceptive and maliciously clever false teaching. The immediate context also is usually misinterpreted. As noted earlier, “be taught” is the imperative, and the focus of the passage is on the danger of misconstrued and ill-informed Christians taking the lead in teaching and guiding the church. Verses 11 and 12, therefore, deal with the importance of adequate preparation, and the need to guard against an excessive dependence upon emotional wiles of uninstructed women in influencing the church for false doctrine.

Verse 13 directs us to an illustration from the story of the first man and his new bride. The Greek gar, for, is not causative but explanatory and illustrative—so, as we can see in the creation story, new and ignorant believers are easily led astray and, if allowed to teach others, will also lead them astray. Eve’s fault, quite to the point of Paul’s instruction to the women of Ephesus, was that she should not have taught Adam because she was in ignorance, being deceived herself. Hence, careful and extended instruction in quietness and submission to the teaching authority is essential for anyone (and any woman) who would teach.

The word often translated “have authority over” (v. 13) reinforces what we have just noted. The word is translated by such terms as murder, perpetrate, author, master, domineer, or hold absolute sway over. The word was considered vulgar and almost invariably was used in a bad sense. Thus Berkeley Mickelsen writes, “It is found in contexts and used of those who are authors or originators of evil action. It is found in unsavory sexual contexts. So the translation have authority over is really far too polite. Here a woman is not to be teaching or using the wrong kind of emotional or sexual pressure over a man to dominate him.”

The force of this entire passage cannot rightly be applied to women as women but to women as ignorant and uninstructed people employing unworthy means to influence the church. By contrast it ought to be applied to the frequent practice, directly proscribed in Scripture, of exalting novices to dominant roles in the church, with disastrous results for the entire body.

Finally, observe one more facet of 1 Timothy 2:12. Some interpreters, basing their view wholly on the King James Version, take the verse to mean that teaching a man and having authority over a man are linked together, and are both wrong for women. But the structure of the verse does not imply that the teaching is limited to men. The literal Greek sentence structure would be something like this: “But to teach, a woman I do not permit, nor to exercise authority of [over] a man but to be in silence.”

In the context to which the apostle addresses himself, teaching of any kind is no more acceptable for a woman than having authority over a man. If one is wrong, they both are wrong! It is more rationalization than exegesis to excuse present practice by limiting the prohibition to teaching at public assemblies of the church or where men are present.

If expediency permits us to let a woman exercise the gift of teaching, we can do no less than let her exercise the gift of ruling. In both cases she is merely exercising the authority of her gifts, not her sex. However, if on the grounds of this verse she cannot exercise authority over men, then let us at once remove every female teacher from our departments, recall every female missionary, and denounce books written by women. But such is not the meaning of this verse when it is interpreted in context.

Therefore, in faithfulness to the teaching of the whole of Scripture, let us permit women to exercise both teaching and authority to the fullest extent of their gifts without unbiblical restrictions based on sex.

Evangelical Soap Opera, Or, Who Taught J.L.?

The current excitement over television dramatic serials has prompted one of my publishers to suggest that I write a similar serial—for another publisher. It must be evangelical, of course, and deal with the burning issues of our day. I have accepted the challenge.

My story centers on the Reverend Dr. Jeroboam Liddon (call him Ishmael for short), the senior (and only) minister of the Little Church Next to the Sewer on the north side of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I seek to answer the burning question: Can a bankrupt, middle-aged, evangelical minister, who has forgotten all his Hebrew, honestly use “The Four Spiritual Laws”?

The story opens in Jeroboam’s kitchen where the minister is severely reprimanding his Saint Bernard, Tinker Bell, for burying the neighbor’s Toyota. Tinker Bell slinks under the sink, gets caught in the dispose-all mechanism, and is flushed down the drain. At that point, Mrs. Liddon enters.

“Jeroboam!” she shouts. “Why aren’t you in your study preparing spiritual nourishment for your flock? Tomorrow is Sunday!”

Slinking past the sink and his wife, Jeroboam goes to his study; but in his nervousness, he knocks down his shelf of Kittel. This triggers a scene of wild confusion in German, as Liddon throws books all over the room. “Sermons!” he shouts. “Always sermons!”

Hearing the commotion, Mrs. Liddon comes to the door and is seriously beaned by volume II of Edersheim. As the volume (and the woman) fall to the floor, a piece of paper flutters out from the book. Jeroboam picks it up.

“My dear, do you know what you have found?” he cries. “This is a savings bond worth thousands of dollars!”

His wife slowly gets to her feet and takes the paper from his hand. “Don’t be a dunce,” she moans. “This is a Chrysler stock certificate.

The picture fades as both fall to the floor and the paper sails into the kitchen where it drops into the dispose-all and disappears.

EUTYCHUS X

A Bright Beacon

Your editorial, “The Difference CT Means to Make” [Jan. 2], achieves a high crescendo. Yes, “Christians across the land are looking for leadership.” One of the foremost qualities of a good leader is a sound sense of direction. Sharp delineation of key guides in this article provides every committed believer with bright beacons for facing into the crucial problems before our church and nation in the years just ahead.

CHARLES W. JAMISON

Santa Barbara‚ Calif.

I don’t really know for which Christians CT is written. Your editorial leads me to believe it is written for an all-encompassing audience. For me, it is good when you cover a subject from the technical point of view and from the point of view of the pastors in the trenches. For example, “It’s Time to Excise the Pornographic Cancer” hit it from one side, and “One Town Made a Clean Sweep of Pornographic Films: Here’s How” from the other. I can go right to the “practical” article and read it quickly. Then, if I need the more technical view, I can flip over to it.

REV. RUDY MASON

Loomis, Nebr.

Thinking Rationally

I hope that Dr. Outler [“Loss of the Sacred,” Jan. 2] is not equating “linear” and rational thought. While I hope it’s Theodore Roszak’s definition and Dr. Outler’s, it also happens to be the definition that has gotten many a Western missionary in trouble when dealing with thought patterns of African or Asian minds. Regrettably, our Aristotelian bias tends to show through—suggesting that unless sequential logic prevails there can be no order.

If such definitions were valid, we’d be hard pressed to deal with such biblical incidents as visions, the work of the Spirit, and a host of nonlinear yet perfectly rational communication forms God has chosen to use.

PHILLIP BUTLER

Seattle, Wash.

Deeper Issues

While I do not want to deemphasize the importance of the presentation by ORU professor Charles Farah and the “faith formula” teaching controversy [Dec. 12], this was not the only thing—or even the major thing—the SPS [Society for Pentecostal Studies] meeting was about. SPS members seem unified in opposition against “faith formula” teaching; the Farah paper thus did not symbolize tensions withinSPS. More important, mention should be made of what is happening within the organization itself.

There is a struggle for recognition by blacks and Hispanics. The installation of Dr. Ithiel Clemmons as the new SPS president makes him only the second black president in its history; he is a bishop in the Church of God in Christ.

There is a serious battle taking place between representatives of the classical white Trinitarian bodies, who belong to the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, and representatives of charismatic “Oneness,” and black/Hispanic bodies, who can only be associate members of SPS if they sign the PFNA doctrinal pledge. The SPS appointed a committee to study the matter and bring back a possible recommendation to open full membership to all Pentecostals and charismatics at the next meeting.

Intraevangelical issues such as the inerrancy debate, the social dimension of the gospel, political activism, and the relationship of tongues speaking to a postconversion experience or as evidential “proof” of such experience, are also creative tensions within SPS.

In addition, the Tulsa conference was marked by two other significant items: the nonappearance of Oral Roberts or any member of the Roberts family at any of the SPS sessions; and a lengthy and rousing debate between Pentecostals supporting the new wave of “born-again” conservative politics, and those opposed to identifying Christian faith with conservative politics.

JAMES S. TINNEY

Howard University

Washington, D.C.

Community Action

“One Town Made a Clean Sweep of Pornographic Films” [Jan. 2] brought to mind how La Mirada, California, prevented a pornographic bookstore from being established. Less than one year ago one of the largest purveyors of pornographic literature in the United States attempted to occupy one of our city’s satellite shopping centers. The city resisted in a number of ways, a few of which were: (1) not granting the occupancy permit of the proposed store site; (2) turning off the electric power; (3) imposing stringent code enforcement. I am convinced this bookstore was prevented by an overwhelming outpouring of community resistance, coupled with swift and appropriate city response. While the bookstore did not find its way into La Mirada, a very solid, carefully worded antipornography ordinance did!

C. DAVID PETERS

Councilman

La Mirada, Calif.

Transatlantic Viewpoint

There is absolutely no electronic church in Britain, virtually none in Australia, and indeed very little in all of Europe—by government decree. In such an atmosphere, reading your article made us long for the U.S. situation where an electronic church can exist. Trans World Radio at Monte Carlo and Radio Luxembourg, where occasional time is on sale, are two stations which are kings—because in a land where no one has a nose, a man with a nose becomes king!

Unlike America where most programs are geared to Christians, there are programs here which reach completely pagan listeners. I am left wondering if our American friends know that there are parts of the world where radio is front-line evangelism and that it never makes any money for the broadcaster.

REV. ERIC HUTCHINGS

Hour of Revival Association

Sussex, England

A Preference Declared

It seems so terribly true to form that the National Council of Churches is setting about to conform Christ to culture or to exorcise from Scripture all that they perceive to be “sexist, racist, classist, and anti-Semitic” [News, Jan. 2]. If I had to choose, I should prefer George Burns, whose Americanization of God is done with better humor, and with at least a modicum of tongue in cheek.

JOHN OLIVER

Malone College

Canton, Ohio

Ambiguous Text

You imply that Psalm 68:11 has been translated with a male bias because the Hebrew is “explicitly feminine.” Hebrew nouns that are grammatically feminine do not necessarily refer to feminine persons or objects. Closely parallel to Psalm 68:11 is Ecclesiastes 1:1, where the feminine participle gohelet (“the preacher”) refers to a man. In translating Psalm 68:11, “Great was the company of those that published the word of the Lord” (not specifying men or women), the KJV has left an ambiguous text ambiguous in translation. The RSV and NIV rightly do the same thing.

WAYNE GRUDEM

Bethel College

Saint Paul, Minn.

Exonerating Lewis

Your review of They Stand Together: The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914–1963) [Jan. 2] says that “sensitive” parts of the letters were deleted by Lewis himself and restored by the editor, Walter Hooper. However, Hooper states in his note that the deletions were made by Arthur Greeves, not by Lewis.

REV. DAVID DEVORE

Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church

Carbondale, Ill.

True Social Gospel

Why are you taking up so much space in CHRISTIANITY TODAY for social issues?

Before I was saved, I belonged to five liberal churches and they all talked about the social gospel, but I never saw that they practiced it. They taught me how to dance, drink, smoke, go to nightclubs, shows, and so on. When I got converted at the age of 19, I met God’s people who believed in the Book, the blood and the blessed hope. They took me to the rescue missions where I dealt with dope addicts and drunkards. They took me to prisons where I had the privilege of winning to Christ rapists, murderers, robbers, and so on. Isn’t this the real social gospel? Haven’t God’s people always been zealous of good works?

Let’s not get caught in the trap that the liberals have something to offer us in their so-called social gospel. While they are talking about it, let’s keep doing it.

JACK WYRTZEN

Word of Life

Schroon Lake, N.Y.

A major goal of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is to provide a forum in which evangelicals can work out solutions for current problems facing the church. Evangelical leaders can make better decisions and serve the church better if they are informed. Too often decision makers are sincere people, thoroughly committed to Christ and his church, who do not possess information necessary for good decisions; and the church suffers accordingly. Wise leaders must know both the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and the reality of the world in which they wish to apply divine instruction. CHRISTIANITY TODAY therefore seeks to provide articles on what the Bible teaches about subjects currently troubling the church. We do not consciously avoid even the most sticky issues on which Scripture speaks. We also wish to help church leaders understand the world in which we must all live and work so they can apply the Word of God more effectively to the difficult problems of our day.

In this issue, we explore a controversy that deeply troubles and sharply divides the evangelical church: the leadership of women. Some who claim to be evangelicals defend the right of women to teach in the church, but reject Scriptures they believe set forth the opposite. In so doing, they jeopardize the basic evangelical principle of the complete and final authority of the Bible. Some evangelicals, fully committed to the authority of Scripture, interpret these passages as addressed to a particular cultural situation, but fail to show how to distinguish the culturally relevant from the universally binding. Still others acknowledge these passages as directly applicable to the church everywhere, but sometimes do not show how this can be intermeshed with the equally clear teaching of Scripture on the freedom of the Christian woman.

Readers may be interested in how we selected the authors for our major pro and con articles. We inquired far and wide for the evangelical scholar who had written most knowledgeably on this topic. Again and again we were pointed to Dr. George Knight. Then we discovered a fine monograph by Dr. Austin Stouffer defending quite a different view. We believe the two articles here will not merely stimulate you, but will help your understanding of Scripture and how it may be faithfully applied to a vexing problem in the church of our day.

The editorial presupposes that you will have read these articles. Much is at stake and evangelical convictions run deep and strong. But more than anything else, an evangelical wants to obey Jesus Christ and his written Word. My prayer is that the articles may help us to do just that.

When evangelist Billy Graham arrived in Cracow, Poland, in October 1978, to preach at Saint Ann’s Roman Catholic Church, he was to have been hosted by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. The cardinal, however, was out of town getting elected Pope. Both spiritual leaders have been wanting to meet each other ever since.

After short visits to Poland and Hungary last month, the evangelist dropped by the Vatican and spoke privately with John Paul II in his library for half an hour. “We are brothers,” said the Pope in welcoming Graham. Both declined to divulge details of their conversation, but an official release said they talked about “inter-church relations, the emergence of evangelicalism, evangelization, and Christian responsibility towards modern moral issues, in light of values of the gospel.”

“We had a spiritual time,” Graham told a press conference later in London. “He is so down-to-earth and human, I almost forgot he was the Pope.”

Their visit was cut short by the Pope’s busy schedule. Prior to the meeting with Graham, he received diplomats from 60 nations and issued a call for the world’s leaders to work for peace. It was a note Graham had sounded in his meetings with government and religious leaders in Poland and Hungary.

The evangelist had been invited to those countries to receive honorary doctor of theology degrees. They were conferred by the Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw, the only Protestant university-level theological school in Poland, and the Reformed Theological Academy of Debrecen, Hungary, reputedly the oldest Protestant seminary in the world (it was founded in 1538).

Graham was the first American to be so honored by the Warsaw institution and only the seventh non-Pole in its history to receive an honorary doctorate. (Unlike most American universities, European schools issue honorary degrees sparingly, and only to persons deemed worthy of highest honors.)

In both instances, the degrees were given in recognition of Graham’s ministry and interest in the respective countries. He preached to an open-air crowd of 10,000 and held other meetings in Hungary in 1977, and in 1978 he preached to large crowds in both Catholic and Protestant churches in six Polish cities.

Graham deftly avoided choosing sides in Poland’s internal crisis during last month’s visit there, but he did refer to the nation’s troubles several times publicly and in talks with government and religious leaders. “It is not my intention,” he said, “to intrude in your domestic political affairs: you and you alone must work out solutions.” He said he was “praying that the voices of reconciliation, common sense, and responsible moderation would prevail.”

The evangelist gave major addresses on the church’s mission in the world today to leadership audiences in both countries. He focused on two themes: proclamation and service. Part of the Christian’s service to God and man, he declared, is to work for peace. Among other things, that means working to end the arms race. He did say, however, that he believes in multilateral negotiated disarmament, not unilateral arms reduction. (Sources close to Graham say that Senator Mark Hatfield has influenced Graham’s recent thinking on the arms issue.)

Graham kept returning to an evangelistic theme. War, hate, and greed originate in the heart of man, he declared, “and that is why proclamation of the gospel is so important: man must be born again, he needs a new heart.”

Ramsey, Graham Cambridge Bout Is Gloves-On Affair

The Cambridge University Church of Great Saint Mary’s was packed last month for a dialogue between American evangelist Billy Graham and former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey. Each spoke briefly on the subject of “the church’s mission in the eighties,” and a wide measure of agreement was evident between the Southern Baptist and the high church Anglican as they spoke of mission in terms of proclamation and service.

“A caring Christian fellowship,” Lord Ramsey pointed out, “is not only a corollary of proclamation, but a necessary part of it.” In the nicest way, the 76-year-old exprimate pointed out with twinkling eye that the kingdom of God was not “a kind of sanctified American way of life,” and added that he knew Billy was helping people out of that fallacy. Ramsey expressed misgivings also about those who use the formula “the Bible says …” for God used a great variety of literary forms in revealing his truth.

Both speakers spoke strongly on the need to achieve peace in a troubled world. During a period of questions from the floor, Graham outlined his attitude toward those of other faiths. He conceded that an element of truth is found in all religions, but he ruled out any form of Christian syncretism, pointing out the uniqueness of Christ as declared in Acts 4:12.

At one point Lord Ramsey asked Billy Graham if he had found his theological understanding changing during his evangelistic career. Graham admitted that in the early 1950s he tended to identify American nationalism with Christian understanding, but he stressed that his essential message has been unchanged.

On the subject of the World Council of Churches, Graham asked Ramsey if he thought the evangelistic emphasis found at Amsterdam and New Delhi had been maintained. Ramsey replied that while the council had been characterized originally by German theology, Dutch bureaucracy, and American money, it had directed Christian interest into a wider world, and into thinking that the Third World was nearer the center of Christianity than we are. “In doing so,” he commented, “it involved itself in social issues more and more, and in evangelism less and less.”

Billy Graham saw in the WCC a lack of emphasis on the atoning work of Christ, and a certain ambiguity of language. He reminded his hearers that John Mott, father of the modern ecumenical movement, had asked to be remembered as an evangelist.

In closing the 100-minute meeting. Great Saint Mary’s vicar Michael Mayne called it a “marvelous irenic occasion.”

For Billy Graham, it was the last leg of a 24-day journey that had taken him to Poland, Hungary, the Vatican, and (two days earlier) the Royal Albert Hall, London, where he participated with Christian pop singer Cliff Richard in celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of Crusade magazine, founded after the evangelist’s first long campaign in Britain.

J. D. DOUGLAS

South Africa

Independent Black Churches On Their Own Again

The Reformed Independent Churches Association (RICA) had a thriving theological college for training pastors and church leaders. Now it finds its college, the South African Theological College for Independent Churches (SATCIC), the center of a messy controversy involving the South African Council of Churches (an affiliate of the World Council of Churches) and the Christian League of South Africa, a quasi-religious, political organization that has been financed by the former South African Department of Information. Association members have therefore removed themselves from the fray and plan to start all over.

Their story has a long history. RICA was formed by a group of fundamentalist black churches, independent of any mission society. The association members, now numbering some 864 churches with a membership of 2.5 million, were concerned about the lack of sound theological education at an advanced level available to their black pastors and church leaders. The association decided to set up its own school to train pastors and leaders for its churches.

Financing the school was a problem, however, so the association contacted the South African Council of Churches for help. This was readily forthcoming. The school was established at an SACC-owned mission property, Saint Ansgars, west of Johannesburg. Under the leadership of Bishop Isaac Mokoena, it was evidently well on its way.

RICA got something other than what it bargained for. SACC preaches a black liberation theology, which, in South Africa, stands more for political liberation of black people than for spiritual liberation. In fact, a former teacher at the school and RICA executive member, who prefers to remain unnamed, found that most of his students had not experienced salvation, and were not even from RICA-affiliated churches.

How did RICA get itself into such a situation? The same teacher remarks, “Though RICA pastors preach a gospel of salvation by grace through faith, they don’t know much more than that about theology. They know what they don’t want: the patronizing domination of white missions. But beyond that they are easily swayed.”

In this situation, RICA found itself no further ahead in the matter of providing sound theological training for pastors.

At this point RICA fades out of the picture and the SACC and the Christian League—arch enemies—begin to take center stage, apparently played off against each other by the wily Bishop Mokoena.

Besides being college president, Mokoena was also director of church development and on the executive for the SACC. During 1979, he was suspended from both his director’s post and the SACC executive for misappropriating funds.

The SACC took Mokoena to court over his mishandling of funds, but the case was thrown out. The judge called Desmond Tutu, general secretary of the SACC, a “vague, evasive, and contradictory witness who wanted to place his colleague in a bad light.”

The general feeling among staff of the college, however, is that the charge was valid. More than once, they said, their salaries were not paid on time or in full. Yet they knew of the generous grants, the transportation money, and the building funds that church leaders received from Mokoena. They say he had no way of ladling out such grants other than by siphoning off money from his church development department or from the college.

“Mokoena didn’t benefit himself personally with SACC funds,” says the RICA executive member and former SATCIC teacher. “But with these handouts, he managed to keep a large following of loyal church leaders at his side.”

At the time of his suspension from the SACC posts, Mokoena also appropriated the college. In defiance of the SACC and without the knowledge of RICA, he moved the college from Saint Ansgars to space rented from an African Methodist Episcopal school in Evaton, a black township southwest of Johannesburg. Then, since money was no longer available from the SACC, he set about finding funds for the school from other sources.

That is where the Christian League comes in. The league calls itself evangelical. It is strongly anti-liberation theology and pro-government. It has mounted a fund-raising campaign on behalf of SATCIC, saying that, “… the future witness [of the gospel] among blacks in this land lies with these people and others like them.”

What is not very clear is this: Is the Christian League unaware of the bishop’s and the school’s stand on liberation theology? Or has the bishop set aside his liberation theology in order to raise funds?

According to the RICA executive member and former SATCIC teacher, the Christian League must be aware of the bishop’s stand on liberation theology, because, he says, “I personally confronted Fred Shaw, director of the league, with this issue not long ago.” He added, “Bishop Mokoena is a great compromiser. He will preach the gospel of the highest bidder.”

Furthermore, though the Christian League is raising funds on behalf of RICA, it seems unaware that RICA has broken with Bishop Mokoena and SATCIC.

RICA is now making plans to reestablish a theological college that will be truly independent. And it plans to be more selective in seeking donors.

KARIN JOHANSSON

North American Scene

The Unification Church announced the mass engagement of 843 couples during a ceremony in New York presided over by the church’s head, Sun Myung Moon. Many of the participants were strangers until they met their intended spouses on the day of the ceremony. The church says Moon has married 3,300 couples since 1960, with a divorce rate of under 5 percent; they note that arranged marriages have been practiced in various parts of the world for centuries. The engagements took place on New Year’s Day, which is celebrated in the Unification Church as “God’s Day,” one of the church’s two holiest days of the year.

Those wondering how much attention people really pay to witchcraft and the occult might consider this: in 1980, there were 208,302 buyers of the Handbook of Supernatural Powers, which gives directions for casting spells; 91,846 people bought the Magic Power of Witchcraft at $9.98 each; and there are 16,842 members of the Circle of Mystic and Occult Arts Bookclub, which is owned by the Prentice-Hall publishing company. In addition, some 86,000 people paid $8.40 each for genie-in-the-bottle good luck charms, and 339,660 people subscribed to horoscope services, paying between $4 and $10 each. The available mailing lists of names of people involved in the occult now stands at 3.8 million.

Romania

The Footing Is Precarious, But Church Inches Ahead

Correspondent Alan Scarfe, who lived in Romania for two years, filed this report after a return visit last October. He is executive secretary of the Orange, California-based Society for the Study of Religion Under Communism.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY news reports occasionally are read with passion by officials in Communist countries. I discovered this during a recent family trip to Romania. The authorities were obviously aware of our presence. They provided a secret escort during our five-day drive through the country. (I now hear of interrogations of those suspected of having had contact with us.)

Two policemen visited our hotel room in Cluj one morning to make inquiries about “certain irregularities.” They escorted me to the local passport office, a deserted suite of rooms downtown. I was politely asked to leave and was told that we would never be allowed to return to Romania. When I asked to know the basis for the decision, I was told that my writings reflected an unreal perspective on the state of religious freedom in the country and therefore was no longer welcome. I replied that rather than risk confirming a person in his alleged misconceptions, the better course of action would be to invite him to see reality more often. They were unimpressed by my argument.

Three years have produced noticeable change. Since 1977 there has been an increasing degree of evangelistic activity, centered in the evangelical churches. Western preachers, too, have become a more common sight. We saw several new churches, opened without authorization by congregations willing to pay large fines to retain possession of their buildings. And we heard of the unauthorized opening of 48 Baptist churches, closed since 1960.

But each change creates new problems. Evangelism has greatly enlarged the congregation of Bucharest’s Mihai Bravu Baptist Church to 800 persons in a building designed for only 300. I preached to a packed congregation sweltering in its own heat at the onset of winter. While the threat of demolition hangs over the building, the authorities give no indication that they will grant permission for relocation. The church looks to Western support to assist it in getting the ear of President Nicolae Ceausescu, since that tactic has proved successful for other churches in similar straits.

The increase in conversions among young people also creates a need for deeper training in discipleship. The Baptist Seminary is limited for the next few years to a reduced new student quota (ostensibly for building code reasons), and the lack of trained leaders will hinder the maturing of the work in the 1980s. Already the dropout rate among young converts is reported to be high. The 1970 gains could, without adequate pastoral programs, be lost in the 1980s.

Emigration of prominent and potential leaders compounds this problem. Emigration is a hot issue for the churches and missions in Eastern Europe today. A number of missionaries who advocate nonemigration may be deluded about how they would react under the same stresses.

Some emigration is encouraged by outsiders. The deplorable aspect of this practice is that the invitees typically are then abandoned by their hosts to make it alone in a land both spiritually and culturally strange.

But many leave because of the hidden realities of daily life in Romanian society. Most are concerned for the future of their children. In a country where nine university faculties—journalism, law, internal law, psychology, education, sociology, economics, philosophy, and history—are closed to believers, such a preoccupation is not surprising. Many of those now coming to the United States are professional people who fought hard to obtain their visas. They knew they might never achieve equivalent status in the U.S., but wished to give their children that opportunity in freedom. A select few have been secretly expelled because of their key activities as believers in Romania. Others are simply tired of fighting and want to settle down.

Emigration is a threat to the churches, but it also represents a danger to the state’s international image, for it reflects the harsh realities of daily life for Romanian believers. Emigrant Romanians are locating near political spheres of influence in the United States, and this cannot be good news for the Romanian government. There is evidence that for this reason the Romanian secret police have intensified supervision of emigrés, and, as one Romanian told me in Bucharest, now have as good a listening post in the West as in Romania itself.

Surveillance continues internally, with three areas of special concern. The first is the Christian Committee for the Defense of Religious Freedom (ALRC). Though several times forced to change leadership, the committee still puts out regular monitoring reports of religious discrimination. Its most recent leading spokesmen, Radu Capusan and Dimitrie Ianculovici, are due to emigrate soon. Ianculovici, along with other committee members, was beaten during the winter into renouncing his membership in the committee. Ianculovici is nevertheless actively involved in gathering support for Orthodox priest Gheorghe Calciu, who is seriously ill and serving the second year of his 10-year sentence.

The committee’s growing link with nonevangelical causes is the second area of government concern. In October a small group of young Orthodox priests was held for questioning in Bucharest after being caught petitioning on behalf of Calciu. As long as Calciu remains in prison, he will serve as a catalyst among Orthodox youth and as an embarrassment to apologists for the “Romanian solution” between the Orthodox church and the Romanian government.

Two of Calciu’s associates, Gheorghe Brasoveanu and Ioan Cana, jailed in 1978 for their participation in a free trade union, have now been pardoned. But there are no indications that Calciu will be released. It is possible that he is resisting pressure to emigrate. His reemergence in Orthodox circles could serve as a potent stimulus to his young admirers. It is clear that his spirit has not been broken, though he is critically ill. He went on a nearly fatal hunger strike for three weeks prior to the November Helsinki review conference in Madrid.

The third area of concern is emigration. While the authorities are glad to see the backs of certain citizens, this is not so for everyone. Since last April, more than a dozen believers of Pentecostal and Baptist persuasion have been imprisoned for several months after they requested emigration papers and announced their intentions abroad. There is no pattern discernible in the authorities’ actions, which we must assume are often determined by local conditions. Certainly to appeal abroad for help, especially through Radio Free Europe, is to invite closer scrutiny.

Emigration will probably be the path all Christian committee members will take. It is difficult to predict what difference their absence will make. If they are marginal to the current religious scene, we shall see little change except for a lessening of police activity. The committee has always had the honor of attracting that. But if, as I suspect, they are the voice for a silent majority, which acknowledges their courage but does not always appreciate their way of doing things, then a return to a tighter situation is predictable.

There is evidence this is already the case. In October, two believers were picked up in Moldavia with a cargo of Russian Bibles. By year’s end according to unconfirmed reports, 30,000 Bibles had been confiscated, and up to 35 believers were due for trial in connection with a Bible courier network operating into the Soviet Union.

Elsewhere, eight churches, notably one in Bujac and a second in Motra, which had been closed, are under pressure for opening without permission. Though it is too early to be sure, some speculate a minicentralization campaign akin to that of the early 1960s is under way. The authorities are anxious to show strength in the face of the unceasing tide of religious enthusiasm that has swept the country for the past seven years.

As we left Romania, after an intimidating three-hour search at the border, we pondered the ways Romania’s need for propaganda affirmation and its fear of criticism belied its claim to religious freedom.

The Middle East

Pressured Arab Believers Capitalize On New Openness

Middle East turbulence, with its religious overtones, can exert both negative and positive influences on the church in the Arab world. Egypt’s Coptic church has undergone a wave of persecution by extremist militant groups that in turn was prompted by the Iranian revolution. The continuing warfare in Lebanon, although basically political, is not devoid of religious feeling.

These tensions, plus unrest in and between other Arab countries, are responsible for much of the uncertainty and fear Christians experience. As a result, many church leaders and educated lay members took refuge in the more stable West.

Despite this, the church is growing and new leadership has emerged. Several activities of the church have moved in the direction of self-support, reducing dependency on the Western dollar.

Across the Arab world, evangelists and Christian workers report that both nominal Christians and Muslims are more open than ever before. The demand in Egypt for Bibles exceeds the supply. Moreover, the church there now enjoys more freedom than it has experienced in over 30 years.

Last year churches and mission organizations serving in the area broke new ground in a commitment to reach out to those from contrasting traditions. They sponsored major ministries—many evangelistic in emphasis—whose effect should be felt throughout the decade:

• The film Jesus was screened throughout Lebanon. Thousands of Christians and non-Christians viewed it in churches, schools, and theaters. Campus Crusade for Christ’s Adel Masri coordinated door-to-door visitation by hundreds of young people, who distributed Christian literature and invited people to the film. Scores of conversion professions and hundreds of commitments to study the Bible resulted.

• The Bible Society, under Lucien Accad’s leadership, staged a Scripture distribution campaign last summer in many parts of Lebanon. Young people from several denominations met for training conferences at three points along the Lebanon range and at one in the Bekaa valley, then fanned out to villages and towns, carrying Scripture portions and selections. They reported a good reception in both Christian and Muslim homes.

• Last July, Southern Baptist leaders and pastors—both national and missionary—met in Cyprus for a week of evaluation and planning. The Baptists, led by Finley Graham, agreed to concentrate their efforts on reaching out to the Muslim majority. Task forces and special committees were formed to study and implement specific aspects of that thrust, including improved personnel training and cooperation between Arabs and missionaries, and expansion of student work, hospitals, radio, publications, and correspondence course ministries.

• The Navigators, led by Bob Vidano, lured Arab professionals who have settled down in the West back to the Arab world. The idea was to help them explore job prospects in hopes that they would return and buttress witness to professionals and collegians. Three groups spent time in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt separately, moved on to the other two countries, and then grouped in the mountains of Lebanon with Navigator staff. They shared their observations and impressions and learned how they might support a strategy for evangelism for the region. Such tours could be effective in reversing the brain drain and placing “tent makers” in various Arab world locations.

• In student ministry, the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students in the Arab world, led by Colin Chapman, brought together some 52 students and graduates from as far away as Morocco and Sudan. Two-thirds of the conferees were at this IFES regional annual conference for the first time.

• A theological education by extension (TEE) conference met during November in Amman, Jordan. Bruce Nicholls, executive director of the World Evangelical Fellowship’s Theological Commission, met with about 15 representatives of evangelical missions and national bodies from Lebanon and Jordan. During the course of the two-day conference, plans were made for organizing an evangelical association for TEE in the Middle East and North Africa. John De Pasquale, Evangelical Free Church missionary to Jordan, was elected to direct the formative stages leading to formal organization in May. Three committees to work on organization, objectives, and a common core curriculum are to report to the group at its next meeting this month, when it is expected that the organizing documents will be finalized for dissemination to potential member groups.

GEORGE HOUSSNEY

Urban it was; Urbana it was not.

Over the last generation Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship has earned a reputation for meticulously planned and precisely synchronized conferences on foreign missions. Last month it tried its hand at a different kind of a conference—on North American urban issues and ministries.

The truth was that “Washington 80” came perilously close to being a smoothly programmed failure.

Instead, the four-day event housed in Washington, D.C.’s Shoreham Hotel breathed a mildly chaotic atmosphere. The hotel staff was stretched to deliver continental breakfasts to small clusters of people all over the building. Participants had to figure out how to grab their own lunches as they fanned out all over downtown D.C. for briefings and “experiences.” One evening’s featured speaker blanked out, leaving musicians to an impromptu fill-in performance while he struggled in vain to collect his evaporated thoughts. And the schedule was typically slightly off track.

But however much the conference’s skeletal structure may have suffered, it succeeded because it came across as authentic. It had soul.

Some of the elements that made it that way:

• Small group gatherings designed to forge more than casual acquaintances across racial lines as the members shared breakfast, interacted with assigned Scriptures, shared their personal experiences and feelings, and prayed together.

• Plenary sessions in which men who have poured their lives into serving the cities—from D.C.’s Foundry United Methodist Church pastor Ed Bauman to Brooklyn’s Bethany Baptist Church pastor William Jones, Jr.—laid a biblical basis for Christian involvement in them and suggested fruitful approaches.

• Briefings covering 23 different topics from “models of inner-city church activity” to “political organization and participation.”

• On-site “experiences” at D.C. churches, housing projects, institutions, and government offices that deal with urban problems.

• A special New Year’s Day service observing the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation (on January 1, 1863), complete with a volunteer student choir led by Henry Greenidge, urban youth ministry director with Young Life in Seattle, singing “O, Freedom Over Me.”

• City and area receptions that threw together students and workers in often highly individualistic urban ministries. (Participants from at least one metropolitan area agreed on the spot to launch a monthly fellowship meeting.)

The unique program mix resulted from widespread input by diverse people from across the continent. The story of how that happy result was achieved is intertwined with IV’s progress in engaging itself in black campus ministry.

Inter-Varsity’s dawning realization that it would have to reshape its thrust to reach the downtown campuses came relatively recently. Paul Gibson, IV’s first continuing black staffer, signed on only in 1968. By the 1977–78 academic year the number of blacks on staff had gradually climbed to 10. But it was apparent that black students had not bought into the student movement in any major way. At the Urbana 70 missionary convention blacks in attendance confronted speakers over inattention to this country’s needy urban areas.

From the mid-1970s, IV began to work harder at recruiting black leadership. It brought John Perkins, president of Voice of Calvary Ministries, into its 60-member corporation in 1978. Last year the corporation voted him on to its 25-member board of trustees. Last year it brought George McKinney, pastor of Saint Stephen’s Church of God in Christ in San Diego, California, into the corporation.

For Urbana 79, IV made a special effort to involve blacks. Michael Haynes, pastor of Boston’s Twelfth Baptist Church, was a speaker. A special luncheon was held for black leadership, and IV brought 45 or so black VIPs to the convention as its guests. But still there was only a sprinkling of blacks among Urbana’s 15,000 student participants.

A month after Urbana 79, James McLeish, IV’s executive vice-president, had okayed the decision to sponsor a separate conference the next year devoted to ministry to the cities of North America. John “Pete” Hammond, director of IV’s specialized ministries, who had previously served as director for IV’s Southeast area campus ministry and as assistant director of Urbana 79, was assigned to direct the conference.

The tacit assumption was that IV basically needed to apply the logistics know-how it had acquired over 11 Urbanas to the new conference, locate experts on the urban scene, and plug them into the speaking slots.

Planning had proceeded on this basis for three months when the alarm siren sounded. It came in the form of a conference call to IV’s Madison, Wisconsin, headquarters from black staffer Tony Warner in Atlanta, and from Elward Ellis, the new director of IV’s black campus ministry, in Pittsburgh. Warner, who joined IV in 1973, and Ellis made clear to Hammond their apprehension that planning and conducting an urban conference without major black input would destroy their credibility in the black community: “You’ll kill us, if you go ahead like this.”

Hammond grasped the urgency of their plea and asked them to fly in the next day for a lunch meeting with the IV leadership.

At the meeting, IV scrapped its planning to that point and started over. Ellis was appointed codirector with Hammond. The decision was made to hold “listening” sessions around the country to find out what black church leaders had on their agenda.

Hammond was scheduled to meet with Ozzie Edwards the next day at Detroit’s Metro-Wayne County Airport with the hope of recruiting him to head the academic aspects of the conference. Edwards directs the Center for Urban Studies at Harvard University. Like most black leaders, he needed to be convinced that IV was serious enough about incorporating black personnel and concerns to make contributing to its conference worth his while. It was immediately obvious that Ellis needed to stay over and be part of that approach. He did, and Edwards agreed to contribute his time.

That evening Ellis, who grew up in the heart of Newark, New Jersey, felt keyed up by the rapid developments and decided to do something to relax. He caught a ride into Detroit and pounded the city streets until composure returned. Hammond, who a year earlier had returned from a sabbatical study year in the Philippines, says he was struck by the incident. He thought back on the many missionaries he had met in Manila who were from suburban and rural backgrounds and obviously found functioning in the city a trial. How much more natural, he mused, to recruit city Christians for city ministry.

In July, a series of weekly listening conferences was held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Washington, D.C. (with people brought in from Atlanta). The outlines of Washington 80 emerged from that listening.

The planners progressively sharpened the subject focus: large cities, the inner core of those cities, 10 specific cities, and then Washington, D.C., as exhibit A.

They decided to push for participants from the cities and to seek to influence the ethnic makeup. Promotion was targeted to the 10 cities and to heads of college urban studies departments. Ellis was dispatched to the black ministerial alliances in the cities. Black campus staffer George Laws traveled to black schools and promoted the conference to their deans. A target for student participation that was 40 percent ethnic minorities was set. The numerical goal was 2,400 attenders, although pragmatist McLeish said he would be satisfied with 500—the attendance goal at the original 1946 “Urbana” in Toronto (actual attendance was 650)—as the benchmark.

Recruiting minority participation was an uphill struggle. Blacks say they find it difficult to participate in an event closely linked to the white establishment. Pastors in the congregation-centered black social web are suspicious of any parachurch organization. And although the majority of black churches are theologically conservative by instinct, they are liberal in other spheres. In the resulting us-them tensions, evangelical is most often perceived as a “them” word.

As it turned out, the registrations topped 1,100, with the ethnic composition approaching the target: 30 percent were black and another 5 percent of Asian, Hispanic, and Native American origins. Just over half the students registered to receive academic credit for attending seminars on various aspects of urban life. The low Hispanic turnout could be attributed to IV’s less developed campus ministry in that direction (only one staffer is Hispanic), and to inexperience that allowed them to schedule the conference over New Year’s Day, when Hispanics are loath to leave their families.

Congressman Walter Fauntroy (D.-D.C.), the chairman of the congressional Black Caucus and pastor of Washington’s New Bethany Baptist Church, welcomed the participants because they had “come to respond to our Lord’s inaugural address” (Luke 4:18–19). He said that humanism and more-righteous-than-thou liberalism had proved inadequate to the needs of the poor. But he exhorted his hearers to acknowledge that the gospel is not just good history but also good news for “the least among us.” He chided the white Christian right for focusing on what he branded a narrow range of secondary issues. But he handed blacks their lumps, too. They have left most service to the inner cities to whites, he said. He counseled them to move beyond “self-hatred,” and to lead a Christian return to the central cities.

Virgil Wood, director of the African-American Institute at Boston’s Northeastern University, said bluntly at one of the supper-hour forums for adult leaders that the white community has been running from the black community for several decades. During that period, he noted, personal racism has been outmoded largely by institutional racism. When, he asked, will the church retrieve the cross from the Ku Klux Klan, and cooperative economic credit (as described in Acts 4:32) from the Marxists?

William Bentley, board chairman of the National Black Evangelical Association, observed more gently in a briefing session that church members have become caught up in the upward mobility syndrome. He asserted that a basic part of Christian experience is lacking if we are not involved with the poor.

Not only the message but also the way it was packaged was a new experience for most of the nonblack two-thirds of the participants. The running barrage of calls from the audience (“well!,” “careful!.” “tell us Street know that the Spirit of God acts as well as speaks through Staggers and One Ministries. They have seen roofing, plumbing, wiring, and pest extermination performed in their homes. The elderly are visited and driven to appointments. Children take part in field trips and recreation programs. Last summer. One Ministries was host to 40 teen-aged government job program participants, who were supervised by 20 Christian college volunteers. They termed the program a success, unlike many other sponsoring organizations in the city.

Staggers shows up most Wednesday mornings at Third Street jovial and eager to hear “what the Lord’s been doing in your life.” In turn, he can share exactly what the Lord expects from him and his team: “Let us as Kingdom representatives exalt Christ. Let us relate to the least as brothers and sisters, seeking God’s grace to set us free from differences. Let us become one with Him and with each other.”

One Ministries: A Case Study In Urban Evangelism

The Third Street Church of God, in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Washington, D.C., comes to life early on Wednesday mornings. From 7:30 A.M. until whenever, a hot breakfast followed by warm fellowship and prayer attract a roomful of people—black and white, from city and suburb.

“Great to see you here. No question about it,” says John Staggers as he greets newcomers, often with a bear hug. Staggers directs One Ministries, which “adopted” the square block of slum housing that surrounds the church. The group works in tandem with the Third Street pastor and congregation, ministering to residents and “making life more livable while we earn the right to present the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Named for Christ’s prayer for his disciples in John 17:21–23 (“That they all may be one …”), One Ministries has become a model of urban evangelism, emphasizing close cooperation with a local congregation. They are working as catalysts to involve other churches and agencies in adopting blocks similarly throughout the city. A long-range goal, says Staggers, is to link up white, middle-class, suburban churches with inner-city congregations, with the dual intent of ministering to the poor and allowing “rich and poor, black and white, powerful and powerless” to experience their oneness in Christ.

One Ministries, part of Washington’s Fellowship Foundation, was featured as an experience site for participants at Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s “Washington 80” conference last month. Staggers worked closely with the conference’s codirectors throughout the planning stages and assigned one of his ten team members as a full-time liaison with IVCF. The group also conducts an outreach to inmates of Lorton Prison, the city’s correctional facility located in Virginia.

Staggers previously taught sociology at Howard University in Washington, and later worked in the city’s administration. His “bottom line” in serving the poor is simply Jesus Christ. Apart from changes taking place in hearts, he explains, all the programs in the world won’t work.

He made that discovery the hard way. In 1970 and 1971, Staggers directed the Model Cities program in Indianapolis under former Mayor (now Senator) Richard Lugar. Admittedly a nominal Christian at the time. Staggers initiated a massive program of prayer breakfasts, viewing them as a good social vehicle for racial reconciliation. Then, he came to know a personal Christ, changed his emphasis, and returned to Washington. Instead of just generating talk through prayer breakfasts. Staggers now is generating action that he perceives as being in line with biblical mandates. “We have to be more than just a voice. The Word has to become flesh through practical involvement.”

Richard Halverson, new chaplain of the U.S. Senate, once wrote “I have never known a more effective communicator and motivator than John Staggers.… The Spirit of God speaks movingly and convincingly through him.” The residents of Third about it”) were unsettling to some from more staid backgrounds. The conference swayed to soul music paced by soprano Margaret Pleasant of East Orange, New Jersey, pastor-musician Richard Farmer of Pittsburgh, pianist-composer James Ward of Chattanooga, and “sanctified saxophonist” Sylvester Brinson of Chicago. Many even found it awkward to keep time to the music, conditioned as they were to clap on the (white) downbeat instead of the (black) upbeat.

By the end of the second day, when participants separated for “ethnic receptions,” many exhibited the symptoms of culture shock from a conference that codirector Hammond acknowledged was predominantly black in content and style. He told his segregated audience that God had made no mistake in creating them white, and that failure to accept that truth would make them psychological cripples, unable to help in the healing of the cities. “God wants redeemed whiteness to show to the world,” he concluded.

The older white IV leadership fretted some about the loss of precise control over the conference that was the price of the deliberate spontaneity sought and obtained by the blacks. “Is Inter-Varsity running this conference?” Hammond asked rhetorically? Then he added that he was learning that servant-leadership meant not being in full control. From their perspective, the content was heavy on exhortation in the black church style and light on the urban analysis that would have provided academic weight. But once the decision to bring in Ellis as codirector was made, the IV establishment allowed the blacks basically to shape the program.

Those concessions were rewarded by new respect from black civic and church leadership. Some were unprepared for the extent of student concern. Executive assistant to the mayor of Pittsburgh, James Simms, came to give a briefing on redevelopment, revitalization, and planning. He expected only a handful would attend his session in a large University of D.C. classroom. Arriving to find a wall-to-wall crowd, he was momentarily overwhelmed. “They did more for me than I could possibly do for them,” he said afterwards.

Persons as diverse as a black seminary dean and an Operation PUSH official agreed reluctantly to participate and came in what they afterward acknowledged was a skeptical frame of mind. They said they left convinced that IV’s commitment to take minorities and the cities seriously is genuine.

Ozzie Edwards of Harvard, who agreed to work with IV on Washington 80 only if there were a follow-through plan and he could be involved in it, perhaps analyzed most perceptively why he allied himself with a traditionally white evangelical organization:

He said he is willing to work with any group prepared to do something for inner-city residents, so long as he is convinced their agenda is not simply to revitalize the cities for whites.

But beyond that, he sees evangelical groups as potentially effective change agents. He assesses them as naive on social issues but strong on Christian commitment. That combination, he said, holds more promise than one of social sophistication not anchored in moral commitment. Only those motivated to do good simply because it is right will stick it out when the solution requires actions that are to their personal disadvantage. “Fundamental change must be in individuals. That can only come through Christ.”

Finally, Edwards said, he saw hope of Washington 80 evolving into a broader thrust—repeated and improved, replicated in individual cities for more specific application, and placing a growing number of interns in Christian ministry into the cities.

That, of course, is Inter-Varsity’s goal. And it was willing to sink several hundred thousand dollars into getting that dream off the ground.

HARRY GENET

The National Black Evangelical Association

‘Bind Us Together’: Black Evangelicals Make It Work

The National Black Evangelical Association has successfully healed a breach that had surfaced within its membership last April. At a protracted biannual board meeting held in Chicago in October, three members who had tendered their resignations at last year’s annual meeting in Dallas retracted them. And two of the three were assigned speaking roles at this year’s April 22–25 annual convention in Chicago.

The three who agreed that their grievances were sufficiently considered and dealt with to enable them to reverse their actions were former NBEA president Ruben S. Conner, former first vice-president Anthony T. Evans, and Dallas chapter chairperson Eddie B. Lane (CT, May 21, 1980, p. 44).

The three had expressed concerns about what they judged to be theological latitude within the NBEA, about the adequacy of its doctrinal statement, and about the degree of emphasis placed on the black experience alongside that placed upon Scripture in determining the association stance. They also had raised questions about the NBEA financial structure.

An official release from the NBEA described the October meeting, chaired by board chairman William H. Bentley, as characterized by “conciliation but not capitulation.” Working through recommendations drawn up at a special May board meeting in Dallas, the board arrived at a new agreed understanding by taking the following actions:

• It confirmed the NBEA umbrella concept of leadership, bringing together diverse elements within Christian orthodoxy.

• It reaffirmed the role of the Word of God as the final authority in matters of faith and conduct. It likewise reaffirmed the role of culture in mediating and expressing the gospel.

• It acknowledged that the existing doctrinal statement could stand strengthening at certain points, and agreed to draft alternate wording.

• It rejected allegations of theological liberalism within its ranks. Those charges, the board concluded, had arisen from a “misinterpretation of emphasis rather than a qualitative deviation” from orthodoxy.

• It agreed to instruct its officers to draw up a plan for fiscal restructuring for presentation to the board at its April meeting.

The year has been a difficult one for the NBEA. But the self-analysis and adjustment required to head off schism laid a basis for growth and new strength. The association’s structure is being streamlined and its role and stance has been delineated more crisply.

Retirements Homes

Methodists Win Settlement Of Pacific Homes Law Suits

If a special session of the Pacific and Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church later this month (Feb. 26–28) approves a $21 million settlement plan for the bankrupt Pacific Homes retirement complex, almost four years of tangled litigation that twice reached the U.S. Supreme Court will be ended. The constitutional question of whether the denomination as a whole is a suable entity that can be held responsible for actions of its constituent units has attracted wide attention among denominational and ecumenical groups.

Agreement in principle to a plan of reorganization for the chain of seven retirement facilities in Southern California, Arizona, and Hawaii, and suspension of all pending litigation, was announced in San Diego Superior Court on December 10. The announcement followed months of intensive negotiation by attorneys and came while a class-action suit on behalf of about 1,450 of the elderly residents was in its fourth month of trial. Under the proposal, the Pacific and Southwest Conference will provide $21 million to the homes—$15 million by mid-1981 and the rest during the next several years. Once the homes are on a sound financial basis, the money is to be repaid the conference. The annual conference, to which Pacific Homes has been related for 65 years, must borrow heavily from national-level agencies of the church in order to make the money available.

At a special assembly February 26–28, the 196,000 members of 488 United Methodist churches in Southern California, Arizona, Hawaii, and Southern Nevada will be asked to raise $6 million by midyear and another $6 million “over the next few years.” Los Angeles Bishop Jack M. Tuell said he was “grateful” for the anticipated settlement, which must also be approved by the federal bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy trustee.

“Quite apart from the question of legal liability,” Tuell said in a statement, “I believe every United Methodist in this conference would like to do something to respond to the loss which many residents have suffered.” About $5 million of the settlement package would go to elderly plaintiffs to compensate them for Pacific Homes’s failure to honor “lifetime care” contracts many of the residents entered into when they moved into the retirement centers.

The plaintiffs’ case was designed to show that the United Methodist Church as a denomination, the Pacific and Southwest Conference, the board of global ministries, and the general council for finance and administration, were liable for damages. The suit alleged that fraud and mismanagement had occurred over several decades.

Representatives of UM agencies feared a precedent would be set if the courts held a national denomination responsible for actions taken in its name. That is why all settlement moneys are to be channeled through the regional conference.

Attorney Samuel Witwer of Evanston, Illinois, who represents several UM agencies, had said that an adverse Supreme Court ruling could have broad implications for all U.S. religious institutions and breach the separation of church and state by interfering in the church’s organizations and activities. The out-of-court settlement, of course, leaves the constitutional question unanswered—perhaps an expensive alternative for the church, but one that could be less damaging in the long run.

If the plan of reorganization is finally approved by all parties, the church as a denomination, the general council on finance and administration, and the board of global ministries and its health and welfare ministries division, will be dismissed as defendants. This part of the case cannot then be reopened; dismissal of the regional conference is contingent upon performance of the agreement.

The court proceedings, described by San Diego Judge Edward T. Butler as “the most complex litigation we have had in this courthouse in some time,” followed four years of growing media attention to the financial woes of Pacific Homes and other retirement complexes. Many have foundered over inflation problems and unexpected longevity of retirees who paid lump-sum fees for health care with the expectation they would pay nothing more the rest of their lives.

In 1977, the Pacific and Southwest Conference approved a nine-year, $9 million plan to bail out Pacific Homes, but the class-action suit, seeking $220 million in damages and fulfillment of the contracts, aborted the plan. Litigation then mushroomed to six suits with pleas totaling $600 million. At least seven law firms had been engaged to defend the denomination, its units, and individuals, and litigation costs for the church at the time the trial was recessed in December had already topped $4 million. The 1980 UM General Conference authorized up to $1 million annually for the next four years to maintain the legal battle.

Under the proposed settlement, about $16 million, less certain fees and deductions, will be used to reorganize Pacific Homes and enable it to remain open and carry out the terms of the lifetime care contracts. About 175 residents who had moved out will be able to return and share the benefits. Although monthly payments now made by the residents will not be entirely eliminated, the fees—averaging about $500 a month—will be reduced to about $185 a month.

Pacific Homes will provide supplemental Medicare Medi-Cal insurance for class-action plaintiffs as well as “residential, clinical and skilled nursing, convalescent hospital and custodial care.” The annual conference will maintain a resident assistance fund to ensure that no plaintiff will ever have to move out because of inability to pay the monthly fees.

Also, the plaintiffs will be represented on the Pacific Homes board of directors for several years to assure that their interests are protected.

Bankruptcy trustee Richard Matthews, who has been operating the homes by court appointment, filed a report with the bankruptcy judge charging that for years Pacific Homes’s management defrauded elderly residents, with the knowledge and approval of some church officials, through a “pyramid scheme” that required new lifetime care contracts to finance current expenses.

RUSSELL CHANDLER

Personalia

Ronald Reagan’s pastor, Donn Moomaw, of the Bel Air (Calif.) Presbyterian Church, will take a year’s leave of absence in 1984 to run the weightlifting competition at the Olympics in Los Angeles, for which he’ll be paid $70,000. Moomaw is a former All-American football lineman at UCLA.

Volunteer missionary work in Africa helped Air Force Capt. Jonathan Scott Gration, 29, earn a place among the Jaycees’ Ten Outstanding Young Men of America. Gration, whose parents were long-time missionaries with the Africa Inland Mission, helped buiid airstrips and medical clinics during a stint in Kenya in 1974. Following the overthrow of Idi Amin in 1979 he went to Uganda and repaired vital hospital equipment, using mostly crude tools he had improvised. His air force career has taken him back to Kenya, where he serves as an F-5 instructor pilot.

Hudson T. Armerding has announced his intention to retire as fifth president of Wheaton College (III.), by June 1983. He will then be 65, and has been president for 16 years.

Summit on Human Life Amendment

Anti-Abortion Groups Spar Over Amendment Tactics

The numerous lobbies fighting for an antiabortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution are facing a critical struggle over just what that amendment should say. There is concern that if the groups don’t coalesce in a united front, they will dissolve into factionalism and be far less effective in convincing Congress to pass such an amendment.

To try and solve the problem, two summit meetings were scheduled for Washington, one last month and one this month, in an effort to hammer out acceptable terminology. One meeting was held by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the largest prolife group, with 10 million members nationwide and chapters in all 50 states. The other will be conducted by Moral Majority. “The biggest ballgame in town,” said NRLC president John Willke, “is the reopening and reexamination of the human life amendment.”

NRLC’s winter board meeting on January 23 centered on a final report—in preparation for six months—by a committee of four lawyers and a physician: Robert Byrn of Fordham University; Charles Rice of the University of Notre Dame; Joseph Witherspoon of the University of Texas; Matthew Bulfin, a physician; and James Bopp, the NRLC legal counsel. Their efforts represent the first time since it was drawn up in 1973 that their human life amendment has been reconsidered.

As it now reads, NRLC’s proposed amendment would prevent all abortions, and would allow “only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.” This would include, for example, an operation to correct a fallopian tube pregnancy, in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, or an operation to remove the cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman. In both cases the fetus must be destroyed to save the mother’s life, but Willke and others say these are not abortions because the intent is not to kill the child, but to save the mother’s life.

Judie Brown, who heads an active prolife group called American Life Lobby, fears that if this wording is adopted, critics who don’t buy that reasoning will charge that prolifers consent to “just a little bit of abortion.” She and others back the Helms-Dornan Amendment (named after its Senate and House sponsors), which guarantees the right to life for each human being from the moment of fertilization, and stops with that. It assumes that tubal pregnancy operations and cancerous uterus operations will be done, but since they are not abortions, they need not be mentioned. Adding any stipulation to the basic right-to-life declaration could be a crack in the dam, which could eventually burst into a new flood of abortions after the courts get through interpreting it. Willke believes the best way for the amendment to survive court tests is to stipulate which medical procedures don’t apply; that is, those necessary to save the mother’s life, and limit it to that. “If you don’t put it in and limit it to that, the court will put it in,” he said. He fears any broadening of the meaning through court interpretation, because it would probably be a first step to unlimited abortions.

Both sides thus have the same goal; they differ only in how to reach it. In light of the factionalism that seems to be developing, sources said at press time that it was possible the NRLC committee would recommend altering the wording of its amendment when it met last month. That would be momentous, because support for the present amendment is widespread, having been approved by nearly every state NRLC organization.

The prolife lobbyists fear that if they do not somehow hang together behind strong language, any right-to-life amendment reaching Congress will be watered down by compromises. Some of those compromises might include abortions allowable as a result of rape or incest; those permitted when the “health” of the mother is at stake; or simply turning the whole matter over to the states. (In the past, an exception for the health of the mother has been interpreted broadly to include mental health, which has resulted in abortion on demand.)

Moral Majority plans to sponsor a two-day meeting in Washington in late February. The first day will be public, with some hard issues to be addressed, such as why there can be no exceptions for incidents like rape or incest. The second day’s meeting will be closed to the public, and will focus on getting the organizations to agree on wording.

Karl Moor, political activities coordinator for Moral Majority, emphasizes that although his organization has been in the spotlight, it “intends very much to work with people who’ve been here before, and not set ourselves up as the spokesman for the issue.” He plans to spend as much as three-fourths of his lobbying time on abortion, because “this won’t be a roll-over, play-dead thing for the proabortionists. We’re threatening their economic well-being as well as their principles.”

Another key figure is Connaught (Connie) Marshner, who is the chairman of the Library Court group, a coalition of 30 conservative, profamily organizations. She said, “We will pull out all stops in favor of the human life amendment, but first we want to see the people who are leaders in the movement get their acts together.”

Roman Catholic support for the amendment finds expression through the National Committee for the Human Life Amendment. Ernest Ohlhoff, executive director, said, “we’ve never taken a strong position on any particular wording. We want to see the strongest, best possible wording. When a serious amendment is proposed, it will be evaluated on its own merit.”

Rallying all who support an end to abortion behind an effective human life amendment is viewed by Moral Majority’s Karl Moor as paramount. “We’re not looking for ideological purity as much as we are numbers on this issue. What would be worse than nothing would be passage of a vague statement that is absolutely meaningless in terms of protecting the unborn.”

After the strong showing by conservatives in the November election, particularly Ronald Reagan’s victory and the Republican capture of the Senate, prolifers were euphoric over the chances of getting a right-to-life amendment passed during this Congress. Much of that hope has dissipated, however, because the numbers required for passing a constitutional amendment, two-thirds in each house, still don’t appear to be there. Willke said his organization counts a simple majority in the Senate, but not 67, and it counts only about 250 supporters in the House, well short of the 290 necessary. Consequently, it appears unlikely that an amendment will pass Congress before the 1982 congressional elections.

In the meantime, some organizations will turn to remedial measures, such as a permanent prohibition against spending federal money for abortions. Until now, makeshift amendments preventing expenditures for abortion have been attached each year to appropriations bills.

Douglas Badger, legislative director of the Christian Action Council, the evangelical lobbying group, said there will also be attempts to extend federal assistance to indigent pregnant women, who now can qualify for aid only if they are dependents of welfare recipients. Without federal aid, it is still cheaper for them to scrape up enough money for a private abortion than to bear the child, he said.

World Scene

The Protestant church in Mexico now accounts for 3.5 percent of the total population, up from 1.8 percent in 1970. That is what preliminary returns from the official Mexican 1980 census show. According to the census, Mexico’s total population reached 67.4 million people last year, 2.4 million of whom are Protestants. Evangelical church leaders believe that for various reasons, official figures tend to understate their numbers, principally because census takers in some cases assume everyone is Roman Catholic without actually asking the question. The 1980 census shows more than 88 percent of Mexicans as Catholic, down from a 96 percent figure a decade earlier.

The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization is moving its internal headquarters office from Kenya to England in April, LCWE chairman Leighton Ford said the decision to move was based on travel convenience, ease of international communications, and comparative costs. Gottfried Osei-Mensah, a Ghanaian who pastors the First Baptist Church of Nairobi, has been reappointed executive secretary.

Denmark has the highest suicide rate in the Western world, followed by two other Scandinavian countries, Finland and Sweden. 1979 Danish statistics show that almost twice as many people took their own lives as were killed in automobile collisions. The Danish suicide rate is 26 per 100,000 of the population, as compared to the American rate of 13 per 100,000. Niels Juel-Nielsen of Odense University is leading research into the causes of suicide in Scandinavia with its high standard of living. According to a Reuters report, he cited as causes the complex nature of urban life; unemployment; Denmark’s social welfare system, which he says can destroy personal initiative; a decline in spiritual values; materialism; and the breakup of the family unit in moving from an agricultural to an industrial society.

The French government recently approved Trans World Radio’s request to add a 500,000-watt, short-wave transmitter to its two present 100,000-watt transmitters at Monte Carlo, Monaco. Negotiations had continued for several years. The extra wattage, together with the addition of two new antenna systems, will permit more thorough saturation of key areas of Europe. TWR has been broadcasting from Monaco for 20 years.

Polish Catholics have won another concession from the state. This year they broadcast a Christmas Eve Mass for the first time in 30 years. Earlier they had won permission for broadcast of a weekly Sunday Mass. At the same time, the church leadership has come to the aid of the Stanislaw Kania government by urging restraint on workers. A West Germany guest observer says that meanwhile, greater Roman Catholic self-awareness has only increased the disadvantaged position of Protestants. “It is not socialism that is the problem, but the Catholic church,” asserted Karl Inmer, president of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland. He said that for this reason Protestants especially appreciate visits by Christians from the West.

The Walayta Christians of southern Ethiopia got the New Testament in their language in time for Christmas. Until the mid-1970s, printing materials in tribal languages was prohibited. As soon as the restrictions were eased, the Sudan Interior Mission initiated a translation program. The 675 Walayta Word of Life congregations until now have used Scripture portions on cassette tapes. Some 2,400 Bible study groups, with an estimated attendance of 30,000, used the cassettes as the basis for study and memorization.

The printing press of a Lutheran denomination of South-West Africa (or Namibia) has been blown up for the second time in seven years. Located in Oniipa, the press belonged to the Ovambo-kavango Church, begun by Finnish missionaries, whose membership includes about half the Ovambos, or roughly one-fourth of the country’s population of one million. Reporter Joseph Lelyveld wrote in the New York Times that South Africa, which rules the country, has viewed the church as a threat because it instills values and aspirations that make the Ovambos hard to manage. He reports that it is widely, “even universally,” believed that efforts to still the church’s voice in 1973 and last December were engineered by South African security police, although no proof has materialized.

An ecumenical youth conference opened and then disbanded after security officers were discovered to be present. The December conference in Manzini, Swaziland, organized by the All Africa Conference of Churches youth department and the World Christian Federation, had assembled more than 20 youth leaders to discuss the liberation struggle in Southern Africa. Police officials confirmed, when approached, that Swaziland law demands police monitoring of all meetings. The AACC youth secretary, Costa Magiga, explained that continuing with the planned discussion would have jeopardized “the safety and interest of our delegates.”

Paving stones from the Herodian period have been unearthed in Jerusalem’s Old City and were raised and incorporated into a repaving of the Via Dolorosa, the traditional route Jesus traversed from Pilate’s judgment hall to Golgotha. Municipal workers, upgrading the Old City’s rudimentary sewage system, encountered the stones—some weighing as much as two tons—under a collapsed sewer dating from the last century, and 12 feet below street level. The stones cover a stretch of about 30 feet between the third and fourth stations of the cross.

The Indian government has decided against evicting all missions agencies from tribal areas, but will follow a case-by-case approach. That was the gist of remarks by Home Affairs Minister Yogendra Makwana in response to questioning in Parliament. Adverse notice of any foreign organization’s activities, he said, would lead to appropriate action. He said the West Bengal authorities had so far identified some nine organizations and had instructed them to shift their operations out of tribal areas.

Three more key members of Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts (IBYC) have left the organization in disagreement with Gothard’s handling of moral and financial questions that have publicly engulfed the institute since last summer.

There were also these developments:

• A long-time member of the board, who resigned in 1977, was reelected in November, only to find out in December that his reelection was ruled invalid. He believes the reasons are connected to the current troubles.

• A group of field representatives who work for the institute are signing form letters that demand answers to five broad questions that have arisen from the turmoil.

• Gothard has agreed to an independent audit of institute finances by the firm of Price Waterhouse and Company, a move many disaffected employees have been asking for. How extensive the audit will be is not yet known, however, nor is it known whether it will be available to the employees who have been asking the questions.

In short, although thousands of “alumni” and friends of the institute have been pleading and praying that the troublesome disclosures would cease so the seminars can continue untarnished, it is the present and former staff members themselves who are demanding answers to dozens of questions about how the large sums of institute money are spent. Gothard shuns publicity and so far has said very little publicly about the problems.

The institute holds weeklong seminars that are composed of 32 hours of lectures by Gothard, whose biblical principles on handling of problems have been helpful to many. His seminars regularly draw 5,000 to 10,000 people at a cost of $45 per person. Last year the institute took in some $8 million.

One of of the most significant resignations from the institute was that of Samuel J. Schultz, who has been on the board since the beginning of IBYC. In carefully measured words, Schultz announced his resignation by saying, “After much prayerful evaluation and consideration. I came to the realization that I could no longer support IBYC or influence the future direction of the organization.”

Schultz is a retired Wheaton College professor, an author, and a former editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned in December because he said he was unable to win support for changes he believed needed to be made. They include:

• Enlarging the board of directors from five members to nine, to ensure more independent judgment. Schultz believes the smaller board is dominated by Gothard even though Gothard has been on a technical leave of absence since July. In August the board voted to enlarge itself to nine, but Gothard has been delaying action on it.

• Engaging a nationally recognized auditing firm to audit the books for present and past years. (Schultz made his statements before learning that a more limited audit is in the works.)

• Having Gothard meet openly with staff members to discuss the many ethical and financial questions that have arisen.

Asked about his reaction to the changes Schultz has called for, IBYC board chairman Gustav Hemwall said, “If the implication is that he left because they’re not being done, that isn’t true. But if it isn’t being done fast enough or if it’s because he can’t influence it the way he wants—these things are being done. The audit is in progress now. The enlargement of the board is in progress. Gothard has met with staff members time and again.”

Schultz was also concerned that the institute might not have handled its millions of dollars in real estate investments properly, and he raised questions about the biblical basis for the seminar’s chain of command (authority) principle, and whether the institute leaders practiced those principles themselves. He also stressed the importance of having the activity and leadership of the institute under the authority of the board of directors in order to ensure that its programs are biblically sound. CHRISTIANITY TODAY was unable to get Gothard to respond to Schultz’s resignation, or to the issues he raised.

Chuck Lynch, coordinator of the institute’s ministry to pastors, also resigned on December 31. Efforts to reach him since then have been unsuccessful. In a brief interview before his resignation, Lynch said only that he found some “things that are wrong” with the organization, and that Gothard’s delay in allowing an outside audit created a “real credibility gap” among the employees. Last summer the board officially voted to have the audit performed, but Gothard did not respond immediately to the decision, questioning whether the expense was justified.

A third key person who resigned was Melvin Upchurch, who has been director of black ministries for the institute for the last five and a half years. Upchurch said his reasons for leaving were related to the current problems but he declined to give details. He did say that despite all the articles that have been written, “either people don’t want see the truth or don’t ask the right kinds of questions.”

Edwin Brown, a physician on the medical faculty at Indiana University, is the former board member who was briefly reelected in November, but whose election was ruled invalid by board chairman Gustav Hemwall because Hemwall was not present for the voting. Brown and Gothard have known each other for a long time, and Brown lent his name to Gothard’s first efforts to organize a seminar in 1964. Brown had been on the board 10 years when he left the country in 1977 to help the Saudi Arabian government establish a medical school. He resigned at Gothard’s request.

Brown was disappointed when he was not asked to rejoin the board upon his return to the U.S. He said he learned just recently that among the reasons was the fact that Gothard objected to his beard, although Brown said he has had it since 1970. “I was astounded,” he said, when he heard this.

The real reason, Brown believes, is the fact that he started questioning the institute’s finances during several board meetings in 1977, just before he left the board. Specifically, the institute’s lawyer had proposed then that the board consider how to reimburse Steve Gothard, Bill’s brother, for about 350 acres Steve owned—which the institute was using—at the institute’s 3,000-acre northwoods retreat in Waters-meet, Michigan. Brown said he wondered how Steve Gothard could have had enough money to purchase the property in the first place since he was working for the institute. Brown asked about it, and said he was surprised to learn that Steve was earning close to $30,000 a year, which he said seemed like a lot for a young man in Christian work. Brown stated that the board was told at its next meeting that Steve would not be paid for the property, but that he was going to donate it to the institute. (Steve Gothard apparently was able to save most of his salary by having many of his living expenses paid by the institute.)

In reflecting on all this. Brown said that the board, as an entity, had learned nothing about the institute’s finances in the 10 years he was a member of it. He said the board was not told what anyone on the staff (which numbered about 70 before the recent flood of resignations) was being paid other than Bill, whose $600 a month has been widely noted. Brown said that as a board, “All we did was rubber-stamp the recommendations of the president.” A seminar brochure states that “All funds are carefully controlled by a board of directors …”

(The Institute has been audited over the last decade by the small Chicago certified public accountancy firm of Brabenec, Yasus, Tague and Company. The semi-retired partner who has reviewed the institute books said it was a shame it had to bring Price Waterhouse in, since “whatever problems they had certainly weren’t in [the financial] area.”)

Bill Gothard says that Brown’s beard is not in accord with the institute’s dress code. It does bear on why Brown was not asked to rejoin the board, he says, as well as the fact that the prior intention of the board was to elect either a lawyer or a businessman to the next vacancy.

The institute employs about 50 area committee coordinators who work with local volunteer committees in organizing the seminars. A number of these coordinators are circulating the letters that ask for answers to five questions, and some plan to present the questions to Gothard in a united front. Briefly, the employees are asking for: an outside audit, an indication that Gothard is ready to reach a “oneness of spirit” with the many disillusioned institute employees, an increase in the board to 9 or 11 members, a full financial disclosure of the amount of money spent to develop the northwoods property, and more say in whether to hold a seminar in a particular city. (One of the coordinators noted that last year the seminar committee in Los Angeles decided not to hold its seminar after news of the Gothard problems broke, but that the seminar was held anyway.) Officially, the institute says it won’t hold seminars anyplace it’s not invited.

The Gothard controversy erupted publicly last summer when it became known that Steve Gothard had engaged in sexual intercourse with a number of secretaries who had been working for him at the northwoods retreat (CT, Aug. 8, 1980, p. 46; Sept. 19, p. 56). Bill Gothard first became aware of the situation four years ago, and after determining that his brother had repented, allowed him to remain. But further episodes prompted his dismissal last summer. Many of the present and former employees expressed in interviews their anger or frustration that the situation was not resolved long ago. This is at the root of reasons why many are upset with Bill.

One area coordinator said, “This is an operation in which you’ve got a man who stands before thousands of people and says, This is how you deal with certain situations and problems; and then you’ve got a situation where these same problems come up in his own organization, and he approaches them from an entirely different perspective. He says basically not to cover up your sin, but I see all sorts of evidence to indicate that he hasn’t been open.” Gothard maintains that after the first episode was discovered and resolved four years ago, he knew nothing about the subsequent problems until last year, when Steve was told to leave.

Bill Gothard has apologized publicly for his failure to be aware of the sexual problems at the northwoods retreat, saying they were allowed to continue because he unjustly put the ministry ahead of his family. The relatively brief statement, however, has not seemed to calm the waters, because many who are or who have been part of the institute, such as Schultz, are questioning now how its money has been spent—particularly how much has gone to develop the northwoods retreat, with its lodge, cabins, and mile-long runway used for the Lear jet (which Gothard has since sold).

Forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service for 1979 show that the institute apparently has spent $17 million on land and buildings. That includes the 3,000-acre development in Michigan as well as the 200-acre property at the Oakbrook, Illinois, headquarters. Total assets for the organization in 1979 were $24 million, IRS forms for tax-exempt organizations are available for public inspection.

Other questions revolve around large sums of money paid to departing employees. In two cases, employees were given $55,000 checks to reimburse them for the equity they said they lost because they sold their houses before coming to work for Gothard, and Gothard didn’t want them to buy houses after they were in the institute’s employ. Payments for such purposes are unknown elsewhere among Christian organizations—and in the business world as well. In another case, Gothard’s brother-in-law, Phil Garvin, was given an $11,000 salary bonus to fix up his house.

The fact that employees had been asking to be paid for lost equity in their houses led to the board’s decision last summer to require all departing employees to sign a legal form freeing the institute from all further responsibility to them after they left. This has brought more irritation to some employees, who question whether that is the biblical way to handle things; but relationships between Gothard and many of his staff and former staff have deteriorated to the point where such precautions are necessary. At any rate, it appears that the signing of legal forms will not be enough to shield the institution from the concern and the frustration of many of the people who have been closest to it.

The Challenge Of Christian Counseling

Christian Counseling: A Comprehensive Guide, by Gary Collins (Word, 1980, 477 pp., $10.95); The Christian Counselor’s Library, edited by Gary Collins (Word, 1980, 28 cassettes, $235.00); Update on Christian Counseling: Volume 1, by Jay Adams (Baker, 1979, 89 pp., $2.75 pb); Brief Counseling with R. E. T., by Paul Hauck (Westminster, 1980, 252 pp., $11.95); are reviewed by David G. Benner, chairman, Department of Psychological Studies, Wheaton College Graduate School, Wheaton, Illinois.

Gary Collins’s most recent book, Christian Counseling: A Comprehensive Guide, fulfills the promise of its title. It is a comprehensive guide to counseling strategies designed to assist the pastor or Christian counselor in his day-to-day counseling ministry.

The book begins with an exploration of a number of general but important counseling issues. These include the relationship of counseling to the church, counseling goals and process, and the person of the counselor. This last topic is handled particularly well with a sensitive treatment of such all-too-often neglected subjects as the counselor’s motivation, sexuality, ethics, and burn-out possibilities.

The following five sections take the reader through a consideration of a range of personal, singleness-marriage, developmental and family, sexual and interpersonal, and other miscellaneous issues. Chapters on each of 27 different topics dealt with include a consideration of the relevant biblical material, followed by an overview of the major psychological contributions to the topic. Collins synthesizes these into strategies for counseling and problem prevention. This latter emphasis should be particularly helpful to pastors unable to make major commitments to remedial counseling but concerned with the prevention of difficulties.

Although the theoretical presentation and prescriptions for practice are occasionally too simplistic to be really helpful (particularly in the discussions of anxiety and homosexuality), for the most part the complexities of the subject matter have been represented adequately and the necessary simplification has not been at the expense of accuracy. Care has also been demonstrated in the preparation of the ample footnotes. These represent an important strength of the book as they allow the interested reader to follow ideas back to primary sources for additional details. The book’s major purpose, however, is to provide a source of basic understanding and practical help and in this regard it succeeds admirably.

The book is, however, just one part of a much larger resource package, the Christian Counselor’s Library. Edited by Gary Collins, this multimedia library is built around a collection of 28 audio cassettes; each provides a lecture and case study related to one of the problem areas discussed in the book. The tapes are done by a number of pastors and counselors and are introduced in a manual which also provides guidesheets for discussion of the tape, suggestions for its use, and counselee worksheets. Taken together the package should be a helpful resource for the task-centered counselor whose style includes the use of homework or learning aids, such as tapes.

Two other recent titles are also worth noting. Those appreciative of Jay Adams’s Neothetic Counseling should find his most recent book, Update on Christian Counseling: Volume 1, helpful. Intended as the first in an ongoing series, this little volume gives brief treatment to such issues as counseling failures, the treatment of stress, and the effects of counseling on the counselor.

Brief Counseling with R.E.T., by Paul Hauck, presents strategies for short-term counseling based on Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Therapy (R.E.T.). Hauck does an excellent job of explaining the essence of this approach, showing its practical outworking in brief counseling situations. However, the reader who notices the book to be classified as practical theology and looks for a Christian perspective on R.E.T. or even a discussion of the use of R.E.T. within a Christian setting will be disappointed by the absence of any such considerations.

The Interplay Of Church And Society

Christianity in European History, by William A. Clebsch (Oxford University Press, 1979, 315 pp., $4.50 pb), is reviewed by Donald K. McKim, visiting faculty member in religion, Westminster College, New Wilmington, Pennsylvania.

Occasionally we find a work that lets us look at a familiar subject through new eyes. William Clebsch’s provocative study of Christianity in European history is such a work.

Clebsch offers a model by which to gauge our historical understandings. He provides new paradigms and periodizations of European history and Christianity. He does not focus on the big names—Luther, Calvin, et al. Instead he has selected personalities who exemplified distinctive ways of being Christian in each of five major periods of European history.

The relationship of Christianity to the ebb and flow of events in Europe is an important dimension of Clebsch’s work. He writes with the purpose of showing that “the history of a religion and of its culture account for mutual dependence between the sacred and the secular.” This interpenetration of religion and culture means that cultural histories and church histories must be complemented and corrected by each other.

An early example of this may be seen when the early Christians faced the question of “Citizenship” (27 B.C.E.–476 C.E.), and “Martyrs” and “Monks” emerged. Later the seismic shock of Rome’s fall led to chaos (476–962). The two responses to this were “Theodicy” and “Prelacy.” Still later, the quest for unity in the Holy Roman Empire (962–1556) was frustrated by pagans and heretics, the spread of Islam, the split between the Eastern and Western church, and the contentions of popes with emperors for power. “Mystics” in the Middle Ages responded to these crises by seeking the soul’s ascent to God. On the other hand, medieval “Theologians,” such as Anselm and Aquinas, and the later Reformers, Luther and Calvin, sought to make God known by all reasonable people.

After the Reformation and the failures to reunify Christendom through warfare, the question of “Allegiance” thrust itself on Europeans (1556–1806), resulting in “Moralism” and “Pietism.”

The crisis of “Autonomy” became acute with the birth of modern nations (1806–1945). In the aftermath of the French Revolution, human self-liberation permeated politics, poetry, art, philosophy, and theology. In religion, manifestations of the sacred became invoked and regulated by human beings. “The divine functions of the creation and redemption and mastery of their history,” writes Clebsch, were liberally taken over by men and women. When this drive reached into the role of “judgment over the welfare and existence of other peoples, the result in the West has been colonialism, slavery, and most rampantly, Holocaust. The secular imperium initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte thus presaged that borne by Adolf Hitler.” Christians responded to this fully autonomous view of humanity as “Activists” or “Apologists.” The tapestries of history are extremely complex. But William Clebsch has proposed a new angle of vision through which certain strains of the pattern may be viewed. Some may fault him for forcing his categories. But far more important is his concern for the interplay of church and culture and his lucid descriptions of how Christophanies and salvation functioned for European Christians.

Only One Bible?

The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, by D. A. Carson (Baker, 1979, 123 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Harry Boonstra, director of libraries, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.

D. A. Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, will probably not persuade his opponents in the KJV debate. They will continue to argue the superiority of the Textus Receptus and of the King James Version. Neither, I think, will he dissuade their loyal readers. Scholarship and realism seldom change firm convictions and deep loyalties.

What readership, then, is left for the King James Version Debate? Certainly those who have always treasured the King James and are sad to see it eclipsed by modern versions, translations, and paraphrases. Also those who wonder about the profusion of competing versions that have tumbled from the presses in the last 20 years, and who are concerned about a proper evaluation of those versions. And, finally, all of those who would like to know how a translation differs from a paraphrase and who wonder why things “come to pass” in the KJV and “happen” in the TEV. In other words, there is much more in Carson’s book than a comparison of the KJV with modern versions; he includes a great deal of profitable information about the history of Bible translation and the process of translating.

In Part I Carson considers “The Textual Question,” in which he discusses the ancient copying of New Testament texts, the preservation of manuscripts, the printing of the first Greek New Testament, and, especially, the relative trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus versus the Greek texts used for modern translations. Some of the material is a bit technical (although Carson keeps insisting that he is simplifying it all for nonscholars), but certainly informative and rewarding for the persistent reader.

In Part II Carson continues with Bible translation as such. Pages 85–97 are an excellent summary of Bible translation theory and practice. Here he considers issues such as sentence length (if Paul writes a paragraph-long sentence, should the translation do the same?), idioms, semantic range, and literal versus paraphrase translations. I would have preferred fewer testimonials for the NIV, but the discussion is a sound one.

In a lengthy appendix Carson critiques Wilbur N. Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text. The discussion here is more elaborate and technical.

Those familiar with, for example, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament and Eugene Nida’s The Theory and Practice of Translation will find little new material in Carson’s work. Others may find certain issues slighted or discussed superficially (I find the one-sentence dismissal of the TEV on page 84 unfair). But such criticisms are perhaps not to the point. Carson set out to write a short, popular treatment of Bible translating, and especially of the comparison between the King James Version and modern versions. He has achieved admirably what he set out to do.

The World Council And The Bible

The Bible. Its Authority and Interpretation in the Ecumenical Movement, edited by Ellen Flesseman-van Leer (Geneva, World Council of Churches, Faith and Order Paper No. 99, 1980, 76 pp., plus selected bibliography, 7.90 Swiss francs), is reviewed by Carl F. H. Henry, World Vision International lecturer at large, Arlington, Virginia.

This revealing navigational log of the S.S. Faith and Order’s exploration of biblical authority recalls the vessel in Acts 27 that set out for Rome and disregarded apostolic exhortations to anchor securely at Fair Havens, only to be deluged by unexpected Adriatic crosscurrents.

The several Faith and Order conferences from Oxford/1949 to Bangalore/1978 reflect significantly changing directions in the ecumenical debate over the Bible. Reports of the Faith and Order Commission’s successive study conferences on Scripture appear here for the first time in a single volume. Fleesman-van Leer makes insightful introductory comments on the reports of conferences that consummated intermediary study sessions, but the full range of contrasting commitments can be gleaned only by reading the entire documents.

The 30-year span of deliberation between Oxford and Loccum/1977 (approved the following year at Bangalore) reflects a gradual shift of perspectives, some issuing logically through earlier departures from Christian orthodoxy and others through an exploratory probing of alternatives. In the end, Loccum/1977 declared biblical authority “a relational concept.” It did not resolve whether world religions other than Judaism and Islam must understand Christ through their own thought structures, so that Hindu Christian or Marxist Christian alternatives are as valid as Judeo-Christian—that is, whether the Old Testament must be reinterpreted in the light of other cultures and religious traditions even as Christianity interprets it in the light of Christ—or whether Old Testament and New Testament are normative in relation to all other faiths and require rejection of what is incompatible with faith in the true God. The biblical reinterpretation is “to us no longer convincing”; “modem critical scholarship” becomes the key to reinterpretation through the Spirit.

It is clear that ecumenical spokesmen consider decisively settled certain positions that evangelicals dispute: that the Bible is an errant literary corpus; that Scripture is invaded by tradition; that biblical criticism establishes late and unknown authors or redactors for many canonical books; that the biblical canon is fluid; that the historical remoteness of biblical content requires creative transposition into “categories appropriate for today”; that divine inspiration relates to our inner response to Christ’s lordship in and through the Bible and not to the propositional truth and cognitive authority of the biblical writings; and not least of all, that the institutional church must be aggressively involved in changing social and political institutions.

What The Church Was Not

The Roots of Christianity, by Carroll V. Newsom (Prentice-Hall, 1979, 263 pp., $12.95), is reviewed by Timothy P. Weber, assistant professor of church history, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

Though primarily trained in the sciences, Carroll Newsom, former president of New York University and Prentice-Hall, has used some of the perspectives of cultural anthropology and an evolutionary model to describe Christian origins.

In his introduction, Newsom argues that religion evolved out of early man’s need to understand and control his world. In order to make sense of and survive in a hostile environment, primitives posited the existence of the gods, then sought ways to appease them. As human society, imagination, and morality developed, however, new and more sophisticated religious needs emerged: questions about purpose, meaning, values, and the possibility of an afterlife. Sooner or later, creative and insightful individuals provided answers to these questions, which prompted followers to formulate elaborate doctrines and establish institutions to go along with them.

Newsom places Christianity within this theoretical framework and accounts for its development in the following way: (1) borrowing heavily from their Semitic neighbors, ancient Hebrews advanced concepts of monotheism and morality; (2) Jesus of Nazareth built on this Judaic foundation by emphasizing certain humanitarian ideals; (3) Paul and the other New Testament writers expanded on the simple teachings of Jesus by using legends (virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection) and Greek thought forms; (4) finally, their followers finished the task of establishing Christian dogma and institutions by interacting with Roman culture.

Clearly Newsom has a handle on an immense amount of material and argues his thesis lucidly and well. His book may serve as a recent example of an older (and somewhat dated, I think) approach to Christian beginnings. However, for a variety of reasons, I believe the book is seriously flawed.

First, Newsom’s generally low regard for the reliability of biblical and historical sources seriously undermines his own conclusions. When Newsom argues that “virtually no information which historians would accept as authentic is available in regard to the life and work of Jesus” (p. 125) and “recognized historical sources contribute virtually no information of value … pertaining to events and people immediately after the death of Jesus” (p. 160), readers have a right to ask what he is basing his own opinions on. More times than not, he does not say.

Second, Newsom rarely documents his work. The book has no bibliography or footnotes. Consequently, readers do not know where Newsom’s arguments originate or whether he has done all his homework.

Third, Newsome leaves too many crucial gaps in his presentation, especially in the area of theology. Throughout the book, he shows little interest in or facility with the theological controversies in the early church. In his rather brief discussion of Arianism, he states that “a modern scholar accustomed to processes of rigorous thought finds himself taxed to find any meaning in much that was said” (p. 217). Furthermore, he handled the Christological controversies of the fifth century in just over a page, without even mentioning Apollinarianism or Nestorianism.

Fourth, Newsom often fails to show how certain ideas or institutions developed, which is odd in a book that was written to demonstrate the evolution of Christianity.

For these reasons, I am afraid that the book has rather limited value, especially for beginning students in church history. Nevertheless, it may serve as an example of how an author can let his ideology get too far in front of his evidence.

O’Connor’S Letters

The Habit of Being, by Flannery O’Connor (Random House, 1980, 617 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Thomas Howard, professor of English, Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts.

“I do pray for you but in my fashion which is not a very good one. I am not a good prayer. I don’t have a gift for it. My type of spirituality is almost completely shut-mouth. I really dislike books of piety most of all. They do nothing for me and they corrupt most people’s ear if nothing else.”

The frame of mind at work in these statements, which occur in the course of a letter from Flannery O’Connor to a very devout friend of hers, might dismay someone who had heard of her as having been an outspoken Christian. What sort of truculent piety is this? Not the sort of mellow and gregarious spirituality one might look for in a famous believer.

But it is characteristic of her whole mind and imagination, and this collection of her letters, which runs from 1948 to her death at the age of 39 in 1964, registers this toughness and fidelity again and again. She was a fiercely orthodox, unreconstructed, pre-Vatican II Irish Catholic who happened to live in the Protestant fundamentalist South.

But she saw in the vagaries of the religion that surrounded her an awareness of the same titanic mysteries that Roman Catholicism had taught her. The enemy was Northern liberalism, not fundamentalism. “This is one reason why I can write about Protestant believers better than Catholic believers—because they express their belief in diverse kinds of dramatic action which is obvious enough for me to catch.”

There has never been a writer of fiction more implacably faithful to his craft. But she wrote against terrible odds, since her topic was grace, and the modern era has no way at all of even beginning to know what this is all about. Grace? The critics floundered in their Freudian and sociological and literary categories, and more often than not missed the mark completely, even when they praised her. Earnest religious types ran aground because her fiction seemed “grotesque,” and this did not strike them as being a very good advertisement for the Faith.

These letters, along with the volume of her essays entitled Mystery and Manners (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1969), make it all starkly clear. But they are very, very far from being abstruse and theoretical. They are enormously funny—she had a deadly accurate ear for Southern country argot, which she lapses into very frequently—and full of details about her Muscovy ducks and her peafowl, and about letters from dim-witted English teachers who were straining at all sorts of gnats that weren’t there at all in her fiction. Her friend Sally Fitzgerald, in editing these letters, has done a wonderful thing for us all. The book is thoroughly and vastly salutary reading, to be put at once in the “drop everything” category.

BRIEFLY NOTED

How to relate properly to God is something that interests us all and numerous books continue to appear on the subject of prayer.

Theology of Prayer. These books deal essentially with theoretical aspects of prayer but have practical import as well. Robert Faricy has written two helpful books. Praying (Winston) and Praying for Inner Healing (Paulist); the latter is especially instructive. Intercession (WCC), by Lukas Vischer, is a contemporary theology of prayer. Donald G. Bloesch’s The Struggle of Prayer (Harper & Row) is a full-blown study of first-rate significance. A few smaller works are: Talking about Prayer (InterVarsity), by Richard Bewes; A Silent Path to God (Fortress), by James E. Griffiss; Prayer: Our Journey Home (Servant), by Maria Boulding; A Letter Book about Prayer (Beacon Hill of Kansas City), by W. E. McCumber; and The Heart of Prayer (Broadman), by Fisher Humphreys.

The Soul in Paraphrase (Seabury), by Don E. Saliers, is a perceptive study of prayer and the religious affections. Anything You Ask (Bethany Fellowship), by Colin Urquhart, is an attempt to explain why God answers prayer. Forgive Us Our Prayers (Victor), by John A. Huffman; Why Prayers Are Unanswered (Tyndale), by John Allan Lavender; and A Time for Intercession (Bethany Fellowship), by Erwin E. Prange, deal with the question of “unanswered” prayer.

Andrew Murray’s The Secret of Believing Prayer has been reprinted by Bethany Fellowship. A set of E. M. Bounds’s six works on prayer have also been reprinted (Moody Press); Purpose in Prayer: The Weapon of Prayer: Prayer and Praying Man: The Reality of Prayer: The Possibilities of Prayer: and The Essentials of Prayer. These books have been best sellers for over 50 years. Louis Parkhurst has edited a collection of 40 meditations by Charles G. Finney in Principles of Prayer (Bethany Fellowship).

Practice of Prayer.Let Prayer Help You (Christian Herald), by Ruth C. Ikerman; Prayerobics (Word), by Cecil Murphey; and Prayer Ways (Harper & Row), by Louis M. Savary and Patricia H. Beme, offer help on the basic issue of making prayer a part of your life, the last mentioned offering somewhat unconventional suggestions. Pray to Win: God Wants You to Succeed (Revell), by Pat Boone, has some helpful material in it, but is marred by its implicit statement that if you aren’t beautiful or rich, it’s your fault because you didn’t pray properly. Prayers that Are Answered (Chosen Books), by Betty Malz, is a moving personal testimony that succeeds where Boone’s fails. Three books that offer model prayers are Harold Myra, Is There a Place Where I Can Scream? (Tyndale); Daniel Seagren, Uncommon Prayers for Couples (Baker); and Kenneth Wray Conners, Lord, Have You a Minute? (Judson).

Faith, life, and mission must be integrated in the preparation of pastors-to-be.

I have never been a seminary teacher—but please do not judge me unqualified to engage in the debate about seminary education. I was myself a seminary student once (though long ago); I have visited many theological colleges around the world, and seminarians have confided in me.

That something is wrong is generally conceded; the statistics of ministerial dropouts cannot be swept under the rug. The major cause is the gulf between the ideals of the seminary and the realities of the pastorate, which lead to disillusion, even to defection.

Some argue, “Jesus never founded a seminary,” and call for their abolition; but this is a naive overreaction. Seminaries must maintain their goal of academic excellence. We need to learn from Prof. Richard Hofstadter who, in his Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1962), traces the historical decline from the Puritan vision of the “learned minister” to the revivalist preacher who despises theology. Already by 1853, he argues, there was a widespread belief “that an intellectual clergyman is deficient in piety and that an eminently pious minister is deficient in intellect.” Yet nobody who has felt the pain of Third World university students, as I have, who find themselves facing intellectual challenges their godly but uneducated bush pastor cannot even understand let alone help them meet, can doubt that the educational standards of the pastorate must keep rising with those of the population.

At the same time, theological students are not tadpoles—all head and nothing else. Their theologizing needs to encounter the spiritual, moral, and cultural ferment of the contemporary world: theology must be related to faith, life, and mission.

First, faith. All seminary professors hope that their students will be stronger believers when they leave college than when they entered. But how is their faith to ripen? The temptation is to try to coerce it.

Some seminaries thus require students to sign an elaborate doctrinal or denominational statement before they may enroll, and another before they may graduate. But how can we expect students to have a coherently articulated theology before they even begin serious theological study? And what kind of justice is it to make a degree dependent on toeing a party line instead of on successfully passing an examination? Other seminaries (particularly liberal ones) go to the opposite extreme. Far from trying to compel faith, they take a sick pleasure in trying to destroy it. They deliberately set out to undermine the beliefs a student brings to college.

These attempts to coerce faith or to demolish it make the same fundamental mistake: they confuse education with indoctrination. Indoctrination is incompatible with intellectual freedom, because by it the teacher tries to impose his or her mental authority upon the mind of the student. “The ideal educator,” on the other hand, writes Arthur Koestler, “acts as a catalyst, not as a conditioning influence”: he seeks to provide the stimulus and the context for free intellectual development.

Applying this principle to seminaries, wise students will choose one that is neither a hothouse nor a demolition yard, but a warm, supportive community of faith, committed yet open, reverent yet critical, in which they are encouraged to develop a Christian mind under the lordship of Christ, and so grow into Christian maturity. Only such a robust, first-hand faith can withstand the onslaughts of the unbelieving world.

Second, faith has to be related to life. A Christian mind is ineffective without a Christian character. The seminary needs to be a place that fosters personal growth and character formation, and expects theology to lead to doxology in both public worship and private prayer. It is a tragic example of declension from biblical standards that the principal gateway into the pastorate today is a theological examination, while a comparable examination of the candidate’s character, behavior, moral standards, marriage, and home (as plainly required in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) is seldom conducted.

How may seminarians be helped to grow up into Christ? Mainly, they need to find models in their teachers. Yet many complain that they feel alienated from their professors. Some seminaries try to solve this problem by appointing a chaplain, with special responsibility for the pastoral care of the students. This is good—but only if the faculty do not then regard their pastoral responsibility as having been delegated to him. To me the most impressive colleges are those in which professors and students meet one another regularly for fellowship, worship, discussion, and counseling.

A third dimension is needed for wholeness: mission. I have great sympathy for the advocates of TEE (theological education by extension) who emphasize that theological study is best done within one’s own cultural setting, and not by being transported to some distant seminary. Although I do not myself believe that such on-the-job training is either required by the pedagogical example of Jesus or should even completely replace traditional seminary education, many seminaries need to do much more to break down the walls that divide them from the real world. Failure to do so encourages ivory tower theologizing, which proves inadequate after graduation and is a major reason for subsequent disillusionment.

Seminarians must, therefore, be personally and deeply involved in some form of mission, evangelistic or social or both. This should be on a regular basis, and in short midterm placements and vacations. Moreover, the theology taught in the seminary needs to be not only biblical, systematic, and historical, but also contextualized in the modern world. Some seminaries urgently need to develop a global perspective and a commitment to world mission. Others live in the past and concentrate on the defense and maintenance of ecclesiastical traditions. This may be right and necessary—but only if such traditions can stand the test of Christian scrutiny in the modern world.

Almost nothing is more important for seminarians than the development of skills in the hermeneutical task. How can they relate the ancient Book to the modern world? That is the paramount question. I would require all students to go to the movies and the theater as well as to the chapel and the classroom: screen and stage are mirrors of the world we live in. Classes need to discuss the contemporary culture exhibited there in order to develop a Christian response to it. Preaching is essentially the exposition of God’s Word with such faithfulness and sensitivity that it makes a forceful impact on modern hearers. Yet pastors will never excel in this exacting discipline unless they have learned to soak themselves in both the sacred text and the secular scene, and to struggle with integrity to relate the one to the other.

Perhaps “integrity” is the key word. It is the quality of an integrated Christian, whose whole being has come under the liberating lordship of Jesus. An integrated Christian is growing in faith, life, and mission as a three-dimensional responsibility. It is to the development of such integrated Christian leaders that seminaries should devote themselves.

JOHN R. W. STOTT¹Mr. Stott is rector emeritus of All Souls Church, London, England.

Keith Green’s decision to give away his records sharpens the dispute among performers.

Although Keith Green’s third album just might be his finest and most important work to date, many wondered whether it would meet with any success. When it was released last year, few Christian bookstores marketed the record, it received little airplay, and is not likely to be nominated for a Grammy. So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt has aroused considerable controversy—not because of the music, but because of a marketing decision made in the context of Green’s spiritual convictions.

Green was raised in the music world (his mother sang with the Dorseys; his grandfather wrote for Eddie Cantor in the twenties), and at the time of his conversion, the 21-year-old was playing at some of Los Angeles’s finest clubs and writing for Warner Brothers and CBS. In 1977, just two-and-a-half years after he became a Christian, Green released his first LP, For Him Who Has Ears to Hear. He has since become a leading artist among contemporary Christian musicians.

Green was an instant success on the religious music circuit. After his second album, No Compromise, he quickly went from doing concerts for a love offering to demanding, and getting, up to $4,000 a night. (Other gospel concert artists get up to $10,000; some so-called Jesus Festivals make as much as $200,000 profit. It becomes difficult to justify billing such events as Christian “ministries.”)

Green began to struggle with success, the financial “blessing” coming to artists “ministering the gospel.” He has consistently stood against what he calls “comfortable Christianity.” His songs tend to be harsh, at times condemning.

At the same time, he explains. “I don’t think there is anything wrong with a person who’s rich and happens to be a Christian; it’s people who get rich off Christianity.” He raises a significant issue: Is Christian music a ministry or entertainment? If ministry, should people have to pay to hear the gospel?

Green took the question further, posing it to people in every aspect of Christian media, sellers of Bibles, books, records, or anything containing the life-giving message of Jesus Christ. The answer for him was, No, people should not have to pay to hear the gospel. “When I realized my sin in charging people for something I had freely received, I was convicted,” he says. “I had my secretary call all the people I had bookings with and tell them I had sinned, and would come and play for nothing, or whatever they offered.”

He spoke up at the Fellowship of Contemporary Christian Ministries, before nearly every Christian musical group, and told them that ticket sales for concerts and fees for playing were not God’s will. Quipped Green. “It didn’t get me voted the most popular person there.” Then in March 1979 he concluded he was disobeying God’s will for him by expecting people to pay for his records—again because he felt the policy of pricing albums automatically excludes some people from being able to share what God gave to him freely. He began to make his albums available at his concerts for any amount.

This decision created two problems: conflicts with (1) other artists, and (2) commercial interests. By claiming it was not God’s will for him to charge, Green pretty well indicted everyone who did charge. Their response has hardly been joyous. John Styll, editor of Contemporary Christian Music magazine, wondered in a critical editorial if Green should not also give away stereos to those who don’t have equipment to play his records. Green said he would—not a $2,000 system—but he would buy a small unit if someone really had a need, and wanted to listen to his records. Others condemned Green for “biting the hand that feeds him.” Their rationale was simple: “It’s the very system he’s fighting that’s responsible for his fame, fortune, and credibility. The system is therefore not only above reproach, but something basically good.”

The other conflict arose because Green was under contract to Sparrow Records and he couldn’t give those albums away. He had no choice but to put together his own record company: Pretty Good Records (a division of Last Days Ministries).

Green claims a letter written by some early church fathers warns believers of false apostles and prophets: “This is how you will know if someone is a false apostle; if they ask for money, they are not of God.” While it is dangerous to build one’s convictions on an extra-biblical text, it is also dangerous to dismiss out-of-hand the issue of commercialism in Christian music ministries. Such commercialism is increasing. Several secular companies have come out with “Christian” labels—certainly not for the “ministry.” A lot of money is spent, and made, on Christian records and tapes. Lyrics often differ little from those of secular pop tunes, and one is hard pressed to tell the difference in album covers.

And yet, one cannot deny the valid ministries of artists like B. J. Thomas, the Boones, Larry Norman, Andraé Crouch, and others. Crouch’s view is opposite to Green’s; he is equally adamant in his right to expect payment for his work. “The workman is worthy of his wage,” he says, and few people complain about the high cost of tickets to his concerts. The same applies to B. J. Thomas and the others. All point out the high cost of travel, hotels, and equipment—not to mention time spent away from their families. The issue is: How much profit is too much? The answer emerges from the differing perspectives of the artists.

Keith Green thinks of himself primarily as a minister of the gospel who uses his music to communicate the good news of Jesus, and who has a serious commitment to being his disciple. Green and his family live with some 50 others at the Lindale, Texas, commune of Last Days Ministries. Many are converts from Green’s concerts who have come to be discipled. They share all things in common; some work on the Last Days Newsletter that publicizes Green’s new album. Each issue includes an order form, and readers have only to fill it out and send whatever they can to get a record.

The response has been unusually good. Some people have sent extra money to cover the cost for others. For Green, this proves that God will provide, without his reverting to the usual marketing techniques.

On the other hand, some other Christian musicians live in comfortable affluence, driving fine cars, wearing the latest styles, owning above average houses. They reason that by presenting Christ in settings that are appealing to the world, people will be drawn to him. Andraé Crouch expressed a similar thought on his Grammy-winning album, Live in London: “Someone once said, ‘Lord, build me a cabin in the corner of Gloria …’ I don’t even like cabins … ‘No,’ he said, ‘I’ve got a Mansion for you!… not made by hands.’ ” For others who consider themselves primarily entertainers, being well paid is only to be expected as part of God’s “blessings.”

The issue is much larger than performing for fees or free. It goes back to one’s theology, attitudes, and values—things that God judges by standards more severe than outward appearances.

RUSSELL CRONKHITE¹Mr. Cronkhite, a former Christian concert promoter and radio show producer in California, now lives in Florissant, Colorado, where he cooks and does free-lance writing at Christ Haven Lodge.