Edinburgh ’80: Ignored, Unslick Event Carried Seeds of Promise

The following story is based on a report from CHRISTIANITY TODAY editor-at-large J. D. Douglas and CT interviews.

Seventy years after the famous Edinburgh Missionary Conference, a World Consultation on Frontier Missions (WCFM) came last month to the Scottish capital. Originally billed as a “once-in-a-lifetime global gathering of all evangelical mission agencies,” the consultation subsequently was downgraded to “a preliminary or pilot gathering.” Called by an ad hoc Pasadena, California, convening committee, and strongly influenced by the independent U. S. Center for World Mission located there, the gathering was planned for 800 persons. Only about 250 participants appeared, plus 170 students who conducted their own parallel consultation.

The major sending agencies were disenchanted with the whole notion of yet another consultation this year (after the World Council of Church’s Commission on World Mission and Evangelism at Melbourne, Australia, and the Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization at Pattaya, Thailand). There was a point at which the convening committee had actually decided to postpone. But U.S. Center general director Ralph Winter, spurred on by his own sense of compelling urgency, overrode that decision.

Edinburgh ‘80’s arrangements suffered by comparison to its meticulously organized 1910 counterpart. The organization was haphazard, the timetable disorganized, and the accommodations spartan.

It would have been better to have waited until at least 1982 to have a fuller, more representative conference, one active participant judged. Some of the major mission boards would then have contributed. Yet, he acknowledged, pushing through the consultation may have benefitted the Third World since the proportional contribution of Third World agencies was higher than would have been the case later on. A delay might have brought further Third World participation, but a major presence of mission groups in the West would have lowered their influence.

More representatives of Third World agencies attended WCFM than this year’s other consultations. But claims to the contrary, they were not authorized to vote on behalf of their mission agencies or to commit them to particular programs.

About 170 mission agencies were listed as having staff at the consultation, the purpose of which was: “To promote a greater involvement of the world’s many evangelical Protestant mission agencies in the evangelization of the world’s ‘hidden people.’ ” This term referred to “those estimated 16,750 ‘people groups’ scattered throughout the world among which there is no church at present.”

David Bryant, Inter-Varsity missions specialist, observed that a lot of the design and thinking behind WCFM was Western. But he believed that thinking was appropriated and adapted by the 88 Third World representatives present. They began to conceive of what their mission might be in larger senses than they would have before. Many Third World agencies are less truly cross cultural than their counterparts from the North Atlantic nations. Those at Edinburgh made definite advances in that regard.

Part of the chaos was productive. Early in the process, after Winter gave an address in a morning plenary session, Sam Wilson of World Vision’s Missions Advanced Research and Communication (MARC), who had been made a kind of “implementation whip,” discerned a useful agenda within that message. He issued a call to set up task forces in the afternoons; a day later these superseded the study groups planned by the program committee. Both the unprogrammed task forces and an ad hoc evaluation committee, chaired by Wilson (which each night reviewed the program and modified it on the spot), produced creative ferment.

In one side benefit, the consultation provided access to a combined data bank. Roger Schrage of the William Carey Library suggested this project in a meeting of the convening committee. He and Wilson, assisted by George Cowan of Wycliffe Bible Translators and Alan Starling of Gospel Recordings, merged the indexes of the MARC unreached peoples data bank, the Wycliffe ethnologue file, and a Gospel Recordings file. The U.S. Center provided computer personnel and produced a microfiche look-up dictionary.

Many Third World agencies were calling for basic information on, and the location of, hidden peoples. The combined data bank furnished them a practical response, allowing them to look up information in any of the files by language, country, or group name.

During some hectic final sessions the participants agreed to proceed toward formation of an “International Catalyst Committee” to plan follow-up meetings by nation and region, to disseminate information, and to weigh the possibility of holding another world-level conference in five years.

In the parallel student consultation, some came with their own agenda of organizing a new kind of Student Volunteer Movement; others felt that to do so would alienate existing student organizations and cause them to resist the thrust of the consultation content.

Bryant said he was impressed with the way rousing debates were resolved, in every case, with unanimous support.

No continuing student committee was appointed. But Brad Gill of the U.S. Center was selected to serve in an untitled role as a catalyst. He is expected to gauge what happens over the next few years, perhaps opting for another international student consultation if grassroots movements begin to appear in other areas, as the European Missionary Association (TEMA) did in Europe during the seventies.

One participant, Columbia Bible College president J. Robertson McQuilkin, summed up his impressions of WCFM this way: “Edinburgh was born because the church at large seems blind to the terrible, overriding fact of the twentieth century that more than half of the world’s population cannot hear the gospel because of the church’s failure.” The focus chosen by Ralph Winter and his colleagues at Edinburgh—those in cultural isolation from Christian witness—is, he noted, less than the whole Great Commission mandate of the church, since it does not deal with factors about the unreached such as their responsiveness to the gospel and their geographical distance from the witnessing church. “But,” he concluded, “it is surely both the most important and most neglected responsibility of the church.”

The Society for Biblical Literature

Evangelical Inroads Trim Bible Forum’s Liberal Set

Conservative Bible scholars and their liberal counterparts found themselves agreeing on more than they thought they would during meetings of the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL) in Dallas last month. The unexpectedly friendly atmosphere led some participants to believe that the opposing camps could start to build bridges between them.

One of the events that set the tone was a panel discussion in which, according to many who attended, Clark Pinnock, a leading evangelical scholar, ably defended the cause of evangelicalism. He appeared on the panel with two well-known liberals, Paul Achtemeier of Union Theological Seminary (Richmond, Va.), and James Sanders of Claremont College. The SBL is dominated by liberals, many of whom, on the day following the panel, crowded into a meeting of conservative scholars, called the Evangelical Consultation. They heard Pinnock defend even the more conservative evangelical movements in a speech that surprised some of the conservatives.

“I feel super about the whole thing,” said Mark Branson of Inter-Varsity’s Theological Students Fellowship. “The fact that an evangelical had been in the middle of [the panel] and had been respected was something new.” Branson organized the Evangelical Consultation as a beachhead for conservative scholars who attend the yearly meetings of the American Academy of Religion (which meets jointly with the Society for Biblical Literature).

The Pinnock-Achtemeier-Sanders panel, sponsored by SBL, dealt with canon and inspiration. By SBL standards the meeting was packed, with about 300, in Branson’s estimate.

“Pinnock really had that group where he wanted them,” Branson said. “Clark had done his homework and he knew these two guys. So he knew what issues to take on. There was just a lot of good humor and good spirit while the issues were still being dealt with. It ended up that Achtemeier and Pinnock were closer than had been anticipated, so Sanders had a hard time simply through public pressure. He basically ended up stating his position in the most conservative ways possible, which is unusual for the SBL, where radical is in.”

According to Achtemeier, Pinnock was the first to throw rose petals when, in October, he wrote graciously about Achtemeier’s new book on inspiration. The book acknowledges the work of God in forming the canon, although it criticizes the evangelical view of inerrancy. Nonetheless, it faults those liberals who dismiss the notion of an inspired canon. Said Pinnock in his review: “I see [Achtemeier’s] proposal standing alongside such positions as Smart, Barth, Berkouwer, Thielicke, Orr and the like …”

Achtemeier returned the compliment in a phone interview: “Pinnock has been most cordial. I find nothing that he’s written that I can’t accept. He and I pretty much view the Bible in the same way, and apparently we have found that out, which means either he’s going to lose his credibility as a conservative or I’m going to lose mine as a liberal.”

Achtemeier may be in jeopardy, but Pinnock actually solidified himself with his more conservative brethren. “He came out smelling like a rose as far as I’m concerned,” said Harold Hoehner, a New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, the conservative evangelical bastion. According to Hoehner, “Pinnock said ‘don’t think those who are inerrantists are dummies …’ He came out on the side of the inerrantists. He gave a real passionate plea rather than a preachy pronouncement. That’s why people were willing to listen. I feel very comfortable, as an inerrantist, with him,” he concluded.

The day after his dialogue with Achtemeier and Sanders, Pinnock spoke to the Evangelical Consultation during a panel on the future of evangelicalism. He warned that evangelical scholars “who continue to push the limits to see what lies beyond them will become liberals themselves. After all,” he said, “where do you think liberals come from, storks?”

He called these people the “evangelicals with running shoes on” and from them, he said, “I see a watering down of evangelical convictions … which appears also in social issues like feminism and homosexuality, where the expectations of the circle we move in are very powerful, and make us wish to have the Scriptures agree with them, even though it is very hard.”

During his talk, Pinnock called the more conservative scholars “evangelicals with heavy boots.” These people are important, he said. “Even in [Harold] Lindsell, the battle techniques are atrocious and the power politics are often painful, but still the issue of the Bible teaching us reliably is crucial and vital. If you oppose him, and oppose that, you’ll never win … and I would root for him.” (Lindsell has written two combative books describing in detail how denominations and seminaries are sliding away from biblical authority, the first entitled The Battle for the Bible.)

In a phone interview, Pinnock summarized what he thinks happened at Dallas: “Essentially, the conservative position was highly respected. It was amazing … 10 years ago the SBL didn’t give a darn about inspiration and canon, they were too busy cutting up the text.”

The reason for the new interest in conservatism in SBL, he said, is that liberals recognize the vitality of evangelicalism, and they envy it. But also, Pinnock said the liberals look on the evangelical left “as proof that they’re eventually going to come around on their positions, so give them time. They [liberals] are encouraging liberalization.”

There was one other significant outcome. With the success of his Evangelical Consultation, Branson has so firmly established his conservative beachhead that he is preparing to move the troops inland. For the next five years, the consultation will be expanded into a “group,” which means that instead of one event on the sbl/aar program, he’ll have three sessions. That’s significant, because, as he puts it, “Our goal is to bring the best of evangelical scholarship into the middle of situations where it doesn’t normally exist.”

TOM MINNERY

Society for Pentecostal Studies

Faith Formula Fuels Charismatic Controversy

An explosive controversy has been building on the campus of Oral Roberts University (ORU) for several months over the “confession and possession” teaching of several charismatic-oriented evangelists. Leaders in the growing “faith formula theology” are Tulsa evangelist Kenneth Hagin and a coterie of other teachers, including Kenneth Copeland and Fred Price. The national center of the teaching is Hagin’s Rhema Bible Institute, which has an enrollment of some 5,000 students. It is located several miles down the highway from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa.

Seeds of the controversy were planted during recent chapel appearances at ORU by Copeland and Price. The issue is complicated by friendly contacts between oru president Oral Roberts and the faith teachers, who have made substantial financial contributions to the City of Faith, Roberts’s multimillion-dollar hospital nearing completion adjacent to the oru campus. Despite Roberts’s apparent relationship with Hagin (he has attended Hagin’s annual camp meetings, for instance), several ORU professors have taken strong exception to Hagin’s teachings.

The issue was raised at a meeting in November of the national Society for Pentecostal Studies on the Oral Roberts campus. ORU professor Charles Farah read a paper attacking the theology of the faith teachers to a standing-room-only audience of professors and students. Tracing the roots of the teaching to Charles Finney and E. W. Kenyon, Farah called the movement “Gnostic,” a version of “charismatic humanism” and in fact a “burgeoning heresy.” (Farah warns of the faith teachings in his book, From the Pinnacle of the Temple: Faith or Presumption? [CT, Nov. 7, p. 57]).

Joining Farah were ORU professors Howard Ervin and Robert G. Tuttle. The professors criticized the kind of “confession and possession” teaching in which adherents believe that if they publicly confess or claim something from God, they are assured of receiving it. They might request material goods, or physical healing; not to receive what was asked for means one lacks faith. Some faith teachers say they don’t really preach this message, and that they have been misunderstood. Opponents, however, say regardless of the teachers’ intent, this is the message that listeners are picking up.

In his address, Farah cited many case histories of persons who had been disillusioned by the teaching, although he admitted that faith-formula teaching is “without question the most attractive message being preached today or, for that matter, in the whole history of the church.”

Farah’s paper amounted to a veritable declaration of war on the faith-formula teaching. It will undoubtedly serve as a manifesto for those who oppose the Hagin-Copeland-Price teachings.

VINSON SYNAN

The Arab-Israeli Issue

The NCC Endorses Role for the PLO in Negotiations

The National Council of Churches spent thousands of dollars and countless hours over the past year drawing up a comprehensive policy statement on the Middle East. Last month, the NCC’s governing board formally adopted that statement, but the headaches involved left some observers wondering whether it merited so much effort.

Because the statement called for Israel’s acceptance of the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization in any peace negotiations, certain Jewish groups angrily denounced the NCC. Pro-Palestinians felt dissatisfied, since the NCC asked the PLO to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish, not just a sovereign, state.

To top things off, the Middle East debate drew lines between certain of the NCC’s 32 member bodies. At last month’s governing board meeting in New York, for instance, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese (most of whose 152,000 members are of Arabic descent) consistently lobbied for Palestinians’ rights, while the Episcopal church delegation voiced support for Israeli concerns.

The Antiochian body wanted to delete policy statement references to Israel’s right to continue as a Jewish state. Its proposed amendment received support from board members who generally favor strict separation of church and state. They felt such a designation would allow discrimination against Muslim and Christian minorities in Israel. The proposal lost by a narrow vote, and perhaps saved the council from even sharper criticism from representatives of various Jewish groups (some of whom had met privately with small groups of governing board members prior to last month’s meeting).

Representatives of the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee all opposed the policy statement as amounting to recognition of the PLO and an endorsement of terrorism. In fact, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the AJC’s interreligious affairs office told a reporter that Jewish groups might now choose to form closer ties with evangelical Christians who hold stronger support for Israel.

Interestingly, the governing board voted unanimously in favor of the policy statement—after a full day of debate on the issue.

Essentially, the statement asks that Israel and the Palestinians recognize each other’s right to exist. It seeks concessions from both sides in order to seek a just and lasting peace.

The council declared the PLO the only “organized voice” of the Palestinian people, and, as such, the only body able to negotiate in their behalf. On its part, the PLO must officially recognize Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state, or officially renounce its earlier statements seeking the destruction of Israel, the council said.

The policy statement, which also discusses interfaith and interchurch relationships in the Middle East, will be used by the NCC and its 32 member Protestant and Orthodox bodies as a basis for speaking to the government on Middle East issues.

JOHN MAUST

The Jehovah’s Witnesses

Departing Leaders Reveal Cracks in the Watchtower

Rene Vasquez worked as a Jehovah’s Witness missionary in Spain for seven years. When he returned to New York City, he became a leader in the group’s Spanish work at Bethel, its world headquarters in Brooklyn.

But suddenly last winter, 30-year-old member Vasquez and his wife were disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s), charged with apostasy. And the soft-spoken, personable Vasquez doesn’t understand exactly why.

“I was not going around getting people on my side,” he said. “I was simply rejoicing personally in certain points from my study of the Bible. I thought that within the Jehovah’s Witnesses any individual had the inherent right to draw personal conclusions and share them privately.”

Apparently he thought wrong, considering the departures of 12 to 15 workers—several of them top leaders—from Bethel headquarters over the past year. Some, like Vasquez, were disfellowshiped for apostasy, while others, perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, left voluntarily. These included:

• Raymond Franz, who resigned last summer as a member of this powerful governing body. He is the nephew of the Jehovah’s Witnesses 86-year-old president, Frederick Franz.

• Edward A. Dunlap, formerly head (for 12 years) of the jw’s missionary training school, the Gilead School of the Bible, who was disfellowshiped for apostasy. The school has sent out more than 6,000 missionaries since 1943.

Early news reports attributed the internal shuffling to “evangelical” Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe that all members—not just the select 144,000 “anointed class”—must be born again spiritually. However, there are no indications that there is an organized schismatic movement. Members’ independent study of the Bible apparently led them to question the authority of the hierarchy and some of its benchmark doctrines, and they remain at different points on the theological spectrum.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses headquarters would not reveal names or reasons for the disfellowshiping. A letter, stamped “The Watchtower Tract and Bible Society of New York,” explained this is an “internal religious matter.” (The group’s other major nonprofit corporations include the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the International Bible Students Association.)

In an interview at Brooklyn headquarters, spokesman Robert Balzer acknowledged that disfellowshipings did take place. He said this action sometimes is necessary, since allowing internal doctrinal disagreements leads to schisms and splits. An August article in the JW’s 8-million-circulation Watchtower magazine described what constitutes apostasy.

A significant number of Witnesses left after 1975, when the world didn’t end as the Watchtower had predicted. Researchers cite other jw predictions of the world’s end: in 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1941.

(The 144,000 places already were filled from among those living in 1914, says JW doctrine. Only 9,700 of this elect group remain alive today, and jw’s believe the end of time must come before all have died.)

The impact of the latest departures remains unclear. “I wouldn’t say a reformed movement is growing … but definitely something is happening,” said Duane Magnani, a converted Jehovah’s Witness who now heads a San Francisco—based research and evangelism ministry to Jehovah’s Witnesses, called Witness, Incorporated. “Now a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses are actually questioning the authority of the organization,” he said.

The 1980 Jehovah’s Witnesses yearbook lists roughly 2.1 million members worldwide in 205 countries; there are about 520,000 U.S. members. Some 2,000 fulltime workers (called “the Bethel family”) live at the Brooklyn headquarters, and from president to printers, all receive $25 per month plus room and board.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe theirs is the one true religion, and the Protestant and Catholic groups in “Christendom” are victims of false doctrine. The JW’s governing body and incorporated bodies are termed “theocratic instrumentalities” that are “divinely guided or ruled.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word. However, they rely on scriptural interpretations from the Watchtower and from the governing body. (Franz and the 15 other governing body members are appointed for life. They are regarded among God’s chosen 144,000 with the “heavenly calling,” who will rule with Christ in heaven. All others seek everlasting life on earth.)

Distinctive Jehovah’s Witness doctrines include: (1) there is no Trinity; (2) Jesus is a created being, inferior to the eternal, supreme God; (3) the human soul ceases to exist at physical death; (4) the Holy Spirit is an impersonal being; (5) hell does not exist. The JW’s are well known for their refusal to accept blood transfusions or government service and for their emphasis on works as essential.

They generally use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, completed in 1961 by a small Jehovah’s Witness translation committee that included President Franz. A number of researchers charge that except for Franz, none of the other translators knew Greek or Hebrew, and Franz’s language ability is questionable.

Ex-members frequently cite dishonesty in scholarship as their reason for leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Researcher and ex-Witness Duane Magnani believes the best way to confront Witnesses is with contradictions in their own literature, “which prove to them the organization cannot possibly be their authority.”

At the second national convention last month of a group called Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses for Jesus, Greek and Hebrew scholars challenged passages in the New World Translation that undercut the deity of Christ. John 1:1 in the New World Translation, for instance, reads “the Word was a god,” rather than “the Word was God,” as in other translations. The New World Bible has Christ saying in John 8:58, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been,” rather than “Before Abraham was, I am”—the way other scholars say God described himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Bill Cetnar, a converted JW and a stockbroker from Kunkletown, Pennsylvania, started the fledgling group. Organizers see its value in terms of building mutual support. Disfellowshiped Witnesses are to be regarded by members as dead, even by their own families; many suffer emotional problems as a result. And since Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that “Christendom” is false religion, they often fear joining a church after they leave.

Former governing body member Raymond Franz declined comment on his resignation—probably due to the sensitivities of still being a Jehovah’s Witness member. Former jw educator Dunlap said he holds no animosity toward Bethel, and of his disfellowshiping says only that “I feel like the others … I want to study on my own.” Regarding the scriptural experiments of ex-members, Witnesses spokesman Balzer said, “The Bible says Scripture is not for private interpretation.”

Meanwhile, the recently disfellowshiped prefer to be left alone to sort things out. Vazquez, whose travel and sales business suffered since Witnesses consider those disfellowshiped as nonexistent, complains that Witnesses circulated false rumors that he’s formed his own church. He says his worship now is limited to Bible study with his family. Yet he speaks warmly of what he is learning there about the salvation message and the “great dignity of Jesus.”

JOHN MAUST

World Scene

Pope John Paul II’s visit to West Germany got off to a bad start. A booklet distributed by the Bishop’s Conference in advance of his mid-November arrival described Martin Luther as one who “brought no reform, but only schism in the church” and charged that his polemic attitude “blinded him to Catholic truth.” Protestant leaders felt slighted since little time was scheduled for them to meet with the Pope. John Paul worked at reversing the damage. He held a private discussion with Protestant churchmen in Mainz, and stated that “all have sinned” in referring to the widespread sale of pardons by the Roman Catholic church that so enraged Luther. Also, music by Protestant composers Johann Sebastian Bach and Paul Gerhardt was used in the Masses he celebrated.

One hundred churches in South Vietnam have been closed since the Communist takeover or are being used for other purposes. That is what the Christian and Missionary Alliance reports in the Alliance Witness, based on firsthand information, about the fate of its 490 churches in existence there in 1975. Approximately 50 Vietnamese pastors have been sent to reeducation camps; none have been permitted to move from where they were five years ago. The tribal church in the mountain highlands has been almost totally destroyed, at least in an organizational sense. In spite of all this, some churches are experiencing growth. The principal church in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) reported 1,000 conversion decisions during 1979.

The World Council of Churches for the first time has publicly criticized the Soviet Union over human rights. In a letter made public October 30 but written earlier, and addressed to Metropolitan Juvenaly, head of the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Konrad Raiser, acting wcc general secretary, says the council is “disturbed by the coincidence of a number of cases involving Christian believers” on trial in the USSR, and that it finds the sentences already pronounced “disproportionate with the seriousness of the crimes which have allegedly been committed.” Critics have frequently complained of imbalance in the ecumenical organization’s human-rights concerns. But the wcc has until now taken the position that to criticize Soviet policies publicly would pose problems for Soviet churches.

The World Evangelical Fellowship is taking a fresh and careful look at Roman Catholicism after member fellowships in Italy, Spain, and Brazil protested in varying degrees a Catholic presence at the wef general assembly last March. The wef Theological Commission will consider basic issues in contemporary Catholic theology and practice and prepare an evangelical statement on them. The commission’s executive committee agreed at an October meeting at Amerongen, Netherlands, to establish a task force for this purpose, to be chaired by Pablo Perez of Mexico. Evangelicals, said a commission spokesman, need to understand these issues clearly prior to any conversations with Roman Catholics.

HCJB Reaches Its 50-year Milestone

Missionary Radio Station Hasn’t Stopped Pioneering

Clarence Jones and Reuben Larson gave birth to missionary radio under humble circumstances in Quito, Ecuador, on Christmas Day, 1931. Aided by several other missionaries in a living room fashioned into a studio, they broadcast an hour of inspirational messages in Spanish and English, along with hymns backed up by a pump organ and trombone. The program beamed from a 200-watt transmitter in a converted sheep shed, and was picked up by the handful of primitive radios then in the country.

Since then, their radio station HCJB—“Heralding Christ Jesus’ Blessings”—has grown to become the streamlined grandfather of short-wave gospel broadcasting. As it enters its fiftieth year, HCJB now airs programs in 14 languages, has an annual budget of $6 million, and carries a multidenominational staff of 225 missionaries from 20 different countries, and 280 Ecuadorian employees. Each day, HCJB transmits more than 70 program hours, and many of its programs are heard worldwide.

HCJB—also called Vozandes, “The Voice of the Andes”—has maintained a pioneering spirit during its first half century. The station and its parent organization, World Radio Missionary Fellowship, point to completion of several major projects.

• HCJB engineers spent five years constructing in Elkhart, Indiana, a new 500,000-watt transmitter, which will become missionary radio’s most powerful short-wave unit. Currently, the unit is being tested at HCJB’s transmitter-antennae site 15 miles east of Quito, and figures to be in operation by early next year.

• Work began last January on a $2 million hydroelectric plant 40 miles east of Quito. Scheduled for completion in 1983, the new plant will generate 4 million watts of power. The facility is being constructed alongside HCJB’s 15-year-old, 1.8-million watt hydro plant, which is too small to power the new transmitter, plus the 10 other transmitters currently on the air, including three 100,000-watt units and two 50,000-watt units.

• A “steerable antenna,” under development since 1976, will be used in conjunction with the new transmitter. It presently allows a transmitter’s power to be focused into a narrower beam to reach a target area. Another feature, planned for completion in 1982, involves placing part of the antenna structure on railroad-like tracks to direct it toward different continents. Overall, the steerable antenna will entail eight towers, the tallest of which is 417 feet, and 18 miles of reflective wire fashioned into a massive, weblike screen.

“The combination of the 500,000-watt transmitter and the steerable antenna, backed up by hydroelectric power, gives great promise for the future,” said Abe Van Der Puy, who retires next September as wrmf’s second president. In 1962 he succeeded cofounder/president Clarence Jones, and has been with the mission 35 years.

Over the years, HCJB occasionally has drawn criticism as isolating itself as a “missionary compound” in the middle of Quito, a city of 800,000 located on a plateau 9,200 feet above sea level. Many of the HCJB staff live on or near the two-acre property with its nine studios, where 70 percent of HCJB’s programs are produced.

Nevertheless, HCJB’s multifaceted programs have earned it the increasing respect of Quito residents and national officials. In 1955, HCJB opened the 50-bed Hospital Vozandes in Quito, where patients include government leaders, penniless Indians, and missionaries. Three years later, HCJB opened the 28-bed Epp Memorial Hospital in Shell, the first hospital in the jungle that covers about half of the nation.

Both hospitals are known for quality care. When Ecuador’s minister of finance was shot in a murder attempt last year, he demanded to be taken to Hospital Vozandes.

Through its varied medical outreach, HCJB opens spiritual doors. Each week 15 to 20 patients at Hospital Vozandes ask for contact with a pastor or chaplain; at Shell, “three to seven patients every month come to know the Lord, maybe more,” one missionary physician said.

(Because of an increasing case load caused by more settlers move to the jungle areas, the Shell facilities became overcrowded. The organization hopes to begin construction there next year of a $1 million, 45-bed hospital, and has applied for 80 percent funding through the Swedish International Development Agency.)

Recently, the HCJB hospitals formed an important tie with the Catholic University of Cuenca, which is one of six medical schools in Ecuador. About one-third of the 30 graduates from the university’s new medical school spend all or at least a portion of their internship with WRMF.

HCJB also led in formation of a community health care program, in which personnel of several U.S.-based mission agencies participate. Organizers so far have trained 133 volunteers in 93 Indian villages, encompassing 70,000 people. They provide instruction in basic hygiene, first aid, nutrition, and in obtaining government health services for their communities.

HCJB operates several other support ministries. Its Bible Institute of the Air handles about 300 letters per month from students in 40 countries taking one of its 19 Bible correspondence courses. HCJB also produces a variety of religious television programs for use throughout Latin America. It began Ecuador’s first TV station in 1969. and in 1972 turned it over to a group of Quito businessmen.

Still, HCJB’s primary focus is short-wave radio broadcasting. Spanish, English, and 17 dialects of Quichua (the ancient tongue of the Incas), take up its largest blocks of air time. HCJB is the primary gospel broadcaster to the 10 to 15 million Quichuas, whose language is the fourth most predominant in the Americas. Russian-language broadcasts are another noteworthy HCJB outreach; in 1941 the organization became the first to direct gospel programs to the Soviet Union.

Highlights of HCJB’s fiftieth anniversary celebration include: Tyndale House releases of a biography of Clarence Jones and three other HCJB works, the Ecuadorian government’s release of three different commemorative postal stamps, a Christmas radio musical, and a 65-part radio series on the mission’s history.

Whether HCJB stays around another 50 years may depend on its relationship with the Ecuadorian government. Now, relations remain cordial. In 1975, HCJB got a new government contract for its radio operations through the year 2000, with a renewed provision for importing the mission’s equipment duty-free. It maintains a policy of strict political neutrality—often important for weathering Ecuador’s sometimes unexpected, sometimes violent, governmental changes.

HCJB officials figure their programs serve as a supplement to pastors’ teaching, and reach into many remote areas where there are no churches. The station also provides vital information for believers in countries lacking religious freedom. In many rural areas, HCJB has opened doors for evangelical work, with its positive programming contrasting with antievangelical accusations and rumors.

Letters indicate HCJB’s wide hearing: a total of 88,000 letters in 1979 from 134 countries. And responding to listeners’ spiritual questions occupies a central role in HCJB’s ministry: “Without that, we’re just broadcasting the gospel and not doing anything about it,” said one missionary.

ART TOALSTON

The Religious Right: How Much Credit Can It Take for Electoral Landslide?

Hard to say, but moral issues will get more attention.

Ronald Reagan’s election day sweep raised the hopes of many evangelical Christians for a more conservative, moral course for the country. While Reagan does intend to chart that course, the most immediate impact will come not from the White House but from Congress, thanks to the startling capture of the Senate by the Republicans, the defeat of influential liberal Democrats, and the swerve to conservatism in the House.

Some Christian lobbyists already predict that a bill granting income tax credits for private school tuition will now have the votes to pass, as will a bill taking jurisdiction over prayer in public schools out of the hands of unfriendly federal courts. Somewhat less certain are the odds for the long-stalled antiabortion amendment to the Constitution. The November 4 election brought in a majority of prolife senators and congressmen, but a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in each house to pass, before it can be sent to the President for his signature and then on to the states, where 38 legislatures must ratify it. “Clearly, we don’t have two-thirds of the Senate now,” said Paul Weyrich, a Washington-wise lobbyist for conservative and religious causes.

The Reagan floodtide will likely bring many forward for a share of the credit. Jerry Falwell, for one, seems to have gotten the moral majority for which he had been clamoring, but the fact is, Reagan’s electoral mandate was so overwhelming that whatever credit Falwell and other Christian moralists should get must be seen in the light of other political realities. Pollster Lou Harris, who most accurately forecast the Reagan victory, attributed it much more to a broad repudiation of the Carter policies than to any call to arms by the Christian fundamentalists. “Right-wing conservatives would be mistaken to see [the election] as a mandate for Reagan’s social policies,” Harris said. That accords with the August Gallup Poll, which found that most evangelicals’ views on most of the issues are about the same as everyone else’s.

Weyrich, a devout Eastern rite Catholic who heads the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, believes the Christian influence will have to make itself felt on Capitol Hill, since it can justify no easily defined claim on Reagan’s victory.

The new Congress, when it is seated in January, will mark the start of an exciting two years for Christian lobbyists. The school prayer bill, for example, is now languishing in a House subcommittee so hostile that not one member has voted for it. A discharge petition, to spring the bill out of the clutches of the subcommittee, requires the signatures of 218 congressmen, but it stalled out with 184 votes, 34 short. On November 4 the Republicans picked up 33 new seats. Most of the newcomers, with the prodding of a friendly Reagan administration, are likely to sign on, as are some of the current holdouts. Besides that, Rep. Philip Crane (R-Ill.), who organized the petition drive, won’t be away from Washington campaigning for president as he was last year.

President-elect Reagan is strongly committed to tuition tax credits, which passed the House but failed in the Senate. Weyrich said most of the newly elected senators believe in it and he thinks it might well succeed now. (Not all Christians believe that officially sanctioned prayer in public schools is a good idea, and those differences will hamper that bill.)

The strength of the conservative tide made it hard to tell just how successful were the efforts of Christians, who for the first time were working at the grassroots across the country for a variety of congressional candidates. In relatively few places did the results of their work seem clear.

Former Vietnam row Jeremiah Denton, for example, upset Jim Folsom for an Alabama Senate seat, to become the first Republican senator from Alabama in 100 years and the first Catholic ever. Moral Majority worked hard in this election, and Denton was clearly aligned with the religious right.

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) beat Carey Peck, son of the actor, by a comfortable five percentage points, even though he was the number one target of the proabortion lobby, and even though Peck came within a hair of unseating Dornan two years ago, before the proabortionists launched their attack on him. Dornan is an outspoken opponent of abortion, and antiabortionists battled hard on his behalf.

Sen. Thomas Eagleton, a Missouri Democrat, survived, even though the state went decisively for Reagan and a Republican beat the Democratic governor. Prolifers worked hard for him because of his antiabortion stance. They basked in the victory because Eagleton was targeted for defeat by the most prominent of the nonreligious conservative lobbies, and they believed their efforts might have made the difference.

The prolifers don’t identify with the general sweep of the religious right; they are interested only in the abortion issue. Douglas Badger, legislative director of the prolife Christian Action Council, said his group didn’t necessarily want to see so many of the liberal senators defeated, but they had to oppose the likes of George McGovern and Birch Bayh because they were proabortion. “The Democrats can withstand the right-wing tide,” Badger said. “We hope they will quit aligning themselves with the one issue (abortion) that can only lose elections for them. As long as they do, they will continue to lose good incumbents.”

The defeat of George McGovern in South Dakota was one of those races in which it was difficult to tell just what happened, since so many conservative organizations ganged up on him. Paul Brown, head of the Life Amendment Political Action committee, lays claim to giving McGovern his first bloody nose, however, by working against him in the primary before the other groups got so involved. McGovern’s primary opponent won a respectable 38 percent.

Brown believes the prolifers were able to sway between 5 and 8 percent of the vote in many of the races in which abortion was an issue. That accords with the results of exit polling done by ABC News, which found that 8 percent of its sample voted on the basis of the abortion issue only. That means abortion is probably less significant among voters than the headlines generated by the battle seemed to indicate.

Other results from the ABC poll showed that 17 percent fewer white Protestants voted for Carter this time than in 1976. That is a significant shift to Reagan, according to voting analyst Al Menendez, and it accounts for Reagan’s victory in the South and border states, traditional Democratic strongholds. Among his own Southern Baptist brethren, the swing away from Carter was just as great. Among Catholics, Reagan won 47 percent of the vote and Carter 42 percent, only the second time in modern history that a plurality of Catholics voted Republican, according to Menendez. The first time was in the 1972 Nixon landslide against McGovern.

Among Jews, Carter barely carried a plurality, 41 percent, against 37 percent for Reagan (21 percent for Anderson). In New York State, however, the figures were reversed. Reagan won 42 percent and Carter 37 percent. According to Menendez, that was the surprise that allowed Reagan to carry New York, traditionally a Democratic state. An indication of the strong conservative trend was the fact that the winning Senate candidate in New York, Alphonse D’Amato, a Republican Catholic, won 25 percent of the Jewish vote against two Jewish candidates, incumbent Jacob Javits and Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman.

One indication of a trend to moralism was the defeat of five of the six congressmen indicted in the FBI’s Abscam probe, as well as the loss by Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.), who was arrested earlier this fall on a homosexual charge.

Voters haven’t always been so quick to boot out their congressmen just for corruption. Just before the 1978 election, Rep. Charles Diggs of Detroit was convicted on 29 felony counts for diverting staff salaries to pay personal debts, yet he was reelected with an 80 percent majority. Daniel Flood, a Pennsylvania congressman, was also reelected in 1978 after being indicted twice, once in September and once in October, on a total of 13 counts of bribery, conspiracy, and lying.

It is perhaps ironic that Bauman lost. He is a thorough conservative and a skillful legislator widely admired in the House for his ability to confound the liberal Democratic Speaker, Thomas O’Neill. Without his parliamentary skill, the eager crowd of House conservatives will have a harder time advancing the concerns that voters spoke so clearly about on election day.

Religious Affiliations of 97th Congress

Congress’s New Complexion

The Ninety-seventh Congress will only not be more conservative but also more Catholic than its predecessor, according to analyses of last month’s elections.

Roughly 17 percent of the seats in both houses gained new occupants, and Roman Catholics accounted for more than one-third of them—26 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate, according to CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s biennial religious census of Congress. Altogether, there will be 136 Catholics in the new Congress, an increase of 7 over the 1978 elections—and a new all-time high.

Jewish candidates captured 7 of the House seats and 2 of the Senate seats that changed hands, bringing their number in the Ninety-seventh Congress to 32, an increase of 2 over 1978, and similarly, a new record.

United Methodists account for 11 of the new faces in the House and 6 in the Senate. But overall there are fewer of them (72) in the new Congress than in 1978 (75), continuing a decline that began in 1976. House whip John Brademas (D-Ind.), the United Methodist representative on the World Council of Churches Central Committee, lost reelection.

Jimmy Carter’s fellow Baptists took it on the chin, registering a net loss of 3 from their 1978 showing of 58. Of the newcomers, 8 in the House and 2 in the Senate are Baptists.

Lutherans stand at 19, a net loss of 1 since 1978.

Episcopal, Mormon, Churches of Christ, and United Church of Christ listings all show a gain of one since 1978. Eastern Orthodox, Disciples, and Christian Science totals remain the same as in 1978.

The big losers this time were the Unitarian-Universalists, who lost one-fourth of their 1978 delegation of 12, and the Presbyterians, who suffered a loss of 5 since 1978, when they numbered 60.

(Because of the difficulties encountered in trying to pinpoint the exact Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran denominations cited in affiliations, these groups have been listed generically in the census. This year’s census was compiled by Washington correspondent Edward E. Plowman and his wife Rose.)

Black Baptist pastors Walter Fauntroy of Washington, D.C., and William H. Gray III of Philadelphia, both Democrats, easily reclaimed their House seats. Another ordained incumbent Democrat in the House, United Methodist Robert W. Edgar of Pennsylvania, was also reelected.

In obedience to a Vatican directive restricting clergy involvement in politics, Democrat Robert Drinan of Massachusetts, a Catholic priest, did not seek reelection to his House seat. (Drinan’s seat was taken by Jewish proabortionist Barney Frank, whom Drinan endorsed but whose candidacy was indirectly opposed by Cardinal Humberto Madeiros of Boston.)

Considerably More Catholic

Southern Baptist clergyman John Buchanan, an eight-term Republican representative from Alabama, was eliminated in the primary election by Southern Baptist layman Albert Smith, Jr., who went on to defeat his Democratic opponent. Smith was backed vigorously by television preacher Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority organization.

The only ordained minister in the Senate is Republican John Danforth of Missouri, an Episcopalian whose seat was not up for election this year. With him in the Senate is Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, who lists himself as a United Methodist lay minister. His seat was not up for grabs, either.

All of the women who ran for Congress won, including Paula Hawkins, a Mormon Republican who will represent Florida in the Senate. She campaigned on an antifeminist, profamily platform.

In the census, which follows, senators are listed first in boldface, then House members:

Baptist (55)

Byrd (D-W.Va.)

Cochran (R-Miss.)

Ford (D-Ky.)

Grassley (R-Iowa)

Hatfield (R-Ore.)

Helms (R-N.C.)

Humphrey (R-N.H.)

Johnston (R-La.)

Thurmond (R-S.C.)

Andrews (D-N.C.)

Ashbrook (R-Ohio)

Bailey (R-Mo.)

Barnard (D-Ga.)

Bevill (D-Ala.)

Bowen (D-Miss.)

Brinkley (D-Ga.)

Broyhill (R-N.C.)

Collins (D-Ill.)

Collins (R-Tex.)

Conyers (D-Mich.)

Crockett (D-Mich.)

Daniel, D. (D-Va.)

Deckard (R-Ind.)

Fauntroy (D-D.C.)

Fields (R.-Tex.)

Ford (D-Tenn.)

Gephardt (D-Mo.)

Gingrich (R-Ga.)

Ginn (D-Ga.)

Gore (D-Tenn.)

Gray (D-Pa.)

Hance (D-Tex.)

Hefner (D-N.C.)

Hightower (D-Tex.)

Hinson (R-Miss.)

Hubbard (D-Ky.)

Hunter (R-Calif.)

Hutto (D-Fla.)

Jenkins (D-Ga.)

Jones (D-N.C.)

Long (D-La.)

Lott (R-Miss.)

Lowry (D-Wash.)

Mattox (D-Tex.)

Mollohan (D-W.Va.)

Natcher (D-Ky.)

Pepper (D-Fla.)

Perkins (D-Ky.)

Rogers (R-Ky.)

Savage (D-Ill.)

Smith (R-Ore.)

Smith (R-Ala.)

Thomas (R-Calif.)

Weber (R-Ohio)

Whitley (D-N.C.)

Christian Church

(Disciples) (6)

Bafalis (R-Fla.)

Bennett (D-Fla.)

Evans (D-Ga.)

Skelton (D-Mo.)

Whittaker (R-Kans.)

Winn (R-Kans.)

Christian Science (3)

Percy (R-Ill.)

McClory (R-Ill.)

Rousselot (R-Calif.)

Churches of Christ (6)

Bouquard (D-Tenn.)

Hippo (D-Ala.)

Hall, S. (D-Tex.)

Latta (R-Ohio)

McEwen (R-Ohio)

Williams (R-Ohio)

Eastern Orthodox (5)

Sarbanes (D-Md.)

Tsongas (D-Mass.)

Mavroules (D-Mass.)

Snowe (R-Maine)

Yatron (D-Pa.)

Episcopal (72)

Andrews (R-N.D.)

Byrd (I-Va.)

Chafee (R-R.I.)

Danforth (R-Mo.)

Exon (D-Neb.)

Goldwater (R-Ariz.)

Gorton (R-Wash.)

Heinz (R-Pa.)

Kassebaum (R-Kans.)

Kasten (R-Wisc.)

Mathias (R-Md.)

Mattingly (D-Ga.)

Matsunaga (D-Hawaii)

Pell (D-R.I.)

Proxmire (D-Wis.)

Roth (R-Del.)

Simpson (R-Wyo.)

Stevens (R-Alaska)

Wallop (R-Wyo.)

Warner (R-Va.)

Weicker (R-Conn.)

Alexander (D-Ark.)

Anderson (D-Calif.)

Anthony (D-Ark.)

Aspin (D-Wis.)

Benedict (R-W.Va.)

Bolling (D-Mo.)

Butler (R-Pa.)

Byron (D-Md.)

Campbell (R-S.C.)

Carman (R-N.Y.)

Coughlin (R-Pa.)

Daniel, R. (R-Va.)

Davis (R-Mich.)

Derrick (D-S.C.)

Dixon (D-Calif.)

Dunn (R-Mich.)

Edwards (R-Okla.)

Evans (R-Del.)

Fazio (D-Calif.)

Fish (R-N.Y.)

Goldwater, Jr. (R-Calif.)

Gramm (D-Tex.)

Hatcher (D-Ga.)

Hendon (R-N.C.)

Hughes (D-N J.)

Ireland (D-Fla.)

Leach (R-Iowa)

Leboutillier (R-N.Y.)

Livingston (R-La.)

McCullen (R-Fla.)

McKinney (R-Conn.)

Mitchell (D-Md.)

Montgomery (D-Miss.)

Moore (R-La.)

Myers (R-Ind.)

Neal (D-N.C.)

Nelson (D-Fla.)

Parris (R-Va.)

Paul (R.-Tex.)

Peyser (D-N.Y.)

Regula (R-Ohio)

Reuss (D-Wis.)

Sawyer (R-Mich.)

Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)

Synar (D-Okla.)

Traxler (D-Mich.)

Trible (R-Va.)

White (D-Tex.)

Wirth (D-Colo.)

Young (R-Alaska)

Zeferetti (D-N.Y.)

Latter Day Saints (11)

Cannon (D-Nev.)

Garn (R-Utah)

Hatch (R-Utah)

Hawkins (R-Fla.)

Burgener (R-Calif.)

Hansen, J. (R-Utah)

Hansen, G. (R-Idaho)

Heftel (D-Hawaii)

Marriott (R-Utah)

Shumway (R-Calif.)

Udall (D-Ariz.)

Lutheran (20)

Armstrong (R-Colo.)

Jepsen (R-Iowa)

Badham (R-Calif.)

Bereuter (R-Neb.)

Clausen (R-Calif.)

Dannemeyer (R-Calif.)

Dicks (D-Wash.)

Erdahl (R-Minn.)

Ertel (D-Pa.)

Gunderson (R-Wisc.)

Hagedorn (R-Minn.)

Loeffler (R-Tex.)

Marlenee (R-Mont.)

McCurdy (D-Okla.)

Sabo (D-Minn.)

Simon (D-Ill.)

Snyder (R-Ky.)

Spence (R-S.C.)

Stangeland (R-Minn.)

Stenholm (D-Tex.)

Jewish (32)

Boschwitz (R-Minn.)

Levin (D-Mich.)

Metzenbaum (D-Ohio)

Rudman (R-N.H.)

Specter (R-Pa.)

Zorinsky (D-Neb.)

Beilenson (D-Cairf.)

Fielder (R-Calif.)

Frank (D-Mass.)

Frost (D-Tex.)

Gejdenson (D-Conn.)

Gilman (R-N.Y.)

Glickman (D-Kans.)

Green (R-N.Y.)

Gradlson (R-Ohio)

Kramer (R-Colo.)

Lantos (D-Calif.)

Lehman (D-Fla.)

Levitas (D-Ga.)

Marks (R-Pa.)

Ottinger (D-N.Y.)

Richmond (D-N.Y.)

Scheuer (D-N.Y.)

Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Shamansky (D-Ohio)

Solarz (D-N.Y.)

Spellman (D-Md.)

Waxman (D-Calif.)

Weiss (D-N.Y.)

Wolpe (D-Mich.)

Wyden (D-Ore.)

Yates (D-Ill.)

Presbyterian (55)

Baker (R-Tenn.)

Bentsen (D-Tex.)

Chiles (D-Fla.)

Dixon (D-Ill.)

Glenn (D-Ohio)

Jackson (D-Wash.)

Pryor (D-Ark.)

Stennis (D-Miss.)

Williams (D-N.J.)

Applegate (D-Ohio)

Broomfield (R-Mich.)

Brown (R-Ohio)

Clinger (R-Pa.)

Coyne, J. (R-Pa.)

Daub (R-Tenn.)

Duncan (R-Tenn.)

Edwards (R-Ala.)

Emerson (R-Mo.)

Fountain (D-N.C.)

Fowler (D-Ga.)

Fuqua (D-Fla.)

Gibbons (D-Fla.)

Hall (D-Ohio)

Hammerschmidt (R-Ark.)

Hillis (R-Ind.)

Holt (R-Md.)

Horton (R-N.Y.)

Jeffries (R-Kans.)

Jones (D-Tenn.)

Kemp (R-N.Y.)

Kindness (R-Ohio)

Leath (D-Tex.)

Lewis (R-Calif.)

Long (D-Md.)

Martin (R-N.C.)

Matsui (D-Calif.)

McCloskey (R-Calif.)

Moorehead (R-Calif.)

Napier (R-S.C.)

Porter (R-Ill.)

Pritchard (R-Wash.)

Rahall (D-W.Va.)

Rose (D-N.C.)

Schulze (R-Pa.)

Seiberling (D-Ohio)

Selby (D-Ala.)

Solomon (R-N.Y.)

Stratton (D-N.Y.)

Vander Jagt (R-Mich.)

Walker (R-Pa.)

Wampler (R-Va.)

Watkins (D-Okla.)

Whitten (D-Miss.)

Wolfe (R-Va.)

Wright (D-Tex.)

Roman Catholic (136)

Biden (D-Del.)

D’Amato (R-N.Y.)

Denton (R-Ala.)

Dodd (D-Conn.)

Domenici (R-N.M.)

DeConcini (D-Ariz.)

Durenberger (R-Minn.)

Eagleton (D-Mo.)

Kennedy (D-Mass.)

Laxalt (R-Nev.)

Leahy (D-Vt.)

Melcher (D-Mont.)

Mitchell (D-Maine)

Moynihan (D-N.Y.)

Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Nickles (R-Okla.)

Pressler (R-S.D.)

Addabbo (D-N.Y.)

Albosta (D-Mich.)

Annunzio (D-Ill.)

Archer (R-Tex.)

Atkinson (D-Pa.)

Biaggi (D-N.Y.)

Bliley (R-Va.)

Boggs (D-La.)

Boland (D-Mass.)

Bonior (D-Mich.)

Breaux (D-La.)

Brodhead (D-Mich.)

Carney (R-N.Y.)

Chappie (R-Calif.)

Clay (D-Mo.)

Corcoran (R-Ill.)

Coelho (D-Calif.)

Conte (R-Mass.)

Cotter (D-Conn.)

Coyne, W. (D-Pa.)

D’Amours (D-N.H.)

Daschle (D-S.D.)

De la Garza (D-Tex.)

DeNardis (R-Conn.)

Derwinski (R-Ill.)

Dingell (D-Mich.)

Donnelly (D-Mass.)

Doman (R-Calif.)

Dougherty (R-Pa.)

Dwyer (D-N.J.)

Dyson (D-Md.)

Early (D-Mass.)

Eckart (D-Ohio)

Erlenborn (R-Ill.)

Evans (D-Ind.)

Fary (D-Ill.)

Ferraro (D-N.Y.)

Florio (D-N.J.)

Foglietta (I-Pa.)

Foley (D-Wash.)

Gaydos (D-Pa.)

Gonzalez (D-Tex.)

Guarini (D-N.J.)

Harkin (D-Iowa)

Harnett (R-S.C.)

Heckler (R-Mass.)

Hertel (D-Mich.)

Hiler (R-Ind.)

Hollenbeck (R-N.J.)

Howard (D-N.J.)

Hyde (R-Ill.)

Jacobs (D-Ind.)

Jones (D-Okla.)

Kazen (D-Tex.)

Kildee (D-Mich.)

Kogovsek (D-Colo.)

LaFalce (D-N.Y.)

Lagomarsino (R-Calif.)

Lederer (D-Pa.)

Leland (D-Tex.)

Lowery (R-Calif.)

Luken (D-Ohio)

Lungren (R-Calif.)

Lujan (R-N.M.)

Madigan (R-Ill.)

Markey (D-Mass.)

Martin (R-N.Y.)

Martin (R-Ill.)

Mazzoli (D-Ky.)

McDade (R-Pa.)

McGrath (R-N.Y.)

McHugh (D-N.Y.)

Mica (D-Fla.)

Mikulski (D-Md.)

Miller (D-Calif.)

Minish (D-N.J.)

Moakley (D-Mass.)

Moffett (D-Conn.)

Molinari (R-N.Y.)

Motti (D-Ohio)

Murphy (D-Pa.)

Murtha (D-Pa.)

Nelligan (R-Pa.)

Nowack (D-N.Y.)

Oaker (D-Ohio)

Oberstar (D-Minn.)

Obey (D-Wis.)

O’Brien (R-Ill.)

O’Neill (D-Mass.)

Panetta (D-Calif.)

Price (D-Ill.)

Rangel (D-N.Y.)

Rinaldo (R-N J.)

Rodino (D-N.J.)

Roe (D-N.J.)

Rosenthal (D-N.Y.)

Rostenkowski (D-III.)

Roth (D-Wisc.)

Roybal (D-Calif.)

Rudd (R-Ariz.)

Russo (D-III.)

Santini (D-Nev.)

Schneider (R-R.I.)

Shannon (D-Mass.)

Shaw (R-Fla.)

Skeen (I-N.M.)

Smith (R-N.J.)

Stanton (R-Ohio)

St. Germain (D-R.I.)

Tauke (R-Iowa)

Tauzin (D-La.)

Vento (D-Minn.)

Volkmer (D-Mo.)

Walgren (D-Pa.)

Weber (R-Minn.)

Williams (D-Mont.)

Wortley (R-N.Y.)

Young (D-Mo.)

Zablocki (D-Wisc.)

Unitarian-Universalist (9)

Cohen (R-Maine)

Packwood (R-Oreg.)

Blanchard (D-Mich.)

Burton, J. (D-Calif.)

Burton, P. (D-Calif.)

Edwards (D-Calif.)

Ratchford (D-Conn.)

Ritter (R-Pa.)

Stark (D-Calif.)

United Church of Christ (16) (Includes Congregational)

Baucus (D-Mont.)

Burdick (D-N.D.)

Stafford (R-Vt.)

Akaka (D-Hawaii)

Bingham (D-N.Y.)

Brown (R-Colo.)

Downey (D-N.Y.)

Emery (R-Maine)

Findley (R-Ill.)

Ford (D-Mich.)

Gregg (R-N.H.)

Jeffords (R-Vt.)

Patterson (D-Calif.)

Railsback (R-Ill.)

Schroeder (D-Colo.)

Shuster (R-Pa.)

United Methodist (71)

Abnor (R-S.D.)

Boren (D-Okla.)

Bumpers (D-Ark.)

Dole (R-Kans.)

Heflin (D-Ala.)

Hollings (D-S.D.)

Huddleston (D-Ky.)

Inouye (D-Hawaii)

Long (D-La.)

Lugar (R-Ind.)

McClure (R-Idaho)

Nunn (D-Ga.)

Rlegle (D-Mich.)

Sasser (D-Tenn.)

Schmitt (R-N.M.)

Tower (R-Tex.)

Beard (R-Tenn.)

Boner (D-Tenn.)

Bedell (D-Iowa)

Bethune (R-Ark.)

Brooks (D-Tex.)

Brown (D-Calif.)

Chappell (D-Fla.)

Cheney (R-Wyo.)

Chisholm (D-N.Y.)

Conable (R-N.Y.)

Courter (R-N.J.)

Craig (R-Idaho)

Crane, D. (R-III.)

Crane, P. (R-III.)

Dickinson (R-Ala.)

Edgar (D-Pa.)

English (D-Okla.)

Evans (R-Iowa)

Frthian (D-Ind.)

Goodling (R-Pa.)

Grisham (R-Calif.)

Hall, R. (D-Tex.)

Hamilton (D-Ind.)

Hawkins (D-Calif.)

Holland (D-S.C.)

Hopkins (R-Ky.)

Huckaby (D-La.)

McDonald (D-Ga.)

Johnston (R-N.C.)

Lent (R-N.Y.)

McDonald (D-Ga.)

Mineta (D-Calif.)

Miller (R-Ohio)

Mitchell (R-N.Y.)

Morrison (R-Wash.)

Nichols (D-Ala.)

Patman (D-Tex.)

Petri (R-Wisc.)

Pickle (D-Tex.)

Quillen (R-Tenn.)

Rhodes (R-Ariz.)

Roberts (R-Kans.)

Roberts (R-S.D.)

Roemer (D-La.)

Sharp (D-Ind.)

Smith (D-Iowa)

Smith (R-Neb.)

Staton (R-W.Va.)

Stockman (R-Mich.)

Stokes (D-Ohio)

Swift (D-Wash.)

Taylor (R-Mo.)

Whitehurst (R-Va.)

Wilson (D-Tex.)

Wylie (R-Ohio)

Young (R-Fla.)

“Christian” or “Protestant” (19) (No Specific Denomination)

Bradley (D-N.J.)

Cranston (D-Calif.)

East (R-N.C.)

Hart (D-Colo)

AuCoin (D-Oreg.)

Bailey (D-Pa.)

Bonker (D-Wash.)

Coleman (R-Mo.)

Danielson (D-Calif.)

Dellums (D-Calif.)

Dreier (R-Calif.)

Fascell (D-Fla.)

Fenwick (R-N.J.)

Lee (R-N.Y.)

Lundine (D-N.Y.)

Pease (D-Ohio)

Pursell (R-Mich.)

Studds (D-Mass.)

Weaver (D-Oreg.)

Governors

Roman Catholic

Babbitt (D-Ariz.)

Brennan (D-Maine)

Brown (D-Calif.)

Byrne (D-N.J.)

Carey (D-N.Y.)

Gallen (D-N.H.)

Garrahy (D-R.I.)

Grasso (D-Conn.)

King (D-Mass.)

Spellman (R-Wash.)

United Church of Christ

Ariyoshi (D-Hawaii)

Graham (D-Fla.)

MilliKen (R-Mich.)

Episcopal

Atiyeh (R-Ore.)

Clements (R-Tex.)

Dreyfus (R-Wisc.)

DuPont (R-Del.)

Herschler (D-Wyo.)

Hughes (D-Md.)

James (D-Aia.)

Thornburg (R-Pa.)

Presbyterian

Alexander (R-Tenn.)

Bond (R-Mo.)

Hunt (D-N.C.)

List (R-N.Y.)

Olon (R-N.D.)

Orr (R-Ind.)

Rhodes (R-Ohio)

Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)

Thompson (R-Ill.)

Thone (R-Neb.)

Winter (D-Miss.)

Baptist

Brown (D-Ky.)

Busbee (D-Ga.)

Dalton (R-Va.)

King (D-N.M.)

Nigh (D-OkJa.)

Bible Church

White (R-Ark)

Christian Church (Disciples)

Ray (R-Iowa)

Latter-Day Saints

Evans (D-Idaho)

Matheson (D-Utah)

Unitarian-Universalist

Lamm (D-Colo.)

Snelling (R-Vt.)

Lutheran

Carlin (D-Kans.)

Janklow (R-S.D.)

Quie (R-Minn.)

Schwinden (D-Mont.)

United Methodist

Hammond (R-Alaska)

Riley (D-S.C.)

Treen (R-La.)

Others (13)

Apostolic Christian

Michel (R-Ill)

Armenian Church of America

Pashayan (R-Calif.)

Bible Church

Quayle (R-Ind.)

Church of the East (Assyrian)

Benjamin (D-Ind.)

Church of God in North America

Guyer (R-Ohio)

Christian Reformed

Coats (R-Ind.)

Free Methodist

Symms (R-Idaho)

‘Pentecostal’

Garcia (D-N.Y.)

Reformed Church in America

Roukema (R-NJ.)

Seventh-day Adventist

Randolph (D-W.Va.)

Stump (D-Ariz.)

Society of Friends

Forsythe (R-NJ.)

Robinson (R-Va.)

Unaffiliated (7)

Hayakawa (R-Calif.)

Barnes (D-Md.)

Dorgan (D-N.D.)

Dymally (D-Calif.)

Frenzel (R-Minn.)

Kastenmeier (D-Wis.)

Washington (D-Ill.)

The Supreme Court and Public Schools

Carols Get Green Light, Ten Commandments Get Red

The campaign to keep religious influence in public schools won one and lost one in two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court last month.

In the first case the court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, refused to prohibit public school children from singing Christmas carols. In the second, the court ruled 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to hang in a public school classroom.

The Christmas carol case originated in a Sioux Falls, South Dakota, kindergarten classroom. The parents of one of the children objected to carol singing because they believed it constituted religious worship. The American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) pressed the case in federal court on the parents’ behalf. They lost, and took the case a step higher, to the federal appeals court. They lost again. The judge in that court ruled that carols are permissible because they are educational, and therefore serve a secular purpose. Given a primarily secular purpose, he said, school administrators “need not and should not sacrifice the quality of the students’ education” by purging from the curriculum “all materials that may offend any religious sensibility.”

Constitutional lawyer John Whitehead, who is active in Christian legal issues, saw ominous overtones in the decision, in spite of the apparent victory. “Secular society is saying that Christianity is okay if you treat it in a historical setting, but if you are really going to take it seriously, we don’t want any part of it.”

In the second case, the Supreme Court decided that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms did amount to taking religion too seriously in school, and it declared the law unconstitutional.

In an unsigned opinion, the court said, “The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature, and they may induce the children to read, to meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the commandments.”

All of the posters bearing the commandments, (which were paid for and hung at private expense), bore the following inscription: “The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of western civilization, and the common law of the United States.” Said Whitehead: “That’s a historical fact, but it didn’t work. The court didn’t buy it.”

Another lawyer active in Christian rights cases, John McLario of Menominee Falls, Wisconsin, saw the case differently: “The Ten Commandments are a Judeo-Christian proposition. They’re recognized as that. I can see problems when the state comes in and mandates that they should hang in all classrooms.”

McLario also said that although the courts object to Christian influence in schools, they don’t object to secular humanism, which dominates public education and views human beings—not a divine being—as the highest value in the universe.

The ACLU also handled the Ten Commandments case.

North American Scene

President-elect Ronald Reagan hadn’t yet picked a Washington, D.C., church, but many speculate he will attend National Presbyterian Church, pastored by Louis Evans, Jr. Evans founded the Bel Air (California) Presbyterian Church, where Reagan has attended the past 20 years. Donn Moomaw, present pastor of the 2,000-member evangelical congregation, told a reporter that he and Reagan often discussed religion in private, and that Reagan “can talk intelligently about Christian doctrine … he knows the Bible.” Reagan still holds membership in the Hollywood-Beverly Christian Church, where he attended with his first wife, Jane Wyman, during his early Hollywood years: the closest such church in Washington is the National City Christian Church.

Esquire magazine is discussing ethics these days, in a regular column written by staff member Harry Stein. Speaking to members of the New York City Religious Public Relations Council last month, Stein cited man’s “immense capacity to ignore evil” and “our incredible ability not to see ourselves as we really are” as America’s biggest ethical challenge of the 1980s. The column has generated wide reader comment, said Stein, and the largest number of letters so far have been in reaction to a column discussing when and when not to compromise, and to one about marital fidelity.

The country’s Catholic bishops may applaud Ronald Reagan’s positions against abortion and for school prayer, but they signaled at their meeting in Washington last month that they aren’t very happy with other views held by the incoming administration. One of the largest rounds of applause at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was accorded Auxiliary Bishop Thomas R. Gumbleton, who expressed alarm at “a president who believes we have to have superiority in nuclear weapons.” In other business, the bishops decided to ask the Vatican to drop the word “men” from the eucharistic blessing of wine, and eliminate several other male-only references, in order to make the liturgy less “sexist.”

Charles Colson has been invited to establish a branch in Canada of his Prison Fellowship, an expanding ministry that recently moved into a new headquarters building in Great Falls, Virginia. As in the U.S., the Canadian Prison Fellowship will seek volunteers who relate to prisoners and their families during and after prison terms. The volunteers (there are 6,000 in the U.S.) also conduct seminars in prisons, provide out-of-prison training for selected inmates, and seek prison reform.

Moral Majority has targeted advertisers of objectional TV programs. Advertisers will be asked to push for content changes or face possible boycotts. The conservative lobby’s vice-president, Ronald Godwin, told Advertising Age that $500,000 may be put into the effort, which could be substantial considering the group’s wide support: a mailing list of 480,000, including 72,000 clergymen.

Missouri Synod Lutherans held a unique discipleship convocation last month, with an average attendance of 6,000 for each of the November 6–9 plenary sessions. The Synod’s so-called Great Commission Convocation in Saint Louis was aimed at helping congregations do evangelism and disciple young Christians. Speakers were elected by surveying all congregations, and the 78 workshops were conducted by congregations identified by district leaders as being among the best in various aspects of practicing discipleship.

Personalia

Charles Keysor resigned last month as editor/executive secretary of Good News, the evangelical renewal movement within the United Methodist Church. Since founding the group in 1966 and becoming editor of its magazine, Keysor established the group as an influential force in the denomination. A former newsman, Keysor resigned to give full time to developing the journalism program at Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky. He started the program in 1972, and since then has taught there part-time.

In her candid interview in the December issue of Ladies’ Home Journal,Anita Bryant revealed that her marriage was breaking up as early as 1970. Her autobiography, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory, was then selling a million copies, with its homey details of her family life. After her 1976 crusade against homosexuals in Dade County, Florida, her personal life deteriorated to the extent that she contemplated suicide: “I remember one time after a close call, from combining [sleeping] pills and wine, I got very upset and poured the pills down the toilet. The next night I hit bottom so fast, if I had had those sleeping pills, I would have swallowed them.” She no longer sees the answers to feminism and homosexuality as simply as she once did: “I guess I can better understand the gays’ and feminists’ anger and frustration. As for gays, the church needs to be more loving … and willing to see these people as human beings.”

The Seventh-day Adventist Church revoked the credentials of Walter Rea, a Long Beach, California, pastor who charged that Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White plagiarized extensively in her prolific writings. Church officials have acknowledged that she borrowed from her wide reading, but North American Division president C. E. Bradford said, “Rea’s action toward one of the denomination’s highly respected pioneers, in my opinion, has rendered him incapable of serving as an Adventist minister.” Rea said church officials were upset that he granted an interview to the Los Angeles Times, whose news service circulated it widely. In September the Adventists’ Australasian Division defrocked Desmond Ford, an influential theologian who took issue publicly with the investigative judgment, one of the church’s basic doctrines. (CT, Oct. 10, p. 76).

Book Briefs: December 12, 1980

Introducing Farrer

Jacob’s Ladder: Theology and Spirituality in the Thought of Austin Farrer, by Charles C. Hefling, Jr. (Cowley Publications, 1979, 132 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Bruce Demarest, professor of systematic theology, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado.

The name of Austin Farrer will likely be unfamiliar to most North American readers. For many years an Oxford don and colleague of C. S, Lewis, Farrer, who died in 1968, was an influential British philosophical theologian, biblical scholar, and preacher. The Anglo-Catholic churchman was a man of powerful intellect, fertile imagination, and exceptional oratorical skills, while his writings reflect an elegant style and incandescent imagery.

As is often the case with British Anglo-Catholic scholars, Farrer resists being tagged with a specific theological label. He has been described as an evangelical-modernist, although to this reviewer he inclines more to the evangelical than to the modernist position. Farrer’s conservatism is reflected in his belief in the self-existent, personal God of classical theism, and in the living Christ who is both divine and human. Salvation is bound up with the good news of God’s work in Christ, and the Christian faith is distinctive vis-à-vis other world religions. On the other hand, Farrer’s liberal tendencies emerge in his definition of revelation as the interplay of events and image, the meaning of which is deciphered by human imagination. In fact, Farrer equates the exercise of the biblical writers’ imagination with the process of divine inspiration. In addition, he treats the great moments of the Christian faith, such as Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection, under the rubric of paradox. In this regard Farrer minimizes the objective content given to these concepts by Scripture, choosing rather to view them as images whose significance is unfolded by divinely assisted imagination.

Notwithstanding certain obvious doctrinal deficiencies, Farrer has much to teach Christian people; in particular, that theology and spirituality constitute a single seamless garment. The evangelical community in North America yet needs to learn that theology profoundly illumines and informs the Christian life. As Farrer put it, Christianity “is a matter of putting heart into a rational conviction, and bringing mind into the heart’s devotion.”

In Jacob’s Ladder, Hefling skillfully and lucidly unfolds Farrer’s thought in three main sections. First he deals with Farrer’s natural or rational theology, which constitutes the preamble of faith. To the a prioristic Augustinian scheme of effable intuition, Farrer wedded several a posteriori arguments by which he sought to point the inquirer in the direction of biblical theism. Rightly, Farrer judges that a solid rational basis exists for belief in the God of the Bible. The ultimate proof for God, however, is not formal, but resides in the religious experience of those who have committed themselves in faith to the God who is.

Passing from the way of rational ascent to the way of revelational descent, Hefling expounds Farrer’s scheme of “scriptural divinity,” which concerns what can be known of God from revelation, namely from the interplay of event and mental image. Historical events plus interpretive images form a pattern through which the saving mystery is grasped.

The third and final section of the book examines Farrer’s synthesis of the natural and revealed knowledge of God. Rational theology and revealed theology link up as two sections of a ladder. A person ascends to heaven, as the angels did on Jacob’s ladder, by moving through natural knowledge to supernatural knowledge of God. In his modified Thomistic scheme, no alternative route exists to the presence of God.

In his readable and refreshing essay, Hefling offers an inviting entrée to the thought and spirituality of Austin Farrer. Perhaps Jacob’s Ladder will motivate others, as it has this reader, to explore further the world of Farrer to the profit of both mind and soul.

He Is Risen Indeed

The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, by Reginald H. Fuller (Fortress Press, 1980, 225 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Andrew Bandstra, professor of New Testament, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The first edition of this book appeared in 1971 (reviewed April 14, 1972). Fuller’s revised edition is substantially the same as the first, though in four pages of a new preface the author describes his stance over against much of the research that has been published since the first edition appeared. Other than the correction of some printing errors, the text of the book remains unaltered.

This book deserves another edition since it is an outstanding model of a study of the resurrection narratives from the perspectives of form and tradition criticism as well as redaction criticism. Fuller’s purpose is “to reconstruct the history of the tradition from its earliest recoverable form in allegedly factual reports” and in the process “to lay bare the motivations behind the developments and shaping of the narratives into their final form.” He pursues this purpose with great ability, stating his positions with unusual clarity and delineating carefully the reasons for his choices.

1 Corinthians 15:3–8 is recognized as giving the earliest Easter traditions. Because Paul here is reporting a tradition (or traditions) that he “received” and “passed on” to the Corinthians, he is giving that which was very early (within five years of the event, in Fuller’s judgment) an accepted part of the preaching.

Fuller then considers Mark’s narrative (16:1–8), arguing for the historicity of the core of the empty tomb account. He treats successively the Matthean, Lucan, and Johannine accounts of the Resurrection, arguing that the variations and discrepancies in these narratives represent varying attempts to give expression to resurrection faith. Much in these accounts is regarded as not being historical (i.e., not giving us what actually happened) but as attempts to meet new problems in terms of the resurrection faith.

There are those who hold the emerging of Easter faith was something that happened only in or to the disciples and that the resurrection stories are really only a product of their faith. Without denying that these things happened, Fuller continues to affirm that such interpretations confuse cause and effect and that one must affirm that something “happened” to “account for the complete changes in the behaviour of the disciples” and thus that “something happened between God and Jesus on Easter Day, and not only between God and the disciples” (i.e., the production of their faith).

Perhaps the point that most needs discussion, in light of Fuller’s conclusions, is the relationship between eschatology and history. Fuller correctly calls the resurrection of Jesus a translation into a new eschatological mode of existence. That is why the resurrection event itself was not observed (or observable) and why the Resurrection itself was not narrated but proclaimed. For Fuller this means “not that his body was resuscitated, but that his whole self in his entire psychosomatic existence was transformed and entered thereby into the eschatological existence” (p. 18).

What Fuller affirms in this regard is, in this reviewer’s judgment, essentially correct, true to the Pauline (and biblical) witness. But what Fuller sees to be entailed in that affirmation is that the resurrection of Jesus should not be called a “ ‘historical’ but an eschatological and meta-historical event, occurring precisely at the point where history ends, but leaving its mark on history negatively in the empty tomb (‘He is not here’) and positively in the appearances” (p. 48).

It is possible, however, that we need the word “historical” alongside of the word “eschatological” in order adequately to describe Jesus’ resurrection. We may need the word “historical” to safeguard the point of “continuity” between the earthly Jesus and his existence in the new order—a point Fuller also wishes to preserve.

Another controversial point is the manner in which the techniques of tradition and redaction criticism are pursued by Fuller. These techniques are appreciated and pursued in conservative evangelical circles, although the presuppositions behind them are carefully scrutinized. Conservatives might operate with a similar “critical” method, but they will not necessarily come to the same conclusions in regard to the narratives, due in part to differing presuppositions underlying their respective critical methods.

Fuller’s book will make a helpful contribution to people who use it intelligently and critically as they pursue the study of the historical foundation and meaning of the New Testament narratives that proclaim: “The Lord is risen indeed.”

The Polemical Book Of Mark

Mark-Traditions in Conflict, by Theodore J. Weeden, Sr. (Fortress, 1979, 182 pp., $5.95 pb), is reviewed by J. C. De Young, professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi.

This book contributes to the growing body of literature on the theology of the Gospels. It is an attempt to define Mark’s theology and the purpose of his Gospel as a polemic against the theios-aner (divine-man) Christological heresy that plagued his Christian community around A.D. 80. To accomplish this task Mark used key characters—the religious leaders, the crowds, the disciples, and Jesus—to get his point across.

Mark’s portrayal of the disciples is crucial for Weeden’s construction of the Marcan Sitz-im-Leben. He believes Mark presented the disciples in a progressively negative role over against their Master. They are first portrayed as unperceptive (p. 26ff.), then as harboring misconceptions (p. 32ff.), and finally they move to outright rejection as shown by Judas’s betrayal, Peter’s denial, and the total defection of all the disciples in Gethsemane (p. 38ff.). Hence, Mark records “the complete and utter rejection of Jesus and his messiahship by the disciples” (p. 38).

The reason for Mark’s negative portrayal of the Twelve is a Christological one. Mark’s own Christology is that Jesus is God’s Son and the Messiah “by virtue of his suffering and death” (p. 54). But his portrayal of the disciples as having a Hellenistic theios-aner Christology effects the clash. This was Mark’s way of opposing the theios-aner heresy that threatened his Christian community. By portraying the Twelve as “unconverted theios-aner theologians,” he effectively refuted that heresy in the church of his own time and place.

Weeden’s very modern thesis is interesting, developed on the background of contemporary scholarly research, but difficult to accept. His treatment of the disciples seems seriously overdone (see 14:47; 72; 16:7 for favorable reports on the disciples); it makes Mark a rather dishonest historian who makes “the disciples seem as surrogates of the Markan opponents” (p. 148). To place the disciples so wrongheadedly against their Master asks too much of the reader.

Teaching Morality To The Young

The Domain of Moral Education, edited by Donald B. Cochrane, Cornel M. Hamm, and Anastasios C. Kazepides (Paulist Press, 1979, 301 pp., $9.95), is reviewed by James H. Olthuis, senior member in philosophical theology, Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Moral education is in. Alarmed by drug abuse, vandalism, violence, and corruption, as well as by the breakdown within existing institutions, educators, with support of parents and other citizens, have taken more seriously the moral upbringing of their young. This book, with its philosophic cast and tone, presents an academic survey of the parameters of the moral domain.

Efforts to define and distinguish moral education from other forms of education make the first part of the book interesting and valuable. There is an especially provocative debate between C. M. Hamm and M. Elliot on the relationship between moral and religious education. Hamm argues that it is a logical error to base morals on religion. Elliot demurs—convincingly, I think.

The second section deals with the nature of moral education: the place of moral language, rules and principles, the idea of moral motivation, and the cultivation of moral sensibilities receive attention.

The intriguing question of whether we should teach specific moral content to the young or only transmit procedures for moral thinking is explored in a following section. The book concludes with a spirited debate of Kohlberg’s developmental theory of moral judgment. For example, in a helpful essay, B. Crittenden suggests that Kohlberg’s focus on justice as central to morality is misplaced.

I feel the collection would have been improved through explicit consideration of the popular Values Clarification approach. And certainly the place and role of emotions in the moral life deserves attention. Perusing these essays will introduce one to the ongoing debate in moral education—one that Christian philosophers and educators must be abreast of in order to be able to develop an authentically Christian theory of moral education.

A Homogeneous Church In A Pluralistic Society?

Our Kind of People, by C. Peter Wagner (John Knox Press, 1979, 163 pp., $8.95), is reviewed by Marvin A. McMickle, pastor, Saint Paul Baptist Church, Montclair, New Jersey.

Can a culturally homogeneous church be justified in a pluralistic society? One might think the full weight of Christian theology and church history would answer that question with a resounding no. However, in this provocative and well-documented book, C. Peter Wagner argues that ethnically and culturally homogeneous local church congregations have both a place and a purpose in the life of the church universal.

Wagner marshals a convincing argument in showing that American society has not warmed to the idea of ethnic and cultural diversity. He examines the idea that America is the great melting pot and shows that the result of immigration was not intermingling, but molding. He then points to the need for a shift in the American attitude toward ethnic diversity. Instead of being a melting pot, where all differences are lost, Wagner borrows a term from Andrew Greeley, who calls for America to become the “stewpot.” There, each ingredient adds its characteristic flavor to every other ingredient, but each maintains its own identity and integrity.

This argument becomes the model for the legitimacy of ethnically and culturally homogeneous local churches operating under the banner of the church universal. Wagner bases this argument upon a statement from Donald McGavran: “Men like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers.” That statement reflects the experience of missionaries who discovered that churches took root more quickly in those mission areas where the indigenous culture, language, and leadership were used to clothe and communicate the faith.

Wagner acknowledges the charge that 11 o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week in America, but he challenges whether or not that is unchristian. He contends that integrated worship seldom moved beyond sitting together in the same church.

Wagner points out the importance of contact among homogeneous congregational groups at the denominational and intercongregational level. He carries the principle of unity and diversity all the way from national political philosophy to the style and structure of the American church. Given the upswing in ethnic and cultural awareness over the last 10 years, church growth favors those congregations organized around the homogeneous unit principle.

If there is a weakness in this book, it is that the author pulled together such an exhaustive scholarly argument to defend his thesis, that many of his own ideas and analyses seem shallow by comparison. That aside, however, this is a book that deserves reading as the clearest statement yet concerning the homogeneous unit principle.

Growing Old In Christ: A Survey Of Books On Aging—Part Ii

Books on Aging are reviewed by David O. Moberg, professor of sociology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Along with the increasing number of courses in gerontology, the study of aging, has come a variety of textbooks that provide the best compendia of information on the subject.

Textbooks. Possibly the three best textbooks are Sociology of Aging (Houghton Mifflin), by Diana K. Harris and William E. Cole, Introduction to Gerontology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), by Arthur N. Schwartz and James A. Peterson, and The Social Forces in Later Life (Wadsworth), by Robert C. Atchley. Aging and Society (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), by John B. Williamson and others, is marred by its weak and biased treatment of religion and aging, as is Growing Old: The Social Problems of Aging (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), by Elizabeth S. Johnson and John B. Williamson.

In Aging and Health: Biologic and Social Perspectives (Addison-Wesley), Gary S. Kart, Eileen S. Metress, and James F. Metress survey the biological and social dimensions and interrelationships of health and geriatric care. Adult Development: The Differentiation of Experience (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), by Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Comilda S. Weinstock, surveys the integrative, dynamic, and continuous process of growth in adulthood. Except for its failure to recognize the role of religion, it is an excellent study.

The problems connected with aging and dying are rooted in the need to construct meaning in a continually changing world in Last Chapters: A Sociology of Aging and Dying (Brooks/Cole Div. of Wadsworth), by Victor W. Marshall. Aging Is a Family Affair (Crowell) is by two social workers, Victoria E. Bumagin and Kathryn F. Hirn, and is an excellent text on the varieties of behavior among senior citizens, though it is marred by a few statements supporting moral positions that are inconsistent with evangelical Christianity.

Resources for Lay and Professional Leaders. A theological foundation is developed in three booklets. Earl C. Dahlstrom’s Toward a Theology of Aging (The Evangelical Covenant Church of America) moves through the implications of six central areas of theological concern with aging: time, creation, man, vocation, salvation, and hope. Aging: A Theological Perspective (Presbyterian Senior Services, 2095 Broadway, Room 302, New York, N.Y. 10023), by an interdenominational task force on aging, indicates with help of a Bible study guide that the church must keep God’s love at the center of its theology as it declares the worth of every person, reaffirms the significance of God’s calling, proclaims the biblical doctrine of time, responds to feelings of loss while rejoicing in those of gain, and fulfills its role as the household of God. Biblical Perspectives on Aging (National Interfaith Coalition on Aging), by Frank Staff, weaves together in narrative style the Bible’s teachings on such topics as the wisdom of the aged, the length and quality of life. Any of these three booklets can serve as a stepping-off point for a series of sermons or adult Bible classes on aging.

The growing awareness of the need for explicit preparation of the clergy for work with senior citizens is reflected in Education for Ministry in Aging: Gerontology in Seminary Training (National Interfaith Coalition on Aging, P.O. Box 1924, Athens, Ga. 30603, and Association of Theological Schools), a special issue of Theological Education. With a central emphasis upon cultivating spiritual well-being, the 28 articles and 51 project abstracts provide a rich compendium of guidelines for competency objectives, interdisciplinary strategies, curricular models, and explicit service programs. Changing Aging (American Lutheran Church), by Corinne Bruning and Wayne Paulson, lays out 23 explicit steps in organizing, planning, conducting, and following up on a workshop.

Four booklets by the Interfaith Commission on Aging of the Missouri Council of Churches are very useful. Warren B. Scott’s Strategic Planning for Your Later Years is a manual to assist clergy in planning a course of study leading to action. It is an excellent complement to the very practical Programs with the Aging: Community-Social-Religious, which aims to stimulate the formation of cooperative interfaith councils on aging in each community; it has a wealth of other useful materials as well. Two pamphlets are congregation oriented: Evaluating Your Ministry to, for and with Older Persons, by Bruce W. Berry, and Manual to Assist Congregations in Ministering to Their Elderly Members, by Henry Duhan.

Dimensions of Loss and Death Education (EDU-PAC Publishing Co., Box 27101, Dept. CTWB, Minneapolis, Minn. 55427), by Patricia Weller Zalaznik, is an expensive loose-leaf resource and curriculum guide for an extended course on the subject in high school, college, or adult education. Dealing with loss experiences of many kinds, including those associated with aging, it provides an excellent outline, numerous lists of resources and references, suggested discussion assignments, and a student activity workbook.

So Teach Us to Number Our Days (Union of American Hebrew Congregations), by Rabbi Sanford Seltzer, is a manual on aging developed for synagogue use that can be very helpful in Christian congregations as well. It includes many practical suggestions and resources for further study. Life Enrichment for the Elderly (Lutheran Brotherhood) is a resource for congregations, sensitizing them to the special needs and talents of the elderly, stimulating action to help meet their needs, providing guidelines for successful programs, warning of pitfalls to avoid, and identifying available resources.

Wise counsel to ministers and other church leaders for “aging creatively in Christian community” is provided by Harvey Kline and Warren Eshbach: A Future with Hope (Brethren Press). Catharine Brandt’s Forgotten People (Moody Press) gives wise, practical counsel for volunteers working with elderly people. An orientation to aging and a call to action, particularly by Catholics, is extended by Bartholomew J. Laurello in Ministering to the Aging: Every Christian’s Call (Paulist).

Spiritual Health. Scientific evidence that spiritual health is the crux of wholistic well-being throughout the aging process has gradually begun to infiltrate gerontology. It is likely that Spiritual Well-Being of the Elderly (Charles C. Thomas), edited by James A. Thorson and Thomas C. Cook, Jr., will make a significant impact. Its 30 chapters include useful theoretical, scientific, biblical, pastoral, and experimental studies.

The recent incorporation of various subcategories of “spiritual distress” into the clinical diagnostic classification used by the nursing profession also will increase attention to it in the care of elderly patients. Spiritual Care: The Nurse’s Role (InterVarsity Press), by Sharon Fish and Judith Allen Shelley, is an outstanding study of how to identify the spiritual needs of patients and minister to them.

Reviving Evangelism in Britain

Christians in Britain during the seventies became increasingly concerned about the secularization of their country, and began to give serious thought to reevangelization. First, a number of evangelicals met in 1975 to consider inviting Billy Graham for another crusade. Second, Archbishops Donald Coggan of Canterbury and Stuart Blanch of York, who had just issued their “Call to the Nation”—posing questions of what kind of society we wanted and what kind of people would be needed to shape it—were being urged by some to go beyond a national call to a national mission. Third, the British Council of Churches’ Executive, catching wind of these thoughts, expressed their “conviction that the time is ripening for a concerted national effort in evangelism.”

These three streams coalesced in October 1976 when the archbishop of Canterbury called together for consultation a group of denominational, ecumenical, and evangelical leaders, with a Roman Catholic representative. During 1977 the churches were consulted and responded positively. In 1978 the “Nationwide Initiative in Evangelism” was thus launched, with the archbishop of Canterbury as chairman of its council of reference. Dr. Donald English, a young evangelical Methodist who had recently been conference president, was chosen as chairman of the Initiative committee, and evangelicals invited to serve on it included Gordon Landreth, secretary of the Evangelical Alliance, and Tom Houston, director of the Bible Society.

One of the factors that influenced Christian leaders towards the Initiative was the widespread sense of growing convergence among evangelical and ecumenical spokesmen in their understanding of mission and evangelism. Dr. M. M. Thomas, as moderator of the World Council of Churches Central Committee, drew attention to this publicly in the course of his report to the Fifth Assembly in Nairobi in 1975. Referring to the recent conferences in Bangkok (ecumenical), Lausanne (evangelical), Rome (Catholic), and Bucharest (Orthodox), he expressed the view that “their theological convergence is very striking.” This was further confirmed when the Nairobi Assembly’s Section I produced its report “Confessing Christ Today” and when almost simultaneously Pope Paul issued Evangelii Nuntiandi, his apostolic exhortation on “Evangelization in the Modern World.”

People began to study and compare these documents, especially the Lausanne Covenant (1974), “Confessing Christ Today” (1975), and Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975). At the suggestion of the British Council of Churches, four journals (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, and Evangelical) each agreed to commission somebody to explore the signs of convergence and divergence in the documents, to publish all four evaluations, and so to promote debate. I was asked to contribute the article in Third Way and concluded it with “Ten Affirmations on Evangelism.” These related to the church sent into the world, the mission of evangelism and social action, the biblical origin of the gospel, Christ crucified and risen, the offer of salvation, the demand of conversion, costly discipleship, the mobilization of God’s people, the renewal of the church, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Each affirmation was supported by appropriate quotations from the three foundation documents; the similarities were remarkable.

At the same time, many evangelicals remained uneasy. Indeed, I was uneasy myself. The similarity was there to be seen. Yet the method used in demonstrating it was suspect. To begin with, it concentrated on the convergence and overlooked the divergence. For example, Evangelii Nuntiandi gives an extremely broad definition of evangelism, refers to “Christian Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium” as sources of the defined faith alongside the biblical revelation, omits any clear exposition of sola fide, and concludes with an unfortunate reference to the Virgin Mary as the “Star of Evangelization” into whose “hands and heart” the church’s evangelistic task is entrusted. In brief, my tabulation of agreements was a highly selective “lowest common denominator” approach.

How real and substantial, then, was the convergence? And how solid a foundation did it offer for common evangelistic witness in Britain today? These questions continued to nag me. Since evangelism, at its simplest and most basic, is the sharing of the good news, united evangelism is impossible without prior agreement about the good news to be shared. For evangelicals this is a matter of conscience. It was certain, I argued, that evangelicals would never cooperate with the National Initiative in Evangelism unless and until they were convinced that it held fast to the apostolic gospel. So we needed a “crisp, positive, comprehensive and Christ-centered” statement, which would both reassure our tender evangelical consciences and at the same time help the churches to recover something of the gospel’s glory.

In 1979 the Initiative committee invited 15 theologians from different traditions to undertake this task. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin was asked to be chairman, with me as his vice-chairman. We spent our first meeting getting to know and respect one another by sharing our personal experiences and beliefs. We described frankly how we had come to faith in Christ, what good news we wanted to share with others, and why we felt evangelism to be urgent. As we listened to one another, we were surprised to discover a further convergence: the same Spirit had disclosed to us the same Lord. We were able to proceed with our task in a greater spirit of mutual confidence.

For our second meeting we divided into four small groups which discussed respectively “the Bible and Evangelism,” “God and the World,” “Jesus and Salvation,” and “the Church and the Kingdom.” The first group was able to produce an agreed report, but the other three could only issue personal statements and responses in which some quite sharp differences of approach and emphasis were exposed. At our third meeting we studied and discussed these reports. I confess I found this a depressing meeting, for at a number of important points we seemed to be at an impasse, with no apparent way forward.

So I came to our fourth and last meeting with a “now or never” stance of its importance. Was it really going to be impossible for us to produce an honest statement that plotted substantial areas of agreement? I took with me a short, sharp declaration in five paragraphs, which I felt would be an irreducible minimum. Martin Conway, the British Council of Churches’ Secretary for Ecumenical Affairs, had drafted a somewhat longer statement of “Ten Theses.” Yet the two revealed a considerable degree of overlap. So the working group asked us to conflate them, which we did, and then they spruced up our conflation.

What is now published as “The Gospel We Affirm Together” does not claim to be a comprehensive confession of evangelical theology. It will not satisfy those who insist on the inclusion of every jot and tittle of evangelical orthodoxy before we can engage in any common work or witness. Yet the essence of the biblical gospel is recognizably there—God as Creator, Lord and Father; Jesus Christ as the conqueror of sin and death by his cross and resurrection; the Bible as the unique and irreplaceable witness to Christ, through which God both spoke and speaks; the church as Christ’s penitent people who have received from him a new life and entered his new society; the Holy Spirit as sovereign in his works of power; the kingdom of God as his rule already present in Jesus, whose resurrection is the pledge of God’s final triumph; and evangelism as the common responsibility and joy of all Christian people.

Lacking, from an orthodox Protestant viewpoint, is sufficient precision at three crucial points. Though Jesus is termed God’s “son,” his deity is not spelled out. Though the Bible’s “irreplaceable witness” and “unique authority” are declared, its status as the church’s only rule of faith and practice is not. Though the statement includes references to God’s grace, the necessity of “turning in penitence to Christ,” and the reception from him of a new life, the freeness of salvation as God’s gift through faith is not clearly enough affirmed.

Still, those who can subscribe to this sevenfold affirmation with a good conscience should surely be able with an equally good conscience to join hands in spreading its message to others. At the NIE Assembly at the end of September, its content seemed to be acceptable; the questions raised about it concerned rather how we can now communicate it to Britain’s alienated masses.

The Reverend Mr. Stott is rector emeritus of All Souls Church, London, England.

Statement From A Theological Working Group Appointed By The Nationwide Initiative In Evangelism

1. God. The Living God is Creator, Lord and Father.

The God we worship is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. He is the living God who created the universe, and made man male and female to share his likeness and his life, and to exercise a responsible creativity. As Lord of nature he sustains what he has made. As Lord of history he is ceaselessly active in all human affairs, both in blessing and in judgment. Nothing is beyond his rule. Through Jesus Christ we know him as our Father.

2. Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ God has conquered sin and death.

God loves the world and all its people, however far they may have gone from him. The tragedy of the human situation is that we, who were made by God and for God, are now in rebellion against him and under his judgment. Sin is misdirected love, the willful assertion of ourselves against God and others. It permeates the structure of society and lies at the root of human alienation. God wants everybody to come to know him and plans to restore the whole creation to himself. He revealed his love and taught his way in Jesus Christ his son, who lived a human life on earth. Jesus’ perfect love and obedience were most clearly seen on the cross. For there he willingly bore the brunt of society’s hostility to his goodness. Although sinless he identified himself with us in our sins, in order to reconcile us to his Father. Then God raised him from the dead in vindication of all that he had taught and done, and as the first fruit of the new creation.

3. The Bible. The Bible is the irreplaceable witness to God’s saving purposes.

The Bible tells the story of God’s dealings with mankind through his covenant people Israel. Above all it bears witness to Jesus Christ, so that people will believe in him. Its message has a unique authority. God spoke and speaks through it. Yet we have to struggle to reinterpret it sensitively in every culture including our own. This process is costly. For unless we are willing to be radically confronted by the Word of God ourselves, we cannot with integrity wrestle with the task of communicating it in intelligible terms to others.

4. The Church. The Christian church is called to be sign and foretaste of God’s Kingdom.

The good news expects a response. The church is the community of those who are called by the Holy Spirit. Turning in penitence to Christ from the prevailing values of the fallen world, we receive from him a new life and enter his new society. Yet the church does not exist primarily for its own sake but for those who are not its members. Christ sends his people into the world as his servants and witnesses of his transforming purpose. To be a Christian is not a mark of superiority but of solidarity. We are still sinners, but we live and grow in God’s grace.

5. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enables men and women to do the work of God.

As in Creation and in the birth of Jesus, so in evangelism and all the work attempted by the church, the power that matters is that of God’s Holy Spirit. His strength and guidance are promised to the church, but he is sovereign and not at our command. He brought Christ’s church into being at Pentecost and is forever teaching it new lessons. It is his work to challenge and convert, to heal and renew.

6. The Kingdom of God. God reigns; his rule is present in Jesus; he will bring all creation in the end to its perfection in him.

Jesus claimed that in his life the Day of God has dawned, the Day for which Israel hoped, when God would be seen to take charge of human history. Down the centuries Christians have served that kingdom on earth in a mixture of faithfulness and disobedience. As mankind in our time faces new and vast challenges, God will give new levels of wisdom, generosity, and courage. Even our failures do not cancel out the promise inherent in the resurrection of Jesus. This remains the pledge of God’s final triumph, and the source of living hope.

7. Evangelism. “Evangelism is like one beggar telling another where to find bread” (D. T. Niles).

Christ still sends all his followers into the world as his witnesses. Christians commend not themselves but the love of God as known in Jesus. What we are and do is no less important in this than what we say. As we humbly but joyfully reflect God’s reconciling love for all humanity, in friendship and mutual respect, the Holy Spirit uses our witness and service to make God known. The joy of sharing good news simply because it is good is the common joy of all Christians. God has exalted Jesus to his right hand, that every knee should bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord (Phil. 2:9–11).

This statement has been prepared by a group of 15 theologians broadly representative of the three main streams of Christian tradition in the Nationwide Initiative in Evangelism as represented by the British Council of Churches, the Conservative Evangelicals, and the Roman Catholic Church. It is an extract from a short book, Evangelism: Convergence and Divergence.

Members of the group:

Bishop Lesslie Newbigin (chairman), former moderator of the United Reformed Church, bishop of Madras in the Church of South India. The Rev. John Stott (vice-chairman), rector emeritus, All Souls’, Langham Place. The Rt. Rev. David Brown, bishop of Guildford, chairman of the Church of England’s Board for Mission Unity. The Rev. Prof. George Caird, former professor of New Testament in the University of Oxford. Mr. Martin Conway (secretary), secretary of ecumenical affairs, British Council of Churches. The Rev. Dr. Donald English, chairman of Initiative Committee, former president of the Methodist Conference. The Rev. John Gaine, Roman Catholic Secretariat for Nonbelievers. The Rev. Richard Jones, principal of Hartley Victoria College (Methodist), Manchester. The Rev. Principal R. Tudur Jones, principal of Bala-Bangor Theological College (Congregational). Miss Margaret Kane. theological consultant to the bishop of Durham. Miss Myrtle Langley, tutor at Trinity Theological College (Anglican), Bristol. The Rev. Prof. Ian Pitt-Watson, professor of practical theology in the University of Aberdeen and, from September 1980, professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, U.S.A. The Rev. John Redford, tutor at Wonersh Seminary (Roman Catholic), Guildford. The Rev. Tom Smail, former director of Fountain Trust. The Rev. Derek Tidball, tutor in practical theology, London Bible College.

Refiner’s Fire: Creating the Sounds of Christmas

John Rutter has proven to be one of the richest sources for sacred music.

“It was a Judy Garland kind of story,” John Rutter told me. It was near the end of the Christmas term in 1965. He was in his second year of music study at Clare College, Cambridge University, when his tutor suggested he should get more conducting experience. He decided to put on a Christmas concert, involving about 70 of his fellow students in the choir and orchestra. For it he arranged a number of traditional Christmas carols and wrote several original compositions.

“As it happened, a record producer from EMI—one of our largest record companies—was in the audience. He came to me after the concert and invited me to do an album, and asked if I had sufficient material for a whole 45-minute album. When you’re a kind of dewey-eyed 20-year-old, you don’t refuse that kind of offer and, naturally, I was very flattered. Sir David Willcocks [an editor at Oxford University Press] heard about it, and asked if I would be interested in these carols being published. That’s how it all started.”

What started has proven to be one of the richest resources for sacred music in the evangelical church in the past decade.

John rutter was born in London, September 24, 1945, into a family with no particular musical inclination. The parents were somewhat bewildered by this precocious three-year-old who would pound out strange things at the piano and copy music he heard on the radio. They realized such talent required training, so they sent him to a school with a fine music program, Highgate in London. There he sang in the excellent boys choir, performing in the premiere recording of Benjamin Britten’s War Requiem.

He started at Cambridge in 1964, reading in music. He took his first degree in 1967 winning first-class honors in both parts of his comprehensive exams; his bachelor of music (a graduate degree) in 1968; and began a Ph.D. program, which he finally abandoned in 1970. His love for composition had completely engulfed him, and the university agreed that his composition work was more important. From 1975 to 1979 he was director of music at Clare College. He also directed the Chapel Choir and taught several undergraduate courses. Realizing that administrative work was getting in the way of time needed for composition, he resigned to devote himself full-time to composition, guest conducting engagements, music clinics, and conferences.

“I’d always known I wanted to be a composer in one form or another, but I never realized I could be a published composer, still less that I could make a living at it. I was very fortunate. I got off to a flying start when I was very young.”

Indeed he did. His first published composition, “Nativity Carol,” was written at 17 while he was still in high school. Today, his published Christmas titles alone number over 80. His increasing popularity is reflected in the growing number of his compositions and arrangements in Oxford’s Carols for Choirs collections. Each volume contains 50 selections: in volume 2 (1970) 12 numbers are by Rutter; in volume 3 (1978), 14; in the just-released volume 4 (1980), there are 23. A new collection of 25 arrangements, tentatively titled The John Rutter Carols, is about to be published by Hinshaw Music. A collection of secular Christmas pieces will be published later in 1981.

“Christmas music always seems to have played an important part of my life ever since I was a boy,” says Rutter. He remembers fondly his experiences as a boy chorister at Highgate and in the Anglican church, including singing the treble solo in “Once in Royal David’s City” and playing the title role in Menotti’s Amahl and the Night Visitors. Furthermore, he is musically attracted to a simple style: “I think I have a lot of folk music in my personality, and carols are a kind of folk art,” he says. He has been greatly influenced by Tudor polyphony and the contours of plainchant, and by such American songwriters as Jerome Kern, Richard Rodgers, and Steven Sondheim. He says his arrangements “seek to reinterpret each carol in terms of the twentieth century while remaining faithful to the spirit of ‘sweet jubilation.’ ” All of these influences are evident in the contrapuntal character of his choral writing and the lyrical quality of his melodies.

Rhythm is a highly significant element in Rutter’s style. Many of his compositions have the rhythmic character of dances. For example, “The Coming of Our King” is in the nature of a Slavic folk dance, “Shepherd’s Noel” is a shepherd’s dance, “Noel Nouvelet” is a stately pavane, and “Jesus Child” emphasizes Latin-American rhythms. Sometimes the rhythms bring certain images to mind, as in “I Saw Three Ships” where one is tempted to think of a youth happily skipping along. His best-known composition is “Shepherd’s Pipe Carol,” commissioned for the original 1966 recording. It is a dialogue between a traveler and a shepherd boy on the way to Bethlehem.

Rutter has written the words for approximately a third of his published Christmas titles. They strike to the heart of the Christmas message, combining clear theology, imaginative imagery, and an expression of personal response. Typical is this stanza from “Nativity Carol”:

Love in that stable was born

Into our hearts to flow,

Innocent, dreaming Babe,

Make me Thy love to know.

“I’d far rather work with somebody else’s lyrics, but if there isn’t anybody on hand or words that fit the idea in my head, then I have to couple together a text myself. Sometimes I find words just spring into my mind … but I don’t think of myself in any sense a lyric writer or still less a poet.”

Orchestration is very important to Rutter. He strives to achieve as much as possible with as economical means as possible. Sometimes the orchestration gives the main clue to the entire work. For example, in “Shepherd’s Pipe Carol” it is in the orchestra that you can hear the piping of the shepherd boy. A typical Rutter orchestration will call for three woodwinds, two horns, harp, and strings. He tries for a transparency of orchestral texture, especially when accompanying voices. “You don’t want to swamp the whole texture,” he says.

A significant departure from this style is his Gloria, written on commission for an American choir in 1974. A brief work in three movements for choir, organ, brass, and percussion, it is the core of his Festival Mass, to be premiered in Atlanta in 1982. The primary challenge of the work is rhythmic, and the pitfalls for the rhythmically imprecise conductor and performers are many. It is likewise essential that all performers have a secure sense of intonation.

The Gloria also shows something of Rutter’s organ writing, especially in the slow second movement. He says of his short-lived organ studies at Clare: “J. S. Bach and I struggled together for some while, and Bach lost.”

It would be misleading to suggest that Rutter composes only Christmas music. He has arranged and composed an increasing amount of non-Christmas music as well. Among anthem settings are “Lord, Make Me an Instrument of Thy Peace” and “The Lord Is My Shepherd.” His newest anthem is a festival setting of Psalm 148, “O Praise the Lord of Heaven,” for double choir, brass, percussion, and organ. It was composed for the 1980 commencement at Westminster Choir College, at which he was made an honorary fellow.

Although raised in the Anglican church, Rutter is equally involved with several denominations. “So much depends on a particular minister and the tradition in a particular church and in a certain area,” he says, noting accurately a problem many ministers of music face.

“One of the things I aim for is music with the same audience contact that pop music has, and at the same time something of the stature of classical music. Yet I can never be fully satisfied by pop music—I don’t find it to have enough substance to give any lasting satisfaction.”

His doctoral dissertation would have been on the interaction of symphonic music and light music in the Vienna of Beethoven and Schubert. He does not see his church music in isolation from other genres—a fact that has undoubtedly enriched his sacred writing. One of the best selling classical albums on the market is a classical-popular crossover of Rutter’s “Beatles Concerto,” a two-piano concerto based on a number of tunes associated with the Beatles. The album has given Rutter sudden exposure to the nonchoral public in America, and exemplifies one of his primary concerns: “The gap between composer and audience is distressingly wide in serious music today.”

His final project at Clare College was similar to his first. He recently recorded a new Christmas album, “Christmas from Clare” (ArgoZRG-914), including some of his BBC-TV work, as well as new compositions and arrangements. (You may want to add this record to those listed on page 22.)

John Rutter has been justly acclaimed as “one of England’s most capable contemporary church composers.” By virtue of his composing, conducting, recording, and teaching, he is rapidly becoming a welcome and significant force in American evangelical church music as well.

A church music specialist and conference speaker, Mr. Dinwiddie is director of choirs at First Presbyterian Church, Deerfield, Illinois.

Assessing the State of the Art

Has religious broadcasting simply become another form of institutionalized Christianity?

Religious broadcasting’s recent claim to be an “electronic church” has been substantiated by the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll of evangelicals in America. Here at last is hard evidence that religious broadcasting has a vast and diverse congregation assembling daily before radio and television sets for instruction, renewal, and fellowship. These avid adherents of media faith share common beliefs, practice similar lifestyles, and together exhibit the classic characteristics of religious congregations in America, namely, voluntarism, pluralism, and a preference for an experiential expression of faith.

It should be no surprise then to find that this great church of the air, though it does not encompass all evangelicals nor even a majority, is archtypically evangelical. Compared to the public as a whole, those who watch religious television or listen to religious radio are more likely to have had a conversion experience, believe the Bible is free of mistakes, oppose abortion, believe in a personal Devil, abstain from alcohol, and hold to or engage in a host of other beliefs and practices characteristic of evangelicals.

In one sense, such news is disturbing to those of us who are involved in religious broadcasting. Does this mean we are talking to ourselves? Has religious broadcasting simply become another form of institutionalized Christianity, comfortably settled down in the delusion that we are reaching the world for Christ through the mass media? And if so, can we justify the money spent and the strategies employed in using these marvelous media that give us access to virtually every member of our communities?

These are searching questions, both for religious broadcasters and for those who make it all possible—the Christian public. Unhappily, there are no simple answers. The issues are more complex than they appear; whatever viewpoint you choose to defend, its opposite can be defended just as easily. For the moment, therefore, I will simply present some of the survey data along with observations that I hope will provide a background for my conclusions.

There is, first of all, the fact that more people watch religious television than listen to religious radio. This is a jolting reminder to radio people like myself that television always generates bigger “numbers” (listeners and viewers) than radio. I tend to assume that religious radio dominates the market because there are 1,100 religious radio stations and only a few full-time religious television stations.

Although outnumbered in terms of stations, television makes up the difference through paid time on secular VHF and UHF stations in the top 50 markets. These programs include daily releases, usually in late night or early morning slots, along with Sunday morning paid time and television specials featuring well-known Christian personalities.

Actually, the ratings are reasonably close, with TV edging radio in every category except total hours spent listening weekly. Approximately 20 percent of the radio audience tunes in for three or more hours weekly, while only 14 percent of the television audience watches for three or more hours each week. Television’s highest ratings are in the one-to-two hour per week category.

All of this augurs well for television as a mass medium for the gospel. The growth of cable and futuristic satellite-to-home broadcasting promises even bigger and more accessible audiences in the eighties. No doubt Christian television will continue to be the creative medium, utilizing “talk show” formats, “magazine” style specials, and taping of live performances for rebroadcast. We can also expect to see more drama and the performing arts, as well as “family” entertainment.

This trend toward television entertainment flows from the natural demands of the visual medium. Unlike radio, technical or production obsolescence virtually guarantee program discontinuation. The days of television’s “spiritual talking head” are gone forever.

On the other hand, radio will probably continue to be a “service” medium as it is in the secular marketplace. As such, it will perform a more didactic role, providing a platform for teaching the Bible and promoting Christian values. But change is also in the wind for religious radio. As in television, sleek technology is being blended with an increasingly contemporary program style. Performance and production are prized, often at the expense of content; form is subduing content.

No one can deny that this movement toward modernity in the Christian media has produced beneficial results. But certain troubling questions remain. One must ask, for example, if the emphasis on contemporaneity is leading Christian television and radio into a theological never-never land. Many of the new people in religious broadcasting are mass media professionals and theological amateurs. Unlike the founding fathers who were almost exclusively preachers, today’s electronic media people are often college communications majors or people who have come into religious broadcasting from secular careers. This does not mean they cannot have effective ministries, but it does mean many of the newer programs have low doctrinal thresholds over which a lot of fuzzy dogma passes rather easily.

Indeed, methodology now offers itself as the new orthodoxy. Artistry, creativity, and relevance are the latest buzzwords. Loving, caring, and understanding are more often subject matter than atonement, justification, and sanctification. And while the former are commendable, the latter are indispensable. Without them, the Christian faith in the mass media becomes a band-aid salvation: fast talk and quick cure in the era of feelings, to use psychiatrist R. D. Rosen’s description of the cultural, psychological, and spiritual climate of the seventies.

What we are seeing today, then, is a programming drift away from teaching and preaching toward counseling, interpersonal relationships, holistic living, and physical healing. Not surprising, the CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll shows a correlation between these programming trends and the felt needs of the Christian radio and television audience.

After salvation, those who described themselves as evangelicals listed physical well-being, the need for love and affection, and the desire for meaning in life as life’s most important needs. These three—health, love, and purpose—swept second place decisively, dividing three quarters of the total votes almost evenly. Other seemingly important needs, such as financial security and personal freedom, lagged far behind.

The willingness of religious broadcasters to adjust their programs to listener needs and wants is encouraged by two factors. First, there is immediacy of response. If a broadcaster touches a “hot” subject even accidentally, he will know about it in a week or even days. Mail, the broadcaster’s lifeline, is a built-in polling device that records audience preferences with Gallup-like accuracy. So, unless broadcasters have ironclad formats, their programs begin to focus on those issues and emphases that bring in the mail—and the money. The necessity of paying for air time also prompts broadcasters to follow the money. Thus comes the bogeyman of religious broadcasting: solicitation of funds and the various program devices designed to generate income.

No subject in religious broadcasting is touchier than money. From dubious secular reporters to staunchly fundamentalist pulpiteers, people and pastors probe, dissect, and decry the huge sums of money that pour daily into the electronic church. I know of no person, group, or church outside of religious broadcasting with a complimentary word on the subject.

No one knows exactly how much money is donated annually to religious broadcasting, but the sum total, whatever it is, has to be staggering. Recent estimates on the annual revenues to the major television broadcasters include: Oral Roberts, $60 million; Pat Robertson, $58 million; Jim Bakker, $51 million; Jerry Falwell, $50 million; Billy Graham, $30 million; Rex Humbard, $25 million; and Robert Schuller, $16 million. But this is not all. Millions of dollars are given to numerous smaller radio and television ministries, with some of the larger radio ministries approaching and possibly surpassing television programs in income and expenditures. An educated guess would put the figure somewhere in excess of a billion dollars, a sum used by several major U.S. papers including the New York Times, and corroborated by Dr. Ben Armstrong, executive secretary of National Religious Broadcasters. If one takes into account the advertising revenue and sponsorship income produced by religious stations themselves, the figure approaches $2 billion.

While we cannot tell precisely where contributions to religious broadcasting come from, we do know that members of the electronic church are among those evangelicals who give the most money to “church or other religious organizations.” According to CHRISTIANITY TODAY-Gallup Poll data, 26 percent of those who watch religious television said they contribute 10 percent or more of their income to religious causes. An additional 12 percent reported giving between 5 and 9 percent. The figures are even higher for radio where 28 percent contribute 10 percent or more, and another 15 percent give between 5 and 9 percent. Even if one allows for considerable audience overlapping, it is apparent that religious broadcasting is in touch with a sizeable group of generous contributors.

Naturally, pastors and church leaders bemoan this financial drain—not to mention the threat of alienated affections among members who seem ready, even eager, to join in the ventures of electronic empire builders. Yet these same pastors fail to recognize their own responsibility in the great religious broadcasting dollar debate. When people are allowed to become spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually impoverished, they become vulnerable to powerful electronic media personalities and presentations. Indeed, it is this very susceptibility that invites the gospel merchandising that is a matter of concern to Christian leaders. Ideally, religious broadcasting should supplement the local church. But until the local church fully assumes its teaching and pastoral responsibilities, the electronic church will continue to be a surrogate church providing instruction and fellowship for spiritually hungry people.

Now we come to the nub of the matter. How effective is religious broadcasting? What does all this time and money amount to in view of the scriptural command to “go and make disciples of all nations?”

I am tempted to answer with self-criticism and a scathing judgment of my fellow broadcasters. Surely there are grounds for doing so. For all our impressive accomplishments, we are talking largely to ourselves while most of America (and the world) goes unevangelized in the mass media.

According to the CHRISTIANITY TODAY—Gallup Poll, 85 percent of those who listen to or watch religious broadcasting profess to be converted. Even more disturbing, so far as evangelism is concerned, is the fact—documented by national media ratings surveys—that religious broadcasting is reaching less than 4 percent of the total available radio and television audience. We are spending $2 billion a year to do this?

There is further reason for self-judgment. A professional smugness seems to have settled on religious broadcasting. We are well organized, technologically slick, economically viable, and becoming increasingly influential politically. Yet in spite of all this, or perhaps because of it, religious broadcasting is fumbling about seeking its bearings, trying, it seems, to discover its very reason for being.

Still, I will be careful not to judge the effects of religious broadcasting. These cannot be quantified by surveys. Nor can polls measure the rich blessings and benefits produced when the Word of God is presented, Christian values are reinforced, and a Christian interpretation of public affairs is offered day after day to people who otherwise would hear and see only the secular viewpoint. I know about the joys of religious broadcasting first-hand: people coming to Christ, growing spiritually, finding guidance, comfort, and fellowship when it cannot be found elsewhere. All these and more are the evident results of our work. I therefore leave judgment about the spiritual effectiveness of religious broadcasting to him who judges all mankind righteously.

However, I will criticize the strategy of religious broadcasting—which promises to be easy since there is no strategy. Religious broadcasting has simply happened, growing slowly at first with the paid-time programs of visionary radio pioneers in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, then more quickly in the 1960s with station ownership and the advent of “full-time” Christian formats. Then came the phenomenal burst of the 1970s, which continues to the present, bringing with it multiple media ministries in radio, television, cable, and satellite.

The market seems to be bearing the traffic well, so we can expect more of the same. Yes, friends, we have something for everyone. What are your tastes? Traditional, progressive, Pentecostal, or dispensational? Do you prefer middle-of-the-road music or gospel rock? Is your choice ethnic or black, entertainment, prophecy, missions, counseling, or Bible study? What you want and will support, we have or can provide.

In all of this, program producers, stations, and advertising agencies will vigorously defend the right of everyone to follow his/her calling and fill the airwaves with the gospel according to his/her own viewpoint. After all, the more programs and stations we have, the more the gospel is getting out, right? Wrong.

Just because there are seven or eight religious radio stations in a market does not guarantee religious domination of that market’s broadcast media, nor does it guarantee additional listeners and viewers. It simply guarantees the fragmentation of the available, hard-core Christian market. If the Gallup Poll and various national media ratings companies have taught us anything, it is that there is a limit to the number of people who will watch religious television or listen to religious radio in its present form. The addition of new programs and stations splinters this audience in an ongoing process that stops only after the last dollar of program support is culled out of the market.

This ever-increasing duplication of services, particularly with regard to Christian nurture, is the bane of religious broadcasting. It is inexcusable in light of the Great Commission, and if left unchecked, will eventually make religious broadcasting a carbon copy of the fiercely competitive secular marketplace where the dollar is boss and the profit and loss statement dictates program content.

The question that remains is this: Can religious broadcasting change its course—can it revise its goals and implement a new strategy for reaching the world for Christ through the mass media? Certainly the electronic church could effectively continue its teaching and fellowship functions with fewer programs and stations—as well as less money.

What if broadcasters relinquished all Christian nurture responsibilities to one or two stations in each market, sold their other stations, pooled their economic resources, and took aim at owning or gaining control of network-affiliated VHF television stations in the top 100 U.S. markets? Such media could be utilized for spot announcement preevangelism and referral evangelism to local hotline phones, churches, and Christian radio stations. Operated like other television stations, with the exception perhaps of certain editing policies regarding objectionable material, these stations would offer little or no traditional religious programs. Instead, selected prime-time spots would be opened at regular intervals for creative new Christian programs along with the finest Christian cinema and new efforts from Christian performers and artists.

The Christian public, on whom broadcasters keep a watchful eye, should find this approach quite acceptable. Certainly it would be no worse—and probably it would be better—than if these same stations were securely owned. Money would be no problem once the stations were purchased since they would be operated commercially. Those who are concerned about good stewardship and the reinvestment of donated dollars will be happy to know that commercial television is where the big money is in broadcasting. No money would be lost, and indeed, much would likely be made and further invested as the new strategy developed.

Once owners had divested themselves of their radio properties and invested in television, new radio stations would take their place in response to the demand for time created by the reduced supply of religious stations. Division would produce multiplication! To increase financial viability further, broadcasters, churches, and Christian organizations could set aside funds regularly for this coordinated media evangelism effort. A 10 percent tithe of the present $2 billion religious broadcasting budget would provide an extraordinary start!

But alas, it will never come to pass. We will all—broadcasters and audience—prefer to continue with things as they are, admitting the needs, admiring the possibilities, but bowing to the realities of evangelical independence, individualism, and the entreprenurial spirit. Programs will proliferate, new stations will continue to appear in markets already inundated, and 96 percent of the American television and radio market will go untouched by the modern day marvel of being able to present the good news of Jesus Christ to everyone through the broadcast media.

How Broadcasters See The Problems And Opportunities

Mr. Bisset has asked questions that need desperately to be asked. Yet, there is no easy way to correct the faults—it seems as if they will, get worse before they get better. There are people who are weak in the faith because their leaders are weak in the faith. Consequently, the only thing I feel that should be done about this is for magazines such as CHRISTIANITY TODAY—plus symposiums or seminars—to bring these problems constantly before the broadcasters. This would help make them understand their tremendous responsibility, plus the effect they have, both for good and bad, on their listeners.

JIMMY SWAGGART

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

God has allowed the development of modern technology in the electronic media to provide the church with tools for the propagation of the gospel. In spite of their limitations, television and radio are enabling the Christian community to reach a level of public exposure and contacts never before possible. Religious broadcasting is used of God today to reach thousands who would never hear the gospel any other way, and to be a source of ministry to the sick and elderly.

Mr. Bisset very appropriately points out the problems; I wholeheartedly agree with these concerns. I am convinced that we have not yet touched the “hem of the garment” with respect to the great opportunities we as Christians have to spread the gospel. We must use these opportunities while they are available to us. We could introspectively evaluate the problems and limitations for so long that the door of opportunity would close upon us.

JERRY FALWELL

Lynchburg, Virginia

Religious broadcasting is designed to supplement the local church and not to be a surrogate church. As an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church, I am extremely pleased the UMC is planning to purchase television stations. May we in the church seriously reevaluate our responsibility to use the TV and radio medium as a real supplement to reach those who can be attracted to the church, and to minister to them when they are confined away from the church services.

ORAL ROBERTS

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Our concept is to present our programs in as simple and as direct a style as appropriate. On the 700 Club, for example, we are ourselves in a relaxed and straightforward relationship with our guests. We feel comfortable in this approach. However, to maintain professional standards in our industry and to be effective in the marketplace, a degree of entertainment and showmanship is sometimes necessary. Communication by mass media is not the same as the direct personal contact between pulpit and pew.

Our programming covers a broad spectrum in order to reach a wide variety of human interests. These range from traditional church worship services and music to Bible teaching, news briefs, contemporary Christian music, discussions of current events, economics, international relations, finance, social conditions, good health, biblical prophecy, principles of Christian living, and so on. All have Christian dimensions for the benefit of our audiences.

PAT ROBERTSON

Virginia Beach, Virginia

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

Chalcedon: A Creed to Touch off Christmas

The Christology of Chalcedon distills from Scripture both the mystery and reality of the God-man.

“The important point does not concern who Christ was, but what he did.”

“I disagree. If he wasn’t God, what he did was ineffective.”

“You’re both wrong. Our emphasis should be on Christ’s humanity. We’re in danger of losing him amid the jumble of theological words. Let’s get back to the simple Jesus.”

These and other common views show how important it is to discern the biblical view of Christ. Early students of the Bible debated the alternatives for centuries. Finally at the city of Chalcedon in Asia Minor they hammered out a statement (A.D. 451) that has stood up to the examination of centuries as the best summary of what Scripture says on the relation of Christ’s deity and humanity.

Contemporary discussion necessarily deals with that statement, so it is reasonable to ask: How faithful to Scripture is the conclusion of Chalcedon that Jesus is true God and true man in one person?

Why Chalcedon?

We need first to refresh our minds as to what Chalcedon said and why. Underlying the work of the council was the pastoral concern to establish that God and God alone can be the author of our salvation.

It is not fair to interpret this as a speculative or abstract formula even if it may sound that way to us after so many centuries. The council addressed itself to a single disputed question developed in the earlier debates: How are we to hold together the two crucial dimensions of Jesus’ reality, the divine and the human, in his own single, personal life? Even as today, there was widespread agreement that God and man had come together uniquely in Jesus Christ but no consensus about how this should be understood and articulated.

Drawing on the Scriptures and the patristic traditions, echoing them verbally in almost every clause, the church leaders of Chalcedon sought to provide the language that would transcend current disagreements. They wanted to avoid the view that brought God and man together without actually uniting them, as well as the view that saw the two natures fused together in such a way that left Jesus neither truly God nor truly human. They wanted somehow to safeguard the integrity of the natures, without sacrificing the unity of Christ’s person. They proposed, therefore, a formula in which we would think of a personal union of the two natures not confused in any way. Jesus Christ was understood to be unique; in him had occurred a wonderful union between God and man, so that he was truly God and really man, manifesting all the characteristics essential to each nature.

Chalcedon saw clearly that it was God who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and that our redemption depends on Jesus being both God and man. He is not God, pure and simple, raised up above all human limitation, and at the same time not merely a man, simply a human example or great prophet. In his person we can see God giving himself to us, and we see man in an ideal mode.

Function versus Being

Let us consider the major grounds for questioning the biblical nature of this confession. A basically simple objection is voiced by Oscar Cullman. He maintained that the New Testament presents the person of Jesus in functional and not in ontological categories: it tells us what he does, not what he is. No information pertaining to the nature or being (the sphere of interest of ontology) of Christ beyond history was given there. By contrast, so Cullman argued, functional Christology is the only kind that exists in the New Testament.

Few scholars today would agree with Cullman. One does not have to be a scholar to notice how often and in what varied ways Jesus was accorded divine status. This observation does not appeal to an exegetical opinion about a single text such as Philippians 2:6–11. Other texts actually call Jesus “God” (e.g., John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8–9). He is given the Old Testament name for God, “Lord,” which indicates that Paul sees him sharing the majesty, authority, and worship of the one true God. Even if initially Jesus was understood more in terms of his redemptive activity, it is obvious that almost immediately if not simultaneously, thought was given to his essential nature as well. This process took place even early in the New Testament, and certainly not after New Testament times. Chalcedon says that he who saves us is none less than God in the flesh. The insights of Chalcedon do greater justice to the biblical text than does Cullman’s theory.

And yet it is surprising how most modern interpreters, though they realize this intellectually, still gravitate toward functional explanations of Christ’s person, as though he were basically the revelation of godliness rather than the incarnation of God. The explanation of this does not lie in matters purely exegetical, but in the whole tenor of modern sensibility. What is really the matter with traditional Christologies, as Schubert M. Ogden puts it, is this: “Instead of asking, rightly, about the meaning of Christ for us, for our own self-understanding as human beings, it asks about the person of Christ in himself, in abstraction from our existence.” Unfortunately for Ogden, this is also what is the matter with New Testament thinking. It too shows a keen interest in the identity of Christ, and sees him as incarnate God. And it does so just because it is also deeply concerned about the meaning of Christ for us and our salvation.

Skepticism Toward the Bible

The next objection to Chalcedon’s way of reading the New Testament is at once more radical and more complex. Cullman after all only asked us to read the text in a slightly different way, and did not aspire to reconstruct it according to a daring theory.

But in New Testament criticism now in vogue almost everywhere, the text is certainly not left as it is, but its historical and theological claims are subjected to radical critique and revision. An entirely new picture has been drawn about how Christology developed in a series of definable historical stages, a picture that calls Chalcedon into question in an ambitious manner. First, we are told, there was a view of Jesus that hardly thought of him as Messiah, and certainly did not suggest he was God incarnate. From a simple functional Christology, we are told, an understanding of Jesus emerged that explained his “being”—an “ontological” explanation of him (from the word ontus, participle of the Greek verb “to be”). This stemmed from Gentile church experience in the period after the New Testament had been written.

While admitting that some New Testament verses support Chalcedon’s formula, this new perspective denies that it is the best or only way to judge the matter. In fact, it questions whether it is true to the preaching of Jesus or represents a normative or unifying strand in the New Testament. For much contemporary Christology, the pre-Easter Jesus is the ultimate criterion of all Christology. And this pre-Easter Jesus is created out of post-Easter Gospels critically reconstructed so that Jesus makes few solid claims to deity. What Chalcedon has gotten hold of represents later pious interpretation that lacks historical basis. Although one could, I suppose, choose to endorse Chalcedon even in this framework of critical scholarship, it would hardly be plausible, and in fact few do so.

In these few lines I will probably not persuade those convinced of this approach that it is badly mistaken. It is a veritable nest of assumptions, each requiring close attention. The radical distrust it displays in the genuineness of the Gospel materials is basic to this reconstruction of the Jesus story, and is an enormous topic in itself. I can only express my opinion that this “skepticism of the wise,” as J. A. T. Robinson calls it, is unnecessary and at odds with the basic evidence pertaining to the Jewishness of the material and other marks of its authenticity. Furthermore, this historical pessimism may be attractive precisely because it affords the opportunity to evade the Christology Chalcedon reaches. The idea is profoundly disturbing and unacceptable to some that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the incarnation of the Son of God, and not merely a myth or a “faith experience” of first-century Christians. Therefore a criticism that effectively disposes of this disagreeable result has much to say for it.

One way to show that Chalcedon is basically right is to refer to the resurrection of Jesus, which, everyone admits is the great Christological moment in the New Testament. In that event God vindicated Jesus by delivering him from death and giving him glory, and the explosion of New Testament Christology was touched off.

What was later thought and said about Jesus was only the unfolding of the meaning of that act of God. It would not be necessary to posit a gradual evolution over a period of many decades to explain it, even if we could do so. For what insight into Christ’s person is qualitatively higher than the recognition that he has ascended over all things and possesses all power in heaven and earth? Is the preexistence of Christ, which seems to trouble moderns so deeply, all that much more difficult than his exalted postexistence? Is even calling him “God” all that different from falling at his feet to worship him? Why does the miraculous conception of Jesus occasion such embarrassment when the Resurrection is acknowledged? The Resurrection itself is sufficient to raise the possibility of an eternal dimension in the person of Christ, which is what Chalcedon is pointing to; and the Resurrection is integral to the story and cannot be eliminated.

I think we can go even further. The Resurrection has implications also for our understanding of the earthly career and claim of Jesus before Easter. If his life was so free of divine and messianic elements, why was he killed and how was he vindicated? It makes sense to look to the historical Jesus in the pre-Easter situation for intimations of his remarkable person. Neither are they difficult to locate in the importance Jesus attached to his own ministry as the hinge on which the eschatological shift of the ages turned, and in a host of claims both implicit and explicit by which he explained his mission. It seems most reasonable to think that Jesus issued an emphatic if complex claim about his person during his lifetime, and placed it in God’s hands for any future confirmation and verification.

All I can hope to achieve in this brief comment is to indicate that as a reading of the New Testament, the Christology of Chalcedon is a very plausible interpretation even today when critical tools are razor sharp. At the very least we can trace its confession of Jesus as human and divine to the Resurrection, and without undue credulity back even to the beginning of the story.

New Testament Diversity

A different objection, but related to this last approach, is voiced by James Dunn who is much impressed by the diversity he finds in New Testament theology in general and Christology in particular. How can it be right, he asks, to hold out as normative such an interpretation as Chalcedon’s when there are strata in the New Testament that do not express themselves that way? Admittedly, some passages portray Christ by a model that involves the Incarnation. But what of those that do not? How can it be wrong to stay with insights other than the one picked out by Chalcedon, even if they seem “lower” by comparison?

Dunn makes a good point that can be appreciated only by those anxious to uphold each nuance of the biblical witness and to defend the rights of conscience in its interpretation. If a person can affirm the Christology of Luke but is unable to feel comfortable in the Christology of John, surely we can be thankful for this much faith and applaud it.

At the same time, theological reason calls on us to understand how the data fit together, and asks whether some key might not fit so complex a lock. Chalcedon claims to set forth just such a model or paradigm of Christology so as to disclose the mystery of the person of Christ profoundly and comprehensively. It tells us that this is the best angle for viewing the material as a whole, without slighting any of its parts.

No doubt Chalcedon assumed a conceptual unity in the New Testament that many would not grant from the outset. We would prefer to see what kind of unity there is after doing the investigation. On the other hand, we should not resist scriptural unity, if that should appear at the end of our deliberations. Dunn himself sees a strong measure of unity in New Testament Christology: Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead, brought God and man together, and was now the divine power of God, a life-giving Spirit. Such a view would seem very close to the position Chalcedon espouses.

Myth and the New Testament

Earlier on I voiced my suspicion that the reason some wish to overturn the notion that Chalcedon is biblical lies at a deeper level than strict exegesis. The most fundamental objection, one that goes a long way to explain why other objections are attractive, is due, of course, to demythologizing. That the New Testament contains a Christology of the Chalcedonian type (which even Maurice Wiles admits), does not mean that today we can accept such a foolish and incredible view.

Can we doubt that the deepest objection to Chalcedon and to the New Testament has little to do with exegesis, and much to do with modern intellectual history! Not having modernity to contend with, Chalcedon was able to read the New Testament quite straightforwardly, taking due note of its information concerning Christ’s person, and constructing the formula before us. But students at Chalcedon were locked into a mythical mode of thinking that is not possible for those today who are unwilling, as Ogden puts it, to sacrifice their modernity to their Christianity. Emancipated from such a framework ourselves, it is simply impossible to accept these concepts. The way Chalcedon and John the Evangelist were able to think of God as Ruler over the world and of Christ as the descending Redeemer of a ruined race is just not on modern man’s agenda. They know these things to be mythical and intend to treat them as such.

We can now also appreciate why functional categories in Christology are so attractive. Modern theologians can allow that in Jesus God has revealed something of his character and will. They can speak of God’s activity in Jesus and of his true humanity without having to get involved in mythical thinking. They simply read Christological statements as if they were value judgments about the way we experience the presence of God through Jesus, and not as though they were metaphysically true. This approach, developed in Ritschl and continued in Bultmann, is still influential today (and all the more where it is not recognized).

I do not wish to make light of the contextual factors making the doctrine of the Incarnation difficult for thinkers today to believe, but rather to say what those factors are. Our topic is Chalcedon and the New Testament, not hermeneutics or the philosophy of belief today. From this perspective I think it is necessary to conclude that Chalcedon is more faithful to the New Testament than most of those who complain about its interpretation. As we know from modern hermeneutics, the reader’s situation can radically affect what he or she hears in the text. This is surely true of modern critics of Chalcedon, for whom intellectually a nontraditional Christology is required. The New Testament and the creed both take the Incarnation to be fact, not myth, and therefore not a candidate for demythologizing. Critics programmed to reject the Incarnation as fact have no recourse but to strike out in novel directions.

An excerpt from the “Definition of Faith” set forth at Chalcedon, A.D. 451:

We … confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in Manhood; truly God, and truly Man, in all things like unto us without sin; … and in these latter days for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin Mother of God according to the Manhood … existing in two natures without mixture, without change, without division, without separation; the diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union, but the peculiar properties of each nature being preserved … not parted or divided into two persons, but one Lord Jesus Christ.

The Crucial Issue

A great deal is at stake theologically and existentially in this question. Although we may find debates surrounding Chalcedon dull and wearisome, the issues are far-reaching. Has salvation been wrought for us by God or not? That was the issue then as now. Christology is wrapped up with our doctrine of salvation: Did he who was rich become poor for our sakes? Did God give up his only Son for us all? Is there life in the risen, exalted Lord?

If there is no Incarnation, there is no Trinity, and no salvation. In essence, that has been the theological consensus for nineteen centuries. Although we like to call “progressive” those theories about Jesus that adopt a functional interpretation, surely they are regressive. They correspond roughly to what the Jews of Jesus’ day expected—a Messiah who somehow would bring salvation near, but not one who was equal to God in his person. At this point the New Testament leaps into incarnational thinking and revolutionizes the received doctrine of God.

Chalcedon saw this plainly, and followed in this direction. I do not see how we can be biblical in our thinking and not go along. After all, Chaldecon was a serious effort to express the New Testament. It is true that we must decide how we want to express the meaning of Jesus for our day, and that we need not feel bound to the exact language of Chalcedon (as it was not bound to exact scriptural phrases). But we cannot avoid facing the same texts they faced or confronting the same truth they contronted. How we say it is our affair, but what we say is not.

The formula of Chalcedon is a precisely worded statement that identifies the deepest and most essential truth about Jesus Christ for the church. But we must not forget that it is an interpretation of, and not a replacement for, the New Testament. We must therefore always keep it integrated with the complete Jesus story. It neither says, nor claims to say, everything that should be said about Christ.

Furthermore, what it says it couches in terms we must keep linked with the salvation history from which it drew the truth in the first place. If the Chalcedonian formula were detached from the New Testament account, it would be vulnerable to manipulation by those who wish to connect it to a framework of their own.

Relation of Christ’s Deity and Authority

Jesus’ witness and example represent more than a merely human ideal because of the divine lordship of Jesus, which undergirds the validity of his claim. It is astonishing the way modern theologians who have abandoned the doctrine of the Incarnation continue to speak about Jesus’ moral importance as though it still possesses the authority it had before. Langdon Gilkey noticed it in the sixties in respect to the “death of God” school, and Dennis Nineham has pointed it out in the “Myth of God Incarnate” circle. Theologians of such schools like to go on respecting Jesus’ authority even after the logical reason for doing so has been removed, as if his status as a moral teacher were somehow unaffected by the denial of his metaphysical uniqueness. So they go on insisting how perfectly Jesus reveals God to us until it dawns upon them, as it has upon Nineham, that Jesus is no more than one of many remarkable people. Far from a freak development, this is the logical outcome of purely functional thinking about Jesus. It will not do to treat Jesus as Lord of the universe unless he actually is.

Of course, the ethical insights of ordinary humans are significant and very often valid. I am pointing out only that the New Testament and Chalcedon place the person of Jesus and his ethical authority on a much higher plane. Because he is the incarnate Son, his teaching about love for the enemy is permanently valid, the standard for all human existence. So when he gave up his life for us, we are not merely seeing the heroic willingness of a Jewish martyr to put other people first, but God in action dealing with his enemies. Only in this way can we understand the depth of the love of God and the ultimate position of the ethical norm portrayed.

We cannot dispense with Chalcedon. Granted, it belongs to no sacred tradition beyond legitimate criticism. But it grasps the central thrust of the New Testament in a magnificent way, and brings us face to face with the Lord.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

The Ten Best Christmas Records

Musical jewels that sparkle with excitement and emotion.

Christmas is the most festive season of the year musically, and Christmas recordings are a significant way to enjoy this music at home. Each year for many years we have reviewed the new Christmas albums, both for our own enjoyment and as a small part of the preparation for our church music and broadcast ministries. We are frequently asked to recommend albums we especially enjoy. Thus, from the extensive material available, we have chosen what we consider to be the 10 finest Christmas records that are currently on the market. All of these should be available in major record stores.

Choosing the exceptional 10 was at once an immensely enjoyable project and a frustrating one: many superb albums simply could not be included. The ones listed have been perennial favorites in our home. Because of their uniformly high level of musical excellence in originality and performance, they convey to an exceptional degree the excitement and emotion of the Christmas story. In fact, we have performed almost all of the choral and classical selections on these albums in our various Christmas concerts.

Collections of arrangements and relatively short original and classical compositions are emphasized; no major works are included, although many Christmas master-works are on record. All classical selections, with one or two exceptions, are performed with strict integrity to the style of the composer. The result is la crème de la crème in Christmas recordings.

1. The Many Moods of Christmas, The Robert Shaw Chorale and orchestra; RCA LSC-2684. First released in 1963, this is still the ultimate Christmas album. Robert Shaw and Robert Russell Bennett—the latter one of America’s premier orchestrators and arrangers for several decades—have brilliantly woven together 18 Christmas hymns and carols, mostly familiar, into four suites. These cover the total range of Christmas moods, from the energetic and playful Scottish “Highland fling” setting of “I Saw Three Ships” to the whimsical “Pat-a-Pan” and the regal processional of “O Come, All Ye Faithful.”

2. The Greatest Hits of Christmas, The Philadelphia Orchestra and Chorus: RCA LSC-3326. Eugene Ormandy, William Smith, and Robert Page conduct 14 spectacular arrangements of Christmas favorites scored by Arthur Harris. Using the same type of full orchestra as Bennett, Harris achieves many outstanding musical effects in this 1972 release. The rollicking “Go, Tell It on the Mountain” and the romantic “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” alone are worth the album.

3. The Greatest Hits of Christmas, Volume 2, The Philadelphia Orchestra and Chorus; RCA ARL1-0257. It is rare for a sequel to be fully the equal of its predecessor, yet such is unquestionably the case in this 1973 recording. Arthur Harris has fashioned 14 more stunning arrangements of familiar Christmas music, starting with a curtain-raising version of “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing.” In “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen,” a galloping figure in the orchestra represents a rider spreading throughout the countryside the joyous news of Christ’s birth.

4. Christmas in Cambridge, The Clare College Singers and Orchestra, Cambridge; Capitol, SP-10567. English conductor John Rutter arranged all 12 numbers and composed two of them, one his internationally famous “Shepherd’s Pipe Carol.” (For a discussion of John Rutter and his music, see Refiner’s Fire, p. 36). The settings are constantly imaginative as Mr. Rutter brings a fresh, new approach to familiar Christmas music.

5. Carols for Choirs, The Bach Choir and Philip Jones Brass Ensemble; Peters International PLE-091. Sir David Willcocks conducts 14 selections from the 1976 Family Carols concert in Royal Albert Hall, London. Especially notable among this collection of arrangements and original compositions are two by John Rutter: the “Donkey Carol,” with its intriguing and affectionate representation in 5/8 of a donkey carrying Mary to Bethlehem, and the Latin American exuberance of “Jesus Child.” Alan Hoddinott’s “Puer Natus” is also outstanding—but then, so are they all.

6. Music of Christmas, Percy Faith Orchestra; Columbia LE-10082. This first orchestral Christmas album made its initial appearance in the mid-1950s, but it is as bright and fresh as ever. It has been re-released by popular demand. Among the 14 selections is a rarely heard tune for “The Holly and the Ivy.” Music of Christmas, Volume 2, is also available (Col. CS-8033), and includes 14 more arrangements in the same style, including the hymn, “Christians, Awake!”

7. Love Came Down at Christmas, Frank Boggs, soloist; Word WST-8080. Mr. Boggs, a bass-baritone, has recorded 20 albums for Word (he was their first artist); this one is his personal favorite. Of special interest among the 12 selections is his own setting of Christina Rosetti’s poem, “Love Came Down at Christmas.” Whether singing “Once in Royal David’s City” or “The Birthday of a King,” Mr. Boggs always communicates the intrinsic meaning of the song, and every word is understandable. The fine choral and orchestral accompaniments are by conductor Paul Mickelson.

8. Great Choral Music of Christmas, Roger Wagner Chorale and Orchestra; Capitol STBB-488. This two-record set features 20 numbers drawn from albums released in the 1960s, all of which are out of print. The arrangements exemplify the rich choral sound that was characteristic of the writing of Wagner and Salli Terri, such as “He Is Born” (Il est né), and “Jesus, Jesus, Rest Your Head.”

9. A Song for Christmas, Liverpool Philharmonic Choir, tenor Robert Tear, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, Edmund Walters, conductor; EMI HMV Greensleeve ESD-7024. This “Carol Concert at the Liverpool Phil.” is another choice English recording. Conductor Walters has arranged 17 international selections—11 of them rarely heard—for choir, children’s chorus, tenor, harp, and orchestra. Especially enjoyable are “Babe of Bethlehem” and “Ding-Dong-Doh.” “Born in Bethlehem” features antiphonal effects between the two choirs.

10. Nativity, Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, Robert Shaw, conductor; Turnabout QTV-S 34647/8. This two-record set is based on Mr. Shaw’s celebrated “Christmas Festival” concept, which he pioneered while working with Toscanini and has refined annually, first in Cleveland and now in Atlanta. It is an eclectic combination of classical selections and arrangements of familiar Christmas music. Although emulated by many in recent years, in this album Shaw demonstrates that he is still the master of the genre, and that good choral sound resides primarily in the mind of the conductor as the Atlanta Symphony Chorus again brings to life the classic Robert Shaw sound. This album brings the concert into your home, including four of Alice Parker’s “Seven Carols for Christmas” and compositions by Berlioz, Bizet, Brahms, Handel, Menotti, Praetorious, Respighi, and Vivaldi. Especially worshipful is Bach’s “Jesus, Shepherd My Beginning.”

Ten Treasures ‘Out Of Print’

Many superior albums go out of print quickly, but they can occasionally be found and are worth any effort to locate. Among these we would recommend the following:

1. A Christmas Treasure, Julie Andrews, arranged and conducted by André Previn; RCA LSP-8329. A must!

2. A Musical Christmas Tree, Morton Gould orchestra; RCA LSC-3110.

3. Christmas Carols, Temple Church Choir (London); Angel S-35845.

4. Season’s Greetings, string orchestra, Felix Slatkin, conductor; Liberty LSS-14013.

5. A Christmas Festival from “The Feast of Lights,” University of Redlands Choir, J. William Jones, conductor; Epic BC-1271.

6. The Christmas Album, Virgil Fox, organ; Command CC-11032-SD.

7. The Glorious Sound of Christmas, the Philadelphia Orchestra and Temple University Concert Choir, Eugene Ormandy, conductor; Columbia MS-6369.

8. What Child Is This? E. Power Biggs, organ, Gregg Smith Singers, Texas Boys Choir, brass and percussion ensemble, Gregg Smith, conductor; Columbia MS-7164.

9. Hark! the Herald Angels, Virgil Fox, organ; Capitol SP-8531.

10. The Music of Christmas, Hollywood Bowl Symphony, Carmen Dragon, conductor; Capitol, SP-8393.

I Saw An Angel Standing In the Sun1Rev. 19:17

My world transfigured was, and I apart

Felt singularly stilled, saw from my heart

The blue half-dome of light particulate

Arrested, I entranced, and at the gate

Awaiting. structure, forces, stresses all

Revealed now visible as powers tall

And bearing, unconstrained in solemn peace

The linking chains, yet careless of release.

Thus caryatid strong, they claimed their strength

From Love, who beyond height or breadth or length

Surmounted all. We waited to begin.

I, conscious of their joy, their eyes, came in.

The consciousness remains amid the whirl,

The moving shift and strain of our dense world,

As bright disorder must perplex and blind

The eyes of all, save for the conscious mind

Awake, enlivened, knowable and known

In all the life of Christ. I must be grown;

Thus no retreat, no sheltered haven here,

From action, choice, response, or pain unclear.

This dark estate more lovely grows, not less,

For I am where the Mover stands at rest.

—RICHARD JAMES SHERRY

The Bells, The Stars

We have been having

epiphanies, like suns,

all this year long.

And now, at its close

when the planets

are shining through frost,

like runs

like music in the bones,

and the heart keeps rising

at the sound of any song.

An old magic flows

in the silver calling

of a bell,

rounding

high and clear,

sounding

the death knell

of our old year,

telling the new appearing

of Christ, our Morning Star.

Now burst,

all our bell throats!

Toll,

every clapper tongue!

Stun the still night!

Jesus himself gleams through

our high heart notes

(it is no fable).

It is he whose light

glistens in each song sung

and in the true

coming together again

to the stable,

of all of us: shepherds,

sages, his women and men,

common and faithful,

wealthy and wise,

with carillon hearts

and sudden stars in our eyes.

—LUCI SHAW

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

‘Christ Is Born’: A Christmas Homily from the Fourth Century

Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329–389) preached a sermon in the Church of the Resurrection in Constantinople 16 centuries ago on December 25, A.D. 380. This was typical of the sermons the Spirit of God employed to conquer the ancient world for Christ. Today our congregations would rebel: it is too difficult to follow—too intellectual. But that is a harsher condemnation for us and our day than it is of Gregory’s sermon. It was also biblical and it challenged the minds of men and women of the ancient world. Here was no pablum for baby Christians. Here was strong meat for spiritually hungry people who were willing to work intellectually for the solid nourishment of their souls.—Eds.

Christ is born, glorify ye Him. Christ from heaven, go ye out to meet Him. Christ on earth; be ye exalted. Christ in the flesh, rejoice with trembling and with joy; with trembling because of your sins, with joy because of your hope. Christ of a Virgin, without Mother, becomes without Father (without Mother of His former state, without Father of His second). He Who is not carnal is Incarnate; the Son of God becomes the Son of Man.

The Festival is the Theophany or Birthday, for it is called both, two titles being given to the one thing. For God was manifested to many by birth. On the one hand Being, and eternally Being, of the Eternal Being, above cause and word, for there was no word before The Word; and on the other hand for our sakes also Becoming, that He Who gives us our being might also give us our Well-being, or rather might restore us by His Incarnation, when we had by wickedness fallen from well-being. The name Theophany is given to it in reference to the Manifestation, and that of Birthday in respect of His Birth.

Therefore let us keep the Feast, not after the manner of a heathen festival, but after a godly sort; not after the way of the world, but in a fashion above the world; not as our own, but as belonging to Him Who is ours, or rather as our Master’s; not as of weakness, but as of healing; not as of creation, but of recreation.

Now then I pray you accept His Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the womb, yet like David, because of the resting of the Ark. Revere the enrolment on account of which thou wast written in heaven, and adore the Birth by which thou wast loosed from the chains of thy birth, and honour little Bethlehem, which hath led thee back to Paradise; and worship the manger through which thou, being without sense, wast fed by the Word. Know as Isaiah bids thee, thine Owner, like the ox, and like the ass thy Master’s crib; if thou be one of those who are pure and lawful food, and who chew the cud of the Word and are fit for sacrifice. Or if thou art one of those who are as yet unclean and uneatable and unfit for sacrifice, and of the Gentile portion, run with the Star, and bear thy gifts with the Magi, gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to a King, and to God, and to One Who is dead for thee. With shepherds glorify Him; with angels join in chorus; with archangels sing hymns. Let this Festival be common to the powers in heaven and to the powers upon earth. For I am persuaded that the Heavenly Hosts join in our exultation and keep high Festival with us today … because they love men, and they love God.…

Look at and be looked at by the Great God, Who in Trinity is worshiped and glorified, and Whom we declare to be now set forth as clearly before you as the chains of our flesh allow, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

The Parts Angels Play

Angels came to those who had kept their hearts focused on the sacred and were familiar with holiness.

One of the most haunting elements in the drama surrounding the Nativity of our Lord is the part played by angels. We are accustomed, of course, to the pictures and images of angels in Annunciation and Nativity scenes. Hence, it is difficult for us to keep alive much sense of awe, much less of dread, with respect to the sudden appearances of these glorious fellow creatures. But here they are, suddenly on our stage, arriving from a realm that is separated from ours not by mere light years, but by whole modes of being. The fabric of our world has been pierced from the outside.

The term “fellow creatures” strikes a presumptuous note, however. Who are we, poor sublunary mortals and sinners, to claim fellowship of any sort with these bright immensities? If we share the humility and clarity of vision of the patriarchs and the prophets, we will do what they did: fall on our faces when these ministers of the Most High come near us.

And yet the angels themselves, if we may speak thus, would insist that, glorious and terrible as they are, they are, precisely, fellow creatures with us. They are never to be mistaken for the Divine Majesty itself. They may be infinitely higher up the scale of being than we are; but between that whole scale of creatures and the Most High himself, there is a distance and a difference so utter that the distance between seraphim and flatworms dwindles to insignificance.

And, paradoxically, we creatures of mortal flesh here on earth—we humans—enjoy a dignity that no archangel nor cherub, nay nor the seraphim themselves, enjoy. It is that this flesh of ours has been raised to incomparable glory by having been taken on by God himself in the mystery of the Incarnation in which, to borrow the language of the Athanasian Creed, we find not so much a bringing of the Godhead down to man as a taking of the manhood into God. For this reason, by the way, we find in the hymn, “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones,” a human being addressed as “higher than the cherubim, more glorious than the seraphim.” The words refer, of course, to Mary. While an angel was given the task of announcing to our flesh that it was to be glorified in the Incarnation, the task of bearing the Incarnate God was given to this flesh of ours.

But of course in the city of God it never comes to a matter of jockeying for position, or of comparing credentials, or of sniffing at questions of dignity and precedence. No angel will ever quarrel with any of us about comparative dignity, and, until we know something we don’t know now, our posture in front of them had better be prone.

I sometimes find myself peering into the dimness of what we mortals are permitted to know about angels. Of course, the first and perhaps most important thing to be observed is that our knowledge of angels amounts to almost nothing. We just do not know much about them. Insofar as they appear at all on the stage in the Bible, they are like the wind itself: we don’t know from whence they have come and whither they have gone. Suddenness and peremptoriness seem to mark their appearances. We are not at all prepared for their entry: the drama is going along, quietly or turbulently—that does not seem to have the slightest effect on the angels’ appearances. Then, all of a sudden, bang in the middle of the stage, dominating the scene utterly, there is an angel, with no apology or by-your-leave, or any of the complicated protocol that might mark the entrance of a herald from even the greatest Oriental potentate.

The chief characters in the Bible find themselves hailed by these mighty spirits: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, David, Elijah, Zechariah, Joseph, Mary, and Peter. And in virtually every case the human reaction is at the very least one of awe, and probably of terror. The Bible stories do not always describe the arrival of an angel as attended by dazzling light or braying trumpets, nor the angel as particularly gigantic in size or specially frightening in appearance. Any of these qualities would arouse awe and terror in us mortals. But sometimes the story simply says an angel appeared to so-and-so. We have no reason to believe that the apparition had anything visibly terrifying about it. But we find that Zechariah or Mary or whoever it may be in the story in question is nonetheless filled with fear. What may we conclude from this?

Of course, any of us may experience a start if we look up from our dishpan or our desk and find someone standing next to us without our having been aware that anyone had come into the room. But in these cases the shock is small and momentary and then we say, “Ah, it’s you”; or, if it is a stranger we may say something like, “Um—can I help you?” wondering all the while how he got there and hoping that it is the meter man.

But to these angelic visitations, awe, fear, and terror even, seem to be the appropriate and inevitable responses. And surely this is important. What we see in the reaction of these people in the Bible who found themselves confronted by angels will give us clues to some important aspects of the whole Christian vision.

For one thing, we see in Gideon and the prophets and Mary and the others a capacity to be awe-struck. Now that may seem a gratuitous observation. But to see the force of this, we might try, by any method, to arouse old-fashioned awe, or admiration, in someone who is at home in our century. What has happened to a generation brought up under the ear-splitting din and brutalizing cacaphony of acid rock music played, always, at megadecible levels? And what is the effect on us all of the stultifying avalanches of sheer information and diversion and entertainment—ever louder, faster, more colorful, and bizarre—that pour into our laps from television? What is the effect in our imaginations of breathless travel, and of the ever more titillating pageantry furnished by cinema and glossy magazines? For people who live and move and have their being in the midst of all this, what chance has sheer otherness, sheer holiness, to flag them down? The capacity to be awe-struck is rare. There is plenty of boredom and suspicion and surfeit and cynicism about, but very little understanding of “awe,” or “admiration”—the ability to respond appropriately to sheer splendor, or to the truly admirable.

To test this in a small way, one might try waylaying a sampling of passers-by and asking them what their feelings were as they watched, say, the funeral of Lord Mountbatten on television a year ago. (This event would supply us with a good case in point of what we were after because it was a spectacle that included as much imagery as any twentieth-century person is likely to see that is like the language of the Bible, namely pomp and processions and trumpets and gold and so forth, all in the service of something entirely awesome and solemn.) Anyone familiar with Hebrew worship, or with the pictures in Isaiah or the Apocalypse, will have no trouble with this sort of thing. But what of your ordinary passer-by in the Chicago Loop? If you could find anyone who had been interested in the spectacle at all, you might find that his reaction was, “Well, it was okay, but it’s all a bit outdated, don’t you think?”

The point here, lest it seem that we are getting too far afield from the angels, is that the little we do know about angels attaches to their very fleeting appearances on stage in our story, and that whether they come as shining lights or disguised as ordinary mortals, they seem to have about them the unmistakable quality of the ineffable. They come, in other words, from heaven. They come, as it were, out to us, from the Holy Place, from the precincts of the Mysterium Tremendum. What, we may ask ourselves, is our own capacity to respond to this sort of thing? What sort of vision and sensibility and sensitivity and awareness are we cultivating day by day? What will impress us and regale us and fill us with awe? Will it be Mick Jagger or Saint Michael? Hustler or the angel Gabriel? What are our tastes? There was something in Gideon and Zechariah and Peter that was already attuned to holiness, it seems, so that when it came upon them, they were able to respond with exactly the correct response, namely, awe. Fear. It is for heaven to say to them and to us, “Fear not.” Until then we do well to tremble. That is the healthy starting point for us mortals. The cavalier and the sassy and the flip and the impertinent have no place at the door of the dwelling of the Most High from which these angelic visitants have come.

There is another point that seems significant. These people in the Bible who found themselves addressed by angels, and who responded with the right response: how did they learn that protocol? Had Isaiah had a course in angelology? Had Peter been rummaging through occult lore and spiritism? Was Zechariah a priest at the shrine of Saint Michael? No. In every case, the response of these people seems to have been a by-product of a prior humility and goodness. These people loved and served the Lord himself. Hence they recognized holiness when it appeared in angelic form, and their reaction was appropriate. They were accustomed to bowing before the ineffable. By contrast, we might think of characters like Belshazzar and Herod: in order to flag them down and divert their attention from their orgies and obscenities, you had either to spell out their doom in letters that would admit of no mistake, or to eat out their insides with worms.

It is an old notion in the church (the Bible says nothing about it though Paul may suggest it in 2 Thess. 1:9) that the fire of hell may be the fire of the holiness of God experienced as agony by those who have never cultivated a taste (called sanctity) for that sort of thing. What was the difference between the Pharisees on the one hand and Simeon and Anna on the other? The one group, ironically, had no capacity at all to recognize the thing when it finally came: they hated it. The others, the old man and woman in the temple, recognized and loved it immediately because they had kept their hearts with all diligence and were familiar with holiness, if we may put it that way. They knew how to respond to the approach of God because they had known him all along, not because they were particularly adept in occult lore.

This must be important. It is not for nothing that we are told so little in the Bible about angels. They are, if we may speak abruptly, none of our business most of the time. Our business is to learn to love God and our neighbor, Charity, Sanctity. There is our whole work, cut out for us. There are ten thousand utterly fascinating diversions possible—all sorts of things to siphon our energy and attention away from the task at hand—everything from brutish pursuits like sheer lechery to arcane refinements like angelology.

I myself am one who would like to make his pilgrimage to Saint Michael’s Mount. The figure of that glorious archangel, doing battle with the Prince of Darkness: I love it. I love the vision of that mighty warrior, lordly and dread, fighting for us. There are very few pictures in all of myth and poetry equal to that of the archangel Michael riding out armed with the might of the Lord of Hosts, to crush Satan and his hordes. We may, it seems to me, let our imaginations reach as high as they can for imagery to bring to this event: all the flashing swords and snorting warhorses and glittering armor and fluttering pennons and sounding of alarums and excursions that ever regaled our childhood imaginations in tales of faerie and chivalry—those are all most appropriate.

And yet. And yet. Glorious as this is, we must take our cues from the way the story itself tells it. The Bible is the Book with the story in it. You have to follow how the author tells his story. You have to stick with his own emphases. You cannot go tooting off to write your own story and then call it his. And it is surely worth noticing that in Bible stories, almost no space is given to the angels. Their entries are sudden and brief, and then they exit. Michael himself is mentioned in only three books of the Bible, and in every case the reference is very brief and mysterious, as though we were given a glimpse through a cranny out onto huge vistas where heavenly dramas were in progress. Daniel mentions Michael as somehow assisting perhaps another angel (you cannot quite tell from the account) in getting past some evil power en route to Daniel with a message; in another place Daniel refers to Michael as a great prince somehow charged with the defense of the people of God. Then Jude gives us a most awesome and tantalizing glimpse of the archangel fighting with Satan, if you please, over the body of Moses. What sort of a scene is that? How we would love to know; think of the thrill of that story! But no: we are not to hear it yet. It is not part of our story yet. And then just once Saint John the Divine, in the Apocalypse, pulls back the curtain and lets us have a glimpse of Saint Michael leading his angels against the dragon and prevailing. What oratorios could be written about that. What epics. But again, no.

It seems sufficient that we be aware that our story here is part of a gigantic drama in which all heaven, earth, and hell strive. A Christian is aware of living under titantic mysteries that arch and loom above his head. That much, at least, he is given to know. And in that drama the angelic hosts participate. The Bible never spells out much about them. There is a fascinating literature of angelology. Tradition lets us imagine nine orders in the heavenly hierarchy, starting at the bottom with angels, whose ministry seems to be very much towards us, right on up the scale, through archangels, virtues, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, to the cherubim who attend the worship of God, and the altogether mysterious seraphim. Even though most are mentioned in the Bible, the arranging of the so-called ninefold orders of angels is a neoplatonic business. We have no biblical warrant to make a cult of angels.

But it is salutary for us to mark and remember these glorious fellow creatures and their part in the divine drama. It does have an effect on us to know about them. It is humiliating for us to think of their splendor, and encouraging and consoling to us to think that some of them at least are appointed by God as ministers in our behalf, and it is thrilling to look into the Last Things and see Saint Michael there fighting for us. But all crowns and diadems and wreaths of glory will be cast down at the Last Day before the sapphire throne on which the Ancient of Days himself sits and before whom the very seraphim cover their faces.

Carl F. H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, is lecturer at large for World Vision International. An author of many books, he lives in Arlington, Virginia.

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